Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 1, 2009
Politics / News Re: The Urge to Surge
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:33 AM
As Mr. Schmader wrote in The Morning News this morning, Obama is sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, with some expected to land as early as Christmas. You can read about that at the New York Times.
However, it looks like he's also establishing a deadline of 3 years for troops in Afghanistan.
He will tell the American people that U.S. troops will start leaving Afghanistan "well before" the end of his first term, with the aim of ending the main U.S. military mission there, one official said. However, Obama will not lay out precisely when he believes the war will end, the official said.
The official speech comes tonight. It will be interesting to see how he sells this to the American people.
2
I congratulate President Johnson on his decision to send 30,000 more troops to the peace mission in Vietnam and am sure all our troops will be home in 3 years.
Not.
Not.
4
I'm torn. I understand the need to prevent the Taliban from taking over, as they most assuredly will if we leave. But we have to leave someday, and the Taliban will most assuredly take over again when we do, whether it's tomorrow or 2050. I don't really see any way out of that. And yes, the Taliban DOES mean a haven for Al Qaeda.
I think what we ought to do instead, though, is stop focusing on the impossible task of defeating a determinedly Stone Age people, and instead think about ways to keep them locked up in their little shithole of a country, and away from our buildings and bridges. Police-work ways.
The parallels with Vietnam are disturbing. Hopelessly corrupt local government -- long history of colonial and anti-colonial fighting -- religious element, completely missed by America, obscuring the real problems -- militarily impossible objectives.
The real problem in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, is that even if we win, we lose. There isn't a legitimate government there to win FOR. It's tragic, but the only two choices on offer for Afghanistan are the crooks and the kooks.
I think what we ought to do instead, though, is stop focusing on the impossible task of defeating a determinedly Stone Age people, and instead think about ways to keep them locked up in their little shithole of a country, and away from our buildings and bridges. Police-work ways.
The parallels with Vietnam are disturbing. Hopelessly corrupt local government -- long history of colonial and anti-colonial fighting -- religious element, completely missed by America, obscuring the real problems -- militarily impossible objectives.
The real problem in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, is that even if we win, we lose. There isn't a legitimate government there to win FOR. It's tragic, but the only two choices on offer for Afghanistan are the crooks and the kooks.
5
This is not Vietnam. In Vietnam we were there alone. We were fighting a proxy war with Russia and China. Both of which were supplying weapons and money to the Viet Cong and neither of which we wanted to challenge directly. Also, it should be noted, this is a volunteer army. Vietnam had a draft and our army was made up of men who didn't want to be there. This is a NATO action in response to an attack on this country by people affiliated with and supported by the Taliban. The president deserves our support.
6
Four officers ambushed in broad daylight and killed. Murderer's getaway aided by family and friends, until he's hunted down by overwhelming force and shot dead on the streets. And so it goes... another day in Kabul.
7
The only way to succeed there is to stabilize the country enough to develop it, educate the populace, and make sure they have jobs. But that's more like a 50- or 100-year plan. Never gonna happen.
8
it's actually 34,000 by the way
I approve the change in force mixture - we're finally sending more of the right types of units - but we should have brought all our soldiers home for New Years.
Now, if he wants to do something, put a 10 percent surtax on all people who get more than 1 million in income, dividends, or earnings of any sort, with zero exemptions, to pay for this ... mistake.
I approve the change in force mixture - we're finally sending more of the right types of units - but we should have brought all our soldiers home for New Years.
Now, if he wants to do something, put a 10 percent surtax on all people who get more than 1 million in income, dividends, or earnings of any sort, with zero exemptions, to pay for this ... mistake.
9
@5 - no, we weren't. In the beginning we were part of a group of nations, including Australia. they bailed, just like they're doing now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Including Australia.
Nobody supports this war.
Including Australia.
Nobody supports this war.
10
@5 (re: In Vietnam we were there alone.)
Who are we fighting with in Afganistan? Who's with us in any comparable way? Even if there are [some] people with "us", do we really have moral support from nations around the world?
-Just asking.
Who are we fighting with in Afganistan? Who's with us in any comparable way? Even if there are [some] people with "us", do we really have moral support from nations around the world?
-Just asking.
11
since i don't know anyone in the military and i'm too poor to get my taxes raised to pay for this, i'm willing to give it a shot. it's what he said he was going to do a year ago.
12
@10 - um, while we were off mission in Iraq, it was mostly Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, and some other countries.
try to pay attention.
they're tired, they're bailing or about to bail.
Afghanistan will be left to us alone in the end, most likely within 18 months, as governments are literally falling over their NATO commitments in Afghanistan.
try to pay attention.
they're tired, they're bailing or about to bail.
Afghanistan will be left to us alone in the end, most likely within 18 months, as governments are literally falling over their NATO commitments in Afghanistan.
13
@10 Didn't the UK announce they'll help out with 500 troops? That's 1/68th of our additional commitment! If only 67 other countries also send 500 troops... Uhh... Well.
Hmm.
Hmm.
15
We should stay there one day longer than the Soviet Union did, just so we can say we beat them in both the cold war and the hopeless war.
16
@4,
I agree... I've always wondered if it would be possible to somehow lure them away from desiring to remain in the stone age. Maybe set up a bunch of fast food joints and strip clubs there or something. Give them a taste of cheap capitalism and see if they bite. The leaders wouldn't go for it of course, since they're rich already, but perhaps the peons and cannon fodder who supply the suicide bombs might?
I agree... I've always wondered if it would be possible to somehow lure them away from desiring to remain in the stone age. Maybe set up a bunch of fast food joints and strip clubs there or something. Give them a taste of cheap capitalism and see if they bite. The leaders wouldn't go for it of course, since they're rich already, but perhaps the peons and cannon fodder who supply the suicide bombs might?
18
And by the way. By this time in Vietnam, tens of thousands of U.S. troops were killed. There haven't even been a thousand troops killed in Afghanistan. That's not to diminish their sacrifice.
20
@19, that's great! We've got friends!! So, how'd the first one turn out? That's right, they fell to the commies and now are one of our biggest trading partners.
The ONLY way anyone should support this is if we totally bag Iraq. EVERYONE out NOW. There also needs to be a tax increase to fund it. Either we're in it to win it, with everyone sacrificing to get the result, or we're not. And guess what.... We're not.
The wingers were right, BHO is an appeaser, only not to the foreigners. He's an appeaser to the MINORITY PARTY of the country. Chickenshit.
Barack W Bush, FTL.
The ONLY way anyone should support this is if we totally bag Iraq. EVERYONE out NOW. There also needs to be a tax increase to fund it. Either we're in it to win it, with everyone sacrificing to get the result, or we're not. And guess what.... We're not.
The wingers were right, BHO is an appeaser, only not to the foreigners. He's an appeaser to the MINORITY PARTY of the country. Chickenshit.
Barack W Bush, FTL.
21
@19 - oh, so that's why the BBC news last night said there is no popular support for the Afghanistan mission and a number of people there said that it was unlikely they'd have troops remaining there more than 6 months.
Look, we'll be alone there pretty darned soon - you can see the handwriting on the wall, and their form of government permits MPs to ask questions in public every day and force an election on ANY spending bill at a moment's notice.
Look, we'll be alone there pretty darned soon - you can see the handwriting on the wall, and their form of government permits MPs to ask questions in public every day and force an election on ANY spending bill at a moment's notice.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS