Whats BO gonna do? More troops?
Tough call for him.
Printable View
Whats BO gonna do? More troops?
Tough call for him.
Run.
I don't know. Garry Trudeau's been making noises lately that Afghanistan sounds just like Vietnam to him. Mobile insurgency, corrupt federal government, disinterested population, drug economy. Can't say I disagree. The only thing different is that the Afghan insurgency is all about Wahhabism, and South Vietnam's insurgency was all about Maoism. Both movements full of fanatics, but I think Afghanistan is worse because at least the Viet Cong were fighting to create a modern civil government. The Taliban are fighting to prevent the creation of a modern civil government.
The "American" way of thinking is that all you have to do is spend the right amount of money or threaten the right person, and shit gets done. I don't think that applies in Afghanistan. I think it's totally fucked. I think Afghanistan is a loss no matter how long we stay and how many troops are sent.
To my knowledge, there is no central government in Afghanistan that has ever been accorded any respect by Afghans. Only a well-armed and oppressive one has any chance of survival.
I would propose a "Berlin" solution to Afghanistan. Leave the country intact, but divide it into several zones, each of which is administered by a different regional power. One region would be administered by the US and Britain. One would be administered by Iran. One would be administered by Russia.
Virtually every vestige of AQ in afghanistan has been captured, killed or chased into pakistan. The taliban government that harbored them is history. So what's left for us there?
At this point the country has been reset to the status quo of basic shithole, not very different from other shitholes around the world--problems that are on some level tragic but not situations that compel an open ended military occupation by the united states.
So, if reports are true, the WH asked the Gen to hold off on his request for more troops. Regardless, this seems to be a turning point in the war in Afghanistan. Cuz if he doesn't listen to his Generals, he might as well bring the troops home.
I remember people saying the same thing about Pres. Bush when Gen. Shinseki told him that there nowhere near enough troops in Iraq. I also seem to remember Shinseki getting put on the shelf for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
^ Gotta bring Bush in. Soooooo yesterday and typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
What did you mean by "turning point" if not mentioning the past?
Stay on topic.
If someone could please delete post #5 for not staying on topic, Tahoe would appreciate.
Listening to what Obama said over the weekend about afghanistan, my guess is that he's holding off to develop an exit strategy to tie to whatever decision he makes about troop commitment. Something involving a timeline for withdrawal. This is quite probably wishful thinking on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alternate Reality Pres. Obama
I prefer we stay, but if we aren't going do what the Gens ask, exit strategy is the next best thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by geerussell
Is the fuzzy Afghanistan-Pakistan border the modern-day 38th parallel?
I think of it more like the border between vietnam and cambodia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Neither Vietnam nor Cambodia had nukes.
It's really Pakistan that's the flaming pile of shit right now. The basic problem with Afghanistan has always been that it's easily destabilized by its neighbors. Right now, it's Pakistan's turn to do the destabilizing.
That I recall, north korea din't have nukes either when the 38th parallel first became significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
The parallel (no pun intended) I was drawing was in both cases you had the united states fighting in a country (afghanistan/vietnam) where our enemies could easily hop back and forth across a national border (pakistan/cambodia) where we were limited in our ability to pursue or take the fight to them.
If we don't do anything, it'll mean a larger Taliban presence from which Al Qada will plot to kill more Americans. We have to stay the course or increase the troops if the Gens ask for more troops.
^ Or, find some other solution that doesn't involve us propping up a corrupt and ineffective Afghan government. Not that I know what that solution could be right now, but I suppose it's possible.
I'm OK with Tahoe's scenerio.
YKWIDT
Obama paid a visit, and did not pose next to a Mission Accomplished banner.
Oh, and this news is disturbing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/wo.../27afghan.htmlQuote:
KABUL, Afghanistan — American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.
We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.
Obama is a war monger. Just trying to make money for his oil stocks.
QUIT HANDING OUT ALL THOSE NO BID CONTRACTS YOU MORON!
Obama is a war criminal!
I think you're looking for the Iraq thread. Afghani oil? If significant Afghani oil were found, Obama would become the fifth face on Mount Rushmore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
"all those"?Quote:
QUIT HANDING OUT ALL THOSE NO BID CONTRACTS YOU MORON!
AFAICT, the "no bid" contracts are down relative to the Bush era, especially considering the magnitude of dollars involved. There was some flap awhile back about Obama giving some million (not billion) dollar no-bid deal out to some big campaign donor for fixing the Afghani judicial system, but that was withdrawn. I remember thinking at the time "it's millions, not billions". There's innumeracy on all sides in no-bid crap. Obama made some promise to do no-bid contracts for anything >$25k, not realizing that bids often cost far more than $25k to generate and evaluate, especially due to the byzantine torturous nature of dealing with guv'mint. The cost of bidding will be passed to the taxpayers. The real issues are fake competitive bids where most of the underlying subcontractors play all sides and make money no matter what.
Sorry Mxy...I didn't mean all those things literally. I was just being Tahoe.