Obama is giving McChrystal 1/3 less troops then requested and 10,000 troops are committed from NATO

[Aramchek]

Looks like Obama is making this into a more International Operation than Bush ever could.

Thanks to that, he doesn't have to send 15,000 extra American troops. He doesn't have to overextend troop deployments or the Army itself.

He has realizable goals to reach before he begins a planned drawdown.
He has an Exit Strategy, which Bush never wanted let alone thought about.

Obama is setting the stage for success.
Just you wait and see.

[Clio the Leo]

1. thanks for posting. NT

[ShortnFiery]

2. Don't worry, McCrystal will come back to "the well" and he will be satisfied.

:grr:

[Aramchek]

9. you have no evidence to prove this, right?

[Cha]

Evidence!..That poster doesn't need no stinking evidence!

Only the worst demagogic rhetoric will do.

[bigjohn16]

3. What's success in your opinion? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. In my opinion?

Success would include at least one or both of the following:

1) Destabilize Taliban operations (political and illicit drug) within the state while promoting an internal Afghanistan structure that will continue to fight the Taliban's re-emergence in the future.

2) Improve long-term security for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by strengthening domestic defense forces along the border.

If we accomplish either of those objectives, the world will be a much safer place.

Bonus:
3) Capture/kill Bin Laden.

[bigjohn16]

10. Thanks. Am I assuming correctly that you're for the troop increase? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Not necessarily.

Honestly, I'm not sure that the troop increase will help matters much (and I don't mean that as posturing - I'm really not sure). But at the same time, I don't think pulling up anchor will make things better like they will in Iraq, where our very presence makes matters worse. I wouldn't say I'm ambivalent, but I'm not about to bash people that land on either side of the fence either.

[Aramchek]

14. here's a few more

4) Allow the Afghan People to take control of their own country through Democratic Processes

5) Bring other Nations to the table to invest in the future of Afghanistan, this will help stabilize and preserve the Nation.

6) Help to build the military and police forces as well as civilian infrastructure(schools, hospitals, etc.)

7) Leave Afghanistan able to protect and provide for its people on its own.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. I think a lot of those would be incorporated into my admittedly broad goals.

In other words, I agree completely. :-)

[Aramchek]

28. yes, I was just going granular

;)

There are literally hundreds of things Obama and the Troops will accomplish.

[bigjohn16]

45. Thanks. I posted an OP asking the same question, to see what everyone thinks.

[WI_DEM]

4. He pretty much is doing what he said he would do during the campaign

I want out of Afghanistan too, and I think he will provide an exit strategy tonight.

[Aramchek]

16. yep.

[tekisui]

5. Nice try on the spin there.

McChrystal wanted 80,000. We only have 40,000 to give. Obama asked NATO to give what they could, and it looks like he'll get around 6,000. We are supplying the other 34,000. It is an inernational operation in name only. It is more a coalition of US and private contractors.

[vaberella]

19. Has your information or the OPs been confirmed by POTUS?! Me think not. n/t

[Aramchek]

22. I'm still waiting on Obama to speak, but these numbers are being reported

and they make sense.

[vaberella]

29. I hear you Armachek---hence my post was directed mainly to the one above me.

I know you're totally waiting for the President, because unlike the poster before me...you haven't been flooding this board with your pervasive disdain for the POTUS' actions before he even talks.

[avaistheone1]

80. Reported by who?

Why do they make sense?

[Aramchek]

20. your numbers are wrong, and this is a phased deployment, as well

what are you going to say when this works?

[tekisui]

23. What numbers are wrong?

How will we know if it 'works'?

It is a surge, not a phased development. It is going to be 30k in 6 months. That is a surge.

[Aramchek]

44. link for the definition of surge?

or is that from your own personal dictionary?

and we'll know that it has worked when the goals that Obama lays out are met.

[tekisui]

50. It is an accelerated deployment, and it may not even be possible.

How is that not a surge? The military planned on doing it in 12-18 months. Obama told them to do it in 6. The White House is calling it a surge, too, btw.

[Aramchek]

57. Obama only wants them there faster so they can do the work and begin leaving sooner

[impik]

6. He also set a date to begin withdraw

July 2011.

[AVID]

8. You deserve a DU star for your calm sensibilities, logic, and intellect.

an DU gets ten bucks...

