# 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan



## eagleseven (Dec 1, 2009)

> Obama to offer troop increase, timetable for Afghan | Politics | Reuters
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will say on Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to speed the battle against the Taliban and plans to bring some soldiers home in 19 months.
> 
> ...



It is official. Your thoughts?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Dec 1, 2009)

I think his top general whom he picked told Obama he wanted 60,000 and a bare minimum of 40,000...do what does Obama do?

GO FUCK YOURSELF 

HERE'S 30,000.

He wants to get the job done and set a time frame of depature yet doesn't give his forces what they adequately need to do the job effiecently


----------



## garyd (Dec 1, 2009)

And you were expecting an Obama administrtion that is increasingly disassociating itself from this reality to do much else precisely why?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2009)

I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.

We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 1, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.
> 
> We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out



yeah right. Have we left Iraq?


----------



## garyd (Dec 1, 2009)

We're leaving in 18 months no matter what isn't  enough of an exit strategy for you?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 1, 2009)

Many people seemed to love troop surges not long ago.


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 1, 2009)

I hope it works. I don't know if it will...but I hope it does. For the sake of our men over there.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 1, 2009)

garyd said:


> We're leaving in 18 months no matter what isn't  enough of an exit strategy for you?



Obama said troop withdrawls start in July 2011.  There is no end date, except he said ten years is too long.


----------



## Maple (Dec 1, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> > Obama to offer troop increase, timetable for Afghan | Politics | Reuters
> >
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will say on Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to speed the battle against the Taliban and plans to bring some soldiers home in 19 months.
> >
> ...



I thought it was a good teleprompter read, but I don't think it's a good idea to advertise that we are leaving in 18 months. That fact alone would not cause any of the sane Afghani's to join the cause and support the defense of their country, not will it instill confidence in our allies, and if I were a member of the Taliban I would just sit back and relax wait until the U.S leaves and go in then.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 1, 2009)

Afghanistain was lost a long time ago.

We are just trying to save face.

Unlike Vietnam where we quickly exited.

This will be a slow cut and run.

And with a straight face, Victory will be declaired


----------



## garyd (Dec 2, 2009)

Afghanistan may not yet be lost. That is unfortunately not up to us. It is up to the local government and the various parties that helped us kick the Taliban out in the first place.


----------



## DavidS (Dec 2, 2009)

McCrystal asked for 40,000, Obama gave him 30,000. I have faith in our top generals to get the job done.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 2, 2009)

garyd said:


> Afghanistan may not yet be lost. That is unfortunately not up to us. It is up to the local government and the various parties that helped us kick the Taliban out in the first place.



Afghanistan is far from lost. At least that's what the guys who are actually doing the job say. And I'm inclined to take their word for it over that of any internet poster who just loves to see their own country fail. 

I was hoping a 'Winston Churchill' moment, what I heard was another Obama whine. He really is not the right man for this particular job.


----------



## DavidS (Dec 2, 2009)

It's rather frustrating to listen to the right-wingers whine, bitch and moan about Obama's speech.


----------



## garyd (Dec 2, 2009)

Tell me something good about. He had a chance to knock it out of the park and gave us a fielder's choice.


----------



## DavidS (Dec 2, 2009)

garyd said:


> Tell me something good about. He had a chance to knock it out of the park and gave us a fielder's choice.



Knock what out of the park? He's talking about sending 30,000 men and women off to die if something goes wrong. He's asking their spouses, mothers and fathers to be ok with their sons and daughters, husbands and wives not coming home. He's also asking the taxpayers to foot billions of dollars more of our money for this surge and you want some kind of motivational speech? Get real!


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 2, 2009)

Of course Afghanistan it is winnable, indeed it is necessary we do not loose, by which I mean keeping the Taliban from controlling the country or being totally safe to export terror in large parts of the country.

This can be done two ways. A massive surge, clear and hold and attempt to build the democracy from Kabul outward, slowly giving Afghans the benefits of that and hoping the inter ethnic animosity (which is centuries old) will succumb to the lure of a better life, a long war with large cost but achievable with long term will power .

Or

Stop nation building, give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.

So the choice is between idealism or ruthless realism.

Surrender is not an option.

