• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War

jackalope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
1,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War
Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "things are going to have to change" in Afghanistan to retain public support for the stalemated war.


(snip ...)

He also told the Atlantic Council think tank that NATO needs to start letting Afghan military and civilian officials take the lead in securing and building their war-torn nation.

Rasmussen would not say whether he believes the U.S. should send more troops to Afghanistan, as the Obama administration is debating.

He also gently chastised Americans who question allied nations' commitment to Afghanistan.

NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War - Political News - FOXNews.com


Gates was also talking about shifting strategies in Afghanistan when he was on the Sunday shows this weekend. It's hard to make out where the news re: Afghanistan is heading. Are we moving towards a surge and shift to Afghan forces, similar to what happened in Iraq last year?
 
Last edited:
Re: NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "th

I think its a mess and no one really knows what to do. It could not function without Nato there for the foreseeable future, so something has to be done. But exactly how they can permanently sort it out no one really knows. I suppose throwing more troops at it probably won't hurt.
 
Re: NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "th

The best counter insurgency strategy that's been devised is that which was used in Iraq: Clear-Hold-Build.

Clear out the bad guys.

Hold onto the area you've cleared.

Build the infrastructure in men and material.

Anything we do in Afghanistan will be along these lines.

A worthy strategy if we have enough men. As we train their men so will ours be able to stand down.
 
Re: NATO Official: More Afghan Training Needed for War Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "th

The best counter insurgency strategy that's been devised is that which was used in Iraq: Clear-Hold-Build.

Clear out the bad guys.

Hold onto the area you've cleared.

Build the infrastructure in men and material.

Anything we do in Afghanistan will be along these lines.

A worthy strategy if we have enough men. As we train their men so will ours be able to stand down.


True, but whether we do it, or they do it, is a big difference, no?
I find myself surprised that 8 yrs in we're only just thinking hey, mebbe they could take over if we train them? What's up with that? Have we just been wasting time there, or what?

What is the right way forward in Afghanistan isn't clear to me.
 
JOHN NAGL

President of the Center for a New American Security

America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary.

The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown.

Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.



U.S. policymakers must, of course, weigh all actions against America's global interests and the possible opportunity costs.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, low-cost strategies do not have an encouraging record of success. U.S. efforts to secure Afghanistan on the cheap after 2001 led it to support local strongmen whose actions alienated the population and thereby enabled the Taliban to reestablish itself as an insurgent force.

Drone attacks, although efficient eliminators of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, have not prevented extremist forces from spreading and threatening to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The so-called "light footprint" option has failed to secure U.S. objectives; as the Obama administration and the U.S. military leadership have recognized, it is well past time for a more comprehensive approach.

Topic A: Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting? - washingtonpost.com
 
Gates was also talking about shifting strategies in Afghanistan when he was on the Sunday shows this weekend. It's hard to make out where the news re: Afghanistan is heading. Are we moving towards a surge and shift to Afghan forces, similar to what happened in Iraq last year?


My view is that our focus should be on training Afghan forces so that we can leave ASAP.(in other words....make it look good & then..CYA)


1. We went into Afghanistan to kill Al Quieda & they are no longer there. (they are nomads & most intell places most of them in the tribal regions of Pakistan or scattered throughout the world.
2. The Afghan people are showing signs of being tired of us being there & accidentally killing Afghans when we target Taliban or perceived terrorists does not help.
3. No more Americans should die over there for an unclear goal.(I have a 17 year old Grandson & would encourage him to go into the service..... But not to die in Afghanistan!)
4. We simply can't afford it anymore.
5. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government. It is a mountainous country ruled by local warlords, so the goal of leaving a strong, independent nation...capable of defending itself is not realistic. It's simply not in our interests to stay there.


Take the money we are spending there & in Iraq, put it towards universally available & affordable health care .......& the HC problem would be all but solved. (& all that money would be spent paying for U.S. jobs, better care for millions of U.S. citizens & greatly help our U.S. economy)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom