Obama and the War In Afghanistan ...

[BeAChooser]

Yoohoo, Obama ...

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05397351.htm

05 Oct 2009

WASHINGTON, Oct 5 Reuters - The Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan now because of the inability of the United States and its allies to put enough troops into the country, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday.

Are you listening or are you STILL Stuck On Stupid?

 

[Vermonter]

And?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Hang on.

Wasn't there this guy who tied up most of the US forces in an unnecessary war in Iraq? Went as far as "sexing up" the case for war and thus lied his own county and its allies into a costly conflict with no clear exit strategy?

I believe military historian Martin van Crevelt called it 'the biggest strategic mistake in US history'.

Help me out here. It started with a B, If I'm not mistaken.

 

[Cleon]

Because after seven years of Bush's efforts, it makes perfect sense that Obama is the reason for the failure in Afghanistan.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because after seven years of Bush's efforts, it makes perfect sense that Obama is the reason for the failure in Afghanistan.

Is it over, then?

Is there no success of any sort possible at all?

If so, is there any reason the President has not already begun the withdrawal?

DR

 

[GreNME]

Is it over, then?

Well, we're all hoping the "failure" part is over.

Is there no success of any sort possible at all?

Funny you should mention that-- this is precisely what the White House is currently considering, if reports are accurate.

If so, is there any reason the President has not already begun the withdrawal?

I don't see why withdrawing or increasing troops would be the only two options.

For what it's worth, I think an uptick in forces in Afghanistan is the way to go, though it's not likely to have the same effects that the "surge" had in Iraq (I doubt these insurgents are going to be as keen to accept bribes).

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't see why withdrawing or increasing troops would be the only two options.

Yeah. There's always the Vietnam option.

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah. There's always the Vietnam option.

Start a genocide, then quit halfway through because we made ourselves ill, then have morons tell us decades later that we should have finished the job?

 

[Cleon]

Is it over, then?

Is there no success of any sort possible at all?

Depends on your concept of "success," I suppose. We've been there for eight years now. And despite all the flag-waving and avatars of people with blue thumbs, this is what we've got to show for it:

• An incredibly corrupt government, slightly less hardline than the Taliban, that has virtually no control outside of Kabul - and there only because US troops are backing it.
• A blossoming opium industry
• Ongoing battles, continued troop losses, and strengthening opposition

We haven't even managed to catch bin Laden, and he's the reason this whole clusterfrak began in the first place.

Do you see any recipe for "success" in this situation?

If so, is there any reason the President has not already begun the withdrawal?

Because he's a politician?
Because people will whine about "cutting and running?"
Because, as Fred Armisen pointed out the other night, Obama hasn't actually done squat since taking office?

etc...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you see any recipe for "success" in this situation?

Depends on your concept of "success," I suppose.

You answered for me, in that very same post.

I was giving you a dig in the ribs over "failure" for a work in progress. It's still a mess, and its status as an economy of force for five years in CENTCOM is what IMO has allowed the Taliban to regenerate (with quite a bit of under the table Arab funding, mind you) but as it's still a game in the Xth inning, "won" and "lost" is still an unknown.

DR

 

[Cicero]

Start a genocide, then quit halfway through because we made ourselves ill, then have morons tell us decades later that we should have finished the job?

or wait until 1972 to start Linebacker I & II that got the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 when this operation would have gotten them to sign in 1968.

 

[Cleon]

You answered for me, in that very same post.

I was giving you a dig in the ribs over "failure" for a work in progress. It's still a mess, and its status as an economy of force for five years in CENTCOM is what IMO has allowed the Taliban to regenerate (with quite a bit of under the table Arab funding, mind you) but as it's still a game in the Xth inning, "won" and "lost" is still an unknown.

And you answered your own point. "Xth inning?" It's been eight years, and the situation has only deteriorated throughout that period. How much time do you plan on giving it before deciding whether "won" or "lost" is a "known?"

 

[GreyICE]

or wait until 1972 to start Linebacker I & II that got the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 when this operation would have gotten them to sign in 1968.

You mean the first air assaults after rolling thunder killed a quarter of a million people?

Do you even know when Rolling Thunder ended? And why? It wasn't because of political opposition from civilians, FYI. Not that such opposition might not be well-based, as that one operation managed to kill a third of the number that died in the Armenian Genocide, nevermind anything else America was doing.

Oh of course, the right wing, winning the Vietnam war, 4 decades later, using only their vast ignorance.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And you answered your own point. "Xth inning?" It's been eight years, and the situation has only deteriorated throughout that period. How much time do you plan on giving it before deciding whether "won" or "lost" is a "known?"

Brits in Malaysia took well over a decade to get sorted out, but, that's a poor cookie cutter due to the specifics of that case, and the ethnic/cultural frictions already in place.

The number of years isn't a metric all its own. The number of years it was "priority" rather than "keep it down to a dull roar" has become the root of the reversal in momentum.

As to the troop level increases under discussion, it was always a case of "pay me now or pay me later" and Iraq precluded the "pay me now."

DR

 

[Eddie Dane]

The Surge was one of the few things that GWB did right.

Would a massive troop increase allow us to retake control of the situation?
And once we're there, can we get the Afghan security forces up to a skill level where they could keep the country under government control?

Regarding the future political make-up of Afghanistan: I suspect we might have to settle for benign dictatorship posing as a democracy.
But at least we can take pride in establishing one of the world's best dressed dictators in Karzai. Take that Khadaffi!

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Surge was one of the few things that GWB did right.

Maybe, but he had to stay wrong for about two and a half years to at last get an idea of "right" into his head.

Analogy: I drink sufficient beer to gain seventeen pounds over a few months. I then go on a workout regimen to lose fifteen of those pounds. My, didn't I do well? Actually, I was correcting a sloppy error. At least, I corrected it, sure, but whill all that beer was going down the chute, it wasn't rocket science to see what that was leading to.

DR

 

[Cleon]

Brits in Malaysia took well over a decade to get sorted out, but, that's a poor cookie cutter due to the specifics of that case, and the ethnic/cultural frictions already in place.

The number of years isn't a metric all its own. The number of years it was "priority" rather than "keep it down to a dull roar" has become the root of the reversal in momentum.

As to the troop level increases under discussion, it was always a case of "pay me now or pay me later" and Iraq precluded the "pay me now."

That's a non-answer.

 

[Garrette]

The Surge was one of the few things that GWB did right.

The surge was an enabling strategy to shape the environment for other methods to succeed. The most successful province in Iraq is Anbar (remember Ramadi and Fallujah?); there was no surge there.

I'm not really disagreeing with your assessment that Bush did it right, but in my opinion, he didn't really know what he was doing; he thought the surge was the end all, as did Rummy; fortunately, the other thing they did right (putting Petraeus in charge) allowed for the proper follow through.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Surge was one of the few things that GWB did right.

Then how ironic that Obama said well after the the success of the surge had become clear (he even admitted it was a success) that even if he'd known that the surge would be a success back when it was first proposed, he still would have been against it. Like I said in the OP: Stuck On Stupid.

 

[BeAChooser]

I wonder if Ben might be correct ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/BenS...g_a_war_to_reassure_his_re-election?page=full

Obama in Afghanistan: Losing a War to Reassure his Re-Election