• 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!

34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

Amusingly this is likely caused by the increasing number of deaths which is directly related to placing more soldiers out in the field to actually conduct proper COIN. Even more amusing is that such a strategy is almost entirely lifted from General Petreaus's playbook and that was proven to be effective. Obama is following Bush and people are starting to dislike him for it.

But how many partisans are willing to admit that?

It took Bush six years to adopt General Petreaus's playbook, because Bush enjoyed seeing our boys die for his amusement.
 
It took Bush six years to adopt General Petreaus's playbook, because Bush enjoyed seeing our boys die for his amusement.

Don't make me put you on ignore. The overhaul of Iraq last I recall actually started in late 2006. And much of the blame can be put on Rummy in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the overhaul started in late 2008 and reasonably could be argued because Bush's focus was on Iraq. Once Iraq got to a point of decent chance of success, then focus shifted.
 
Don't make me put you on ignore. The overhaul of Iraq last I recall actually started in late 2006. And much of the blame can be put on Rummy in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the overhaul started in late 2008 and reasonably could be argued because Bush's focus was on Iraq. Once Iraq got to a point of decent chance of success, then focus shifted.

according to my memory, bush did not change course until after the 06 election and the firing of rummy.
 
I agree,only difference is that Bush didn't have a timeline.

Which is actually worse as accountability goes down without a unit of measure. At least we can judge Obama over his stated time line in Afghanistan. Bush had 7 years and largely did nothing after the invasion. Granted, I understand why he never deal with the primary issue of lack of development, because there really isn't anything other then opium, but that doesn't excuse the lack of decision on his part. While doing nothing is on occasion is better then doing something, not when it ensures we'll be fielding troops in Afghanistan for decades.
 
i've always wondered about that anti-timeline thing. so the taliban will now just sit back and do nothing for 18 months? so they won't kill our troops for 18 months? that would be good.
 
Don't make me put you on ignore. The overhaul of Iraq last I recall actually started in late 2006. And much of the blame can be put on Rummy in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the overhaul started in late 2008 and reasonably could be argued because Bush's focus was on Iraq. Once Iraq got to a point of decent chance of success, then focus shifted.

Bush adopted the Petreu's playbook because he couldn't come up with any more stupid ideas on his own. Bush was simply too dumb to be President.
 
Last edited:
Sure, just go shoot all the people in Al Quaida and radical Taliban uniforms and be done.

That's the ticket...over simplifying the matter just to get your partisian jabs in. :roll:

I think the President has made the right call here. And if the only issue those of the opposition has is with the timeline for withdrawal, then I'd have to say you agree with him, too. You just don't want to admit it.
 
Amusingly this is likely caused by the increasing number of deaths which is directly related to placing more soldiers out in the field to actually conduct proper COIN. Even more amusing is that such a strategy is almost entirely lifted from General Petreaus's playbook and that was proven to be effective. Obama is following Bush and people are starting to dislike him for it.

But how many partisans are willing to admit that?

Hell, I'll admit it! When GW Bush finally started paying attention to his field commanders and implimented a military strategy coupled with the nation building that Iraq needed (because we removed Saddam and the Iraqi government from power), yes, I jumped onboard and backed the surge but only when I saw it was having a positive impact. Pres. Obama, in all truth, is adopting a similar strategy. The only difference here is Pres. Obama has an exit strategy, whereas former Pres. GW Bush did not.
 
Erod,

The rationale for a timeline was given, I think, for three reasons:

1. to ease the minds of Americans, our military, our allies and Congress that the military objective should be at its conclusion within a "reasonable" period of time. The President was correct in assessing that people domestically and abroad (our allies in this fight) are nervous about committing more troops and money to this cause. Therefore, the President, as the allied NATO leader in this War on Terror, had to reassure America if not the world that he plans to put an end to this war effort in the foreseeable future.