[vaberella]

18. +1. n/t

[Aramchek]

25. why, thank you.

sometimes it's hard to be calm with all the frustrations and anger being vented around here.

occasionally, I bump heads with a few,
but I always feel better when I follow my better angels.

A wise man spoke of that... ;)

[rg302200]

11. I am glad to see that all logical thought is not lost

at least here on DU anyways...

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Well, isn't that special?

[vaberella]

15. Aren't you paying attention to the idiots on DU. They want to leave Afghanistan to rot in hell.

Of course majority of that hell is our own making which apparently dates back to Carter (from another poster) and if that's the case----that's almost 40 years of hell of our own making.

But it doesn't matter----we're losing our soldiers and all those millions over the last 40 year means shit and we can let a few more go because we don't take responsibility for our actions.

[freddie mertz]

17. Freedom is on the March! nt.

[MNDemNY]

24. Oh fuck, more of the three dimensional chess game?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Aramchek]

33. you probably don't even understand the rules to two dimensional chess, eh?

[MNDemNY]

35. Enough to know that this ain't either.

[Aramchek]

46. No, It's Political and Military Strategy of the highest order

Too many moving parts for some to comprehend.
You have to be able to understand the repercussions of actions, not just the immediate effects.

Sure, it would feel good for a little while if we suddenly just pulled out of Afghanistan,
but then the country would collapse and be retaken by the enemy, and it actually would begin to resemble Vietnamesque loss.

[MNDemNY]

48. Afghanistan will "collapse" when EVER we leave.

Our best effort at nation building will be for naught, whether we leave now, or 3 years from now.

[Aramchek]

59. unless we give the people there the means to stand on their own

[MNDemNY]

62. So, your down for that 30-40 year commitment?

Are you saying that it was, and it should be our goal to "nation build"?? How quaint.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Aramchek]

did it take that long in Iraq?

If we train the forces there, and prepare the way for them, they can hold their ground.
And progress over time.

[MNDemNY]

69. And you think Iraq is stable?? What drugs are you on??

Do you have some for me?? Jesusfuckinchristonastick. What to you think will happen in Iraq when/if we leave? Are you delusional?:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[Aramchek]

70. We'll be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

And their government has the means to maintain stability.

Sure, they have the occasional car bomb, but so does Pakistan, or India, or even Northern Ireland.

[MNDemNY]

74. How's the weather in La-La Land?

"their government has the means to be stable" that is a bunch of shit, Iranian backed shia will have that country, (except for kurdistan) under their control with in months. "occasional car bomb" yea, that's with THOUSANDS of US troops there!!!Are you really that naive as to think this? or is it more your blind defense of all that is Obama? Real question. Man, you really need to get out more.:rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[Aramchek]

81. the troops aren't in the cities anymore, genius

Iraqi security forces have taken over.

[MNDemNY]

83. Right, they are blocks away.

That's stable, fer sher!!! yuk yuk. Keep diggin!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[Aramchek]

84. they are on base, outside of the cities. and they have steadily been leaving.

[MNDemNY]

86. And the unicorns play in the flower beds!

Again, what drugs?:rofl:

[Aramchek]

90. Reality is a helluva drug!

[MNDemNY]

91. You should try some.

[Aramchek]

94. I'm on a high dosage of reality, brah

[tekisui]

78. Iraq has roads.

[old guy]

89. Or 10 years or 20.

[no limit]

26. Maybe you'd like to explain to the class what "success" is.

I'm all ears.

[brentspeak]

27. So then he's not really "listening to his generals and advisors" after all, is he?

If he's not listening to the generals, and he's not listening to the people of the United States, then who is he listening to?

[vaberella]

32. The Illuminati? Ghosts in his head? Maybe the WH is haunted? n/t

Because I think your post is reaching...

[Aramchek]

37. He is making the decision based on his own understanding of facts.

That's what a good President does.

He gets all the facts on the grounds, consults with Generals and Advisors,
and then makes his own mind up.

[DerBeppo]

53. so the decider 2.0?

I understand that makes sense in situations where there is no clear voice on either side of an issue, but there is a clear voice on both sides of this issue. Much like HCR, this decision is a non-decision that serves neither those who believe we should be out of there and those who think we need more troops.

I wonder if this style is a hold over from his legal training. The few lawyer friends I have believe that successful negotiation is where neither side is happy about the outcome. Whereas that may be acceptable in a mediation, I don't think I want my president to be so triangulating.