As for the term "exit strategy", wars know no such term; warriors or nations who want to survive know only one exit strategy, victory.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 2, 2009)

Gotta agree with Maple. Bad idea to set any kind of timetable. The terrorists will just hunker down and disappear until our boys leave and then carry on as usual.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> It's rather frustrating to listen to the right-wingers whine, bitch and moan about Obama's speech.



Why frustrating?  It is what they do and to be expected.  Kinda like a rock being hard, it is all it know how to be.


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 2, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.
> 
> We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out



Defined objectives (at least in the general term for the public)?? Yep
Milestones (at least in the general term for the public)? Yep
Exit strategy?? Not only no but HELL FUCKING NO!!!!!... you don't even hint at that kind of thing publicly.. you don't give markers to the enemy to lay in wait until after your announced exit strategy... you don't give them anything even CLOSE to resembling that sort of information

Those who support exit strategies support acceptable loss and defeat


----------



## bodecea (Dec 2, 2009)

garyd said:


> We're leaving in 18 months no matter what isn't  enough of an exit strategy for you?



You are expecting her to know?


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 2, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> Stop nation building, give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.


This sounds workable and affordable, that second being important in the real world.
Yet it took Obama how many months and tons of advice to come up with his lame "surge and run" plan.
Right - he has specific objectives he has to meet before he withdraws troops. His timetable is entirely dependent on public perception in the USA and how to increase his reelection chances. 
Bush senior didn't play games with servicemen lives, and it cost him against Clinton. 
Obama will play games, because he's a pure politician with no other goal save reelection.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 2, 2009)

rightwinger said:


> I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.
> 
> We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out


With the exception of the pull out part, the rest of this is pretty much what the last Administration was about.

But why is it that people feel we just HAVE TO announce our exit strategy to the whole fucking world?

The left wants an exit strategy, thats fine.  Set one.  Just don't tell anyone for the sake of Pete.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 2, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I think his top general whom he picked told Obama he wanted 60,000 and a bare minimum of 40,000...do what does Obama do?
> 
> GO FUCK YOURSELF
> 
> ...



And he set a timeline without even starting the build up an operation! 

What he should have done is sent the troops at little over the minimum say 45K and devised a PRIVATE timeline for withdrawal.


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me something good about. He had a chance to knock it out of the park and gave us a fielder's choice.
> ...


This is how you give a speech during wartime.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc&feature=related[/ame]

With this speech, Churchill was sending roughly 10,000,000 men to war, of which 550,000 would die. 

_Obama cannot properly send off just 30,000 soldiers?_ Perhaps he did not realize he would be Commander-in-Chief when he applied for the job?



			
				 Napoleon said:
			
		

> A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction.
> You must _speak to the soul_ in order to electrify him


----------



## mascale (Dec 2, 2009)

The whole speech was an exit strategy.  There could hardly be any alternative.  The atrocity in Afghanistan is easily regarded even more insane than the usual atrocity in Iraq, or Vietnam, or Korea, or wherever else the United States has found some nature of pre-emptive need.  Some Southern kids shot at Fort Sumter.  750,000 white people were killed, and blacks were denigrated for decades. Some Moslem kids actually managed to miss the Pentagon.  The estimates of the refugee count approach 2.0 mil., and a nuclear power is now beset by the neighborhood radicals, from across the border.  And Pakistan has the same problem(?)!

Secretary Powell had created a G-7 alliance, post 9/11.  The Taliban had offered to find and bring bin laden to Moselm trial, with those penalties.  The G-7 could have been prodded to commence funding infra-structure building projects.  The Taliban were already opposed to the Poppy Crop cultivation.  Alternatives based upon economic futures could have been created.

That would have meant no military presence at all.  Even then Socialist Iraq could have been engaged as a trading partner with Afghanistan.  The main threat to any sense of street peace in the Middle East would remain with Israel, with the United States no longer so-regarded.

Can anyone guess the outcome instead, given what happened?  A nuclear nation is now beset by radicals from across the boarder!  The same thing is happening in Pakistan, where they may have a chance!

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Half-White Father in Washington, D. C., instead sending in Bureau of Indian Affairs--to the Reservation, of the "Afghanistan" nation, of its tribes?)


----------



## Alvin (Dec 2, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Afghanistan is far from lost. At least that's what the guys who are actually doing the job say. And I'm inclined to take their word for it over that of any internet poster who just loves to see their own country fail.



Afghanistan as far as a Jeffersonian democrasy is concerned never was a runner. Afgnanistan isn't so much a country as a geographical area too troublesome for it's neighbouring countries to annex. And lord knows it's been tried. Thus far only Alexander the Great has succeeded in conquering it. 



> I was hoping a 'Winston Churchill' moment, what I heard was another Obama whine. He really is not the right man for this particular job.



There is no "Right man" for this job. Because the job as you understand it (I think) is impossible.


----------



## Xenophon (Dec 2, 2009)

He should have cut to the exit ramp without putting 30,000 more in jeopardy.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 2, 2009)

Alvin said:


> Thus far only Alexander the Great has succeeded in conquering it.


You forgot the Mongols.


----------



## garyd (Dec 2, 2009)

This is in short ladies and gentlemen a plan that has everything to do with the political realities of the moment in America  and damn little to do with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 2, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > Thus far only Alexander the Great has succeeded in conquering it.
> ...



The mongols didn't conquer per se.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 2, 2009)

garyd said:


> This is in short ladies and gentlemen a plan that has everything to do with the political realities of the moment in America  and damn little to do with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.



As a President of (big hint here) "The United States of America", who gives a shit?


----------



## namvet (Dec 2, 2009)

he's pulling out in 11 to get the liberal protesters off his ass.


----------



## Mike458877 (Dec 3, 2009)

DavidS said:


> It's rather frustrating to listen to the right-wingers whine, bitch and moan about Obama's speech.



And it was more difficult listening to his speech!

As I agree with some of the actual plans, I too do not see Obama as the man for the job. This speech, this moment, this issue is about being Commander in Chief, not about being politician!

He reeked with political BS. 

Further, he did not project any confidence or resolve in his decisions. 

He did not call Afghanistan to the carpet as he should have, he did not call Pakistan to the carpet as he should have! Oh he mentioned it, but hell I didn't feel any thunder from his words! Why should they?

,,,,,,,,and his comments about NATO were laughable at best. 

With the exception of a handful, no NATO troops will let themselves be placed in a position to be part of the backbone of any military operation. 

And even mentioning the exit to the detail he did is simply foolish when not even the first of the new deployment has begun. 

He should have said we will began a draw down as soon as possible, yes we have a plan for that, but, there is not date and don't expect one! We have a job to do and that is what I am concerned with. 

And Iran is next on his plate. oh Boy!

Mike


----------



## namvet (Dec 3, 2009)

he's pulling out in 11. assuming its not just another lie thats its. all these kids died for nothing. he wants these protesters off his ass. their being used for politics.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 3, 2009)

garyd said:


> This is in short ladies and gentlemen a plan that has everything to do with the political realities of the moment in America  and damn little to do with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.



Exactly!!!!


----------



## California Girl (Dec 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



Or even this one.....  By Col.Tim Collins (British Forces, Iraq) It was not rehearsed, an off the cuff speech to his men as they prepared to enter Iraq in 2003. I think it is one of the best speeches I've ever read. 

_We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country
We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose. 
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history. 
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.

You will see things that no man could pay to see
-- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.

Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. 
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.

It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. 
There will be no time for sorrow.

The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

(On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

Our business now is north._
Copyright, Tim Colins 2003. 

Colonel Tim Collins' Speech


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 3, 2009)

what's up with the  WWII and churchill comparisons?


----------



## mystic (Dec 3, 2009)

garyd said:


> This is in short ladies and gentlemen a plan that has everything to do with the political realities of the moment in America  and damn little to do with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.



Anyone who's interested in learning about the current realities on the ground and the inherent problems the us faces in creating a stable government in Afghanistan should read "The Punishment of Virtue" by Sarah Chayes. I highly recommend it. A real eye-opener.


----------



## shane (Dec 3, 2009)

Im no expert on wars or anything, and I know Obama is not either.
But General McCrystal is!!! Lucky us, he wants 40-60 thousand troops, my hand selected General gets 40-60 thousand troops, right away. I mean strength is in numbers i do know that! But we can win it with an extra 30 thousand troops. Just will take longer, which brings me into the plan to take troops out of Afghanistan. Who tells the enemy," Hey Osama im sending over 30 thousand more troops, but if you wait till 2011 we will all be coming home, and you can take over the country!!" 
Just sayin.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 3, 2009)

California Girl said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



That was my Dads old regiment. Sadly it's disbanded now.
You should read Rules of Engagement, his biography of his carreer.


----------