2. NATO and our allies needed to know that although we are committed to this fight, we have not intenstion of being there forever. The shorter timeline w/resolved behind it leave room for those nations who have been sitting on the fence to reconsider their level of involvement or non-involvement. Some will likely say, "Since we haven't been involved in this matter we'll continue to stay out of it and watch from the sidelines," but others may say "Since you're staying the course but moving in a different, more define direction and you've provided a viable timeline for withdrawl, we'll commit to (____, be it financial aid or more troops) and help see you through this to its conclusion".

3. To reassure the Afghan people that we're not occupiers and will leave their country as long as they step up and play a hand in helping us win the fight.

All three were critical!!! And thus, the reason issuing a timeline was so very important. Unfortunately, so many people have gotten so hung up on this one aspect they don't stop to think of the wider ranging implications. Thus, the narrow point of view tends to be, "why give the enemy a reason to sit back, wait us out and regroup?" Well, if your military does their job right, there shouldn't be a remnant of Al Quaida or radical Taliban remaining.

You forgot to keep the far left on his side and notice the cut and run is during the election year. As always with Obama it is politics and how he will benefit.
 
Hell, I'll admit it! When GW Bush finally started paying attention to his field commanders and implimented a military strategy coupled with the nation building that Iraq needed (because we removed Saddam and the Iraqi government from power), yes, I jumped onboard and backed the surge but only when I saw it was having a positive impact. Pres. Obama, in all truth, is adopting a similar strategy. The only difference here is Pres. Obama has an exit strategy, whereas former Pres. GW Bush did not.

Read this link. Many disagree with Obama


Opinion: Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
 
Erod,

The rationale for a timeline was given, I think, for three reasons:

1. to ease the minds of Americans, our military, our allies and Congress that the military objective should be at its conclusion within a "reasonable" period of time. The President was correct in assessing that people domestically and abroad (our allies in this fight) are nervous about committing more troops and money to this cause. Therefore, the President, as the allied NATO leader in this War on Terror, had to reassure America if not the world that he plans to put an end to this war effort in the foreseeable future.

2. NATO and our allies needed to know that although we are committed to this fight, we have not intenstion of being there forever. The shorter timeline w/resolved behind it leave room for those nations who have been sitting on the fence to reconsider their level of involvement or non-involvement. Some will likely say, "Since we haven't been involved in this matter we'll continue to stay out of it and watch from the sidelines," but others may say "Since you're staying the course but moving in a different, more define direction and you've provided a viable timeline for withdrawl, we'll commit to (____, be it financial aid or more troops) and help see you through this to its conclusion".

3. To reassure the Afghan people that we're not occupiers and will leave their country as long as they step up and play a hand in helping us win the fight.

All three were critical!!! And thus, the reason issuing a timeline was so very important. Unfortunately, so many people have gotten so hung up on this one aspect they don't stop to think of the wider ranging implications. Thus, the narrow point of view tends to be, "why give the enemy a reason to sit back, wait us out and regroup?" Well, if your military does their job right, there shouldn't be a remnant of Al Quaida or radical Taliban remaining.

You forgot point no.4

4. To coincide with campaigning for re-election.
 
i've always wondered about that anti-timeline thing. so the taliban will now just sit back and do nothing for 18 months? so they won't kill our troops for 18 months? that would be good.

And, when we leave, the Taliban comes out of hiding and it's business as usual. What did we accomplish?

If you get into a fist fight with someone and you tell him that you're going to hit him four times and stop figting, what's he going to do? He's going to let you hit him four times and then kick your ass.

I find it really hard to believe, not to mention very disheartening, that we've waited all this time for PBO to make a decison and it took this long to come of with this stupid ass decision.
 
And, when we leave, the Taliban comes out of hiding and it's business as usual. What did we accomplish?

Well, in theory, the Taliban would not be the dominant force in Afghanistan when they come out of hiding. This would be because a major component to the plan is to strengthen the afghan army. With a strengthened army the afghans can hold off the Taliban itself, without the U.S, and the US troops can withdraw and allow them to. To give not only us, but the afghan army a sense of urgency, or a need to get this done now we set a date for withdraw. How is this a dumb