[Aramchek]

60. nope, just the President of the United States

you probably would have snidely called Abe Lincoln 'the Decider' when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

[DerBeppo]

65. that was actually a clear decision.

Instead, a philosophically parallel decision would be to allow only a certain number of slaves to be emancipated if they met certain conditions. A policy that wouldn't have served either the slave holders or the abolitionists. There are some issues that demand a full commitment to one side or the other for risk of weakening everything.

[Aramchek]

68. Obama is making a commitment. He will not withdraw immediately.

He is adding more troops to accomplish a specific mention, and he has an exit strategy.

[DerBeppo]

72. but he's not making a full commitment

He has these generals in place for a reason. He campaigned on the idea that they knew what was best and one of W's biggest mistakes was not fully committing to Afghanistan by getting distracted in Iraq.

A fraction of troops that his generals say is needed is not committing--it's setting the stage for election cycle equivocating.

[Aramchek]

73. the Generals are getting over 40,000 troops, they're just not all Americans

what is wrong with that?

[DerBeppo]

76. Possibly

That is yet to be seen. I did say below, however, that "If in fact he has convinced other countries to do an about face and deploy larger amounts of troops to the region instead of pulling them out (as has been the trend over the last few years), then it is at least a major international success and a sign that other nations are beginning to trust the U.S. again."

That would be a major success, if in fact he has been able to pull off a true international surge to fix this situation in order to get the troops home as soon as possible. I would hope that he, or his supporters, would be savvy enough not to count this as a victory until those 40,000 troops are accounted for.

[ClarkUSA]

41. He's not listening to ONE general and Hillary. He obviously listened to VP Biden's advice.

And then the C.I.C. made his own decision, which included a definitive exit plan, as per Keith Olbermann.

<<"... he's not listening to the people of the United States...>>

Speak for yourself. A huge majority of liberals strongly approve of his job performance. And after his speech tonight, a majority of
Americans will support his decision.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Hillary must be disappointed since she supported Gen. McChrystal's troop recommendations.

:cry:

[Aramchek]

39. watch out, you might get catscratched...

:)

[ClarkUSA]

43. !!!

:rofl:

[Oregone]

31. Why is it good to listen to what the military is telling you to do but not give them what they need?

It seems half assed and political.

"Sure, yeah, you bunch of assholes are right, but Im only giving you a politically feasible number of troops!"

Seriously, its an odd thing to agree to escalate, but pick a number arbitrarily smaller than what the escalation authorities are asking for.

[vaberella]

38. Uh...what is it you want?! You just are on a mission to knock everything.

If it's may seem good for Obama---he's half assing it.

If it's bad---typical Obama. WE don't know shit yet. We have 3 hours before anything is confirmed. Why can't you wait? Most people are reporting different things.

[Oregone]

51. Its an honest question.

I would rather have a president not listening to the escalation camp. But you must admit this may be an odd position to take

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

34. So. Did McCrystal lie about how many troops he needs?

Or he needs that many, and Obama isn't sending enough? Maybe Obama doesn't trust his judgment?

I can't figure out why someone in favor of escalating the war would be celebrating any of those options, let alone using them to try to convince others this is a good thing.

[Aramchek]

42. Obama has gotten our Allies to make up the difference

That is the kind of International cooperation that he has brought to the table.

[noamnety]

47. So the war is just ... but it's better to have other people die in it?

I thought the story now was that we're staying because "we broke it, we need to fix it."

Why are we asking other countries to send their soldiers to die for our fuckups?

I don't see any extra morality in the escalation just because it's not OUR troops dying.

[Aramchek]

49. because the success of Afghanistan is in the interest of the World, not just the US

It should have been a fully International mission from the beginning,
but Bush and his cronies weren't willing to share power.

[noamnety]

56. Hmmm. That's an interesting statement.

"The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2017044.stm

[Aramchek]

63. and Japan has agreed to spend 5 billion to aid Afghanistan

by the way, you relinquish all credibility when you start going off on the Pipeline Tinfoil Theories.

[Cha]

52. No, it's better to have more countries invested

in getting rid of the vipers nest because it affects the whole Planet.

[noamnety]

58. The vipers nest?

I wonder if a metaphor can be destroyed with tanks.

I look at our military actions around the world, and it seems like we are the viper's nest. A well funded one, at that.

[MNDemNY]

67. How quaint of you, as well.

Vipers nest??? okydoky....Should we invade and occupy Saudi Arabia as well? How about Iran, North Korea? You sound like a bushie! Damn, Cha, you keep crackin' me up.:crazy: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[brentspeak]

54. AFP: France, Germany reject US appeals to boost Afghan force

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3idVBYLX7n0hjXmTsYOjL9uuwTQ

France, Germany reject US appeals to boost Afghan force

(AFP) – 3 hours ago

PARIS — France and Germany refused US requests to immediately promise extra combat troops for Afghanistan, frustrating President Barack Obama's hopes that more allies would bolster his troop surge.

Britain has already offered an extra 500 troops and Italy has said it will send an unspecified number, while Poland is considering deploying several hundred more soldiers.

US officials say Obama is about to announce a surge of 30,000 troops and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown this week predicted other nations would provide another 10,000.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's special envoy to the region said late Tuesday France will not deploy extra combat troops to Afghanistan but may send more military trainers for Afghan forces.

[Aramchek]

55. very misleading headline. according to the article, neither have rejected Obama's request yet

[ClarkUSA]

66. And PM Gordon Brown is openly considering sending 500 more troops.

He won't make the decision until after President Obama makes his speech but the mere fact Great Britain is putting it out
there via the BBC means it's under serious consideration.

[brentspeak]

93. Let us repeat what you wrote: "Obama has gotten our Allies to make up the difference"

And yet clearly he hasn't.

So, you lied.

[Aramchek]

95. NATO will contribute at least 10,000 troops over the next year

mark my words, if you like

[DerBeppo]

61. And if not?

The he has literally chosen the worst of both options. The under-deployment of troops will not make those who think the war is just happy and it will only further alienate him from the progressive wing who feel we should not be escalating the situation.

If in fact he has convinced other countries to do an about face and deploy larger amounts of troops to the region instead of pulling them out (as has been the trend over the last few years), then it is at least a major international success and a sign that other nations are beginning to trust the U.S. again.

However, this sort of middle-of-the-road policy setting seems to be in line with the middle-of-the-road health care reform that's flailing at the moment.

[Aramchek]

64. you wouldn't have supported 45,000 additional troops, quit pretending that you would have.

[DerBeppo]

71. I am, actually.

I'm in the camp that thinks we made the mess, we should clean it up as best we can. He put these generals in charge and he campaigned on the philosophy that listening to them and following the advice of those in the best position to know what it will take would be the best idea.

More so than I am in favor of the U.S. taking the lead on this, I'm in favor of principled leadership. I do not believe President Obama was or is a DINO or the same as W, nor do I believe that he is acting with any malice or trying to undermine the military. I just think that he's sacrificing principled leadership at the alter of bipartisanship; and while I freely admit there are certain issues that could benefit from strategic politic, I believe this issue is too important to take a middle road approach.

[msallied]

36. Sanity and reason on DU. Who'da thunk it?

[Peacetrain]

75. This sounds like a D day operation?...

[harkadog]

77. What exactly is this "Exit Stategy"?

Every pro-war supporter I know starts draws a blank when I ask that question. LBJ always gave his generals less than what they asked for. They knew to ask for a high number knowing they would get what they wanted. Obama is following this same path.

[Aramchek]

82. Why don't you listen to the man describe it himself in a few hours?

[harkadog]

92. I will but you said he had one and you supported it.

How can you support something that you don't even know what it is?

[avaistheone1]

79. Where is the link that Europe will send more troops.

The stories I have read is that Europe is not interested in sending more soldiers.

[vaberella]

85. Aye..That's incorrect.

The UK is deploying 500 additional troops to their already 9,000 in Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown says it here:
http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/30/HP/A/26615/British+PM+Gordon+Brown+Address+on+Afghanistan.aspx

I watched the video but there are articles on this.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/12/01/gordon-brown-confirms-britain-will-send-more-troops-to-afghanistan-91466-25292303/

As for the other nations..like Germany and France---they never said they wouldn't send in troops. However there is a poster who posts such an article--well in Title only. When you read the text it says only that they would not send in "immediate" troops. It doesn't say anything about them not sending in troops over time or confirming anything currently. Maybe they're waiting after Obama's speech.

[avaistheone1]

88. The UK is sending 500 additional troops?!!!!

Well big fucking deal. They certainly are not ponying up, or digging deep. They are not really committing a great deal to this escalation at all.

Pretty much as expected.

:argh:

[bahrbearian]

87. Link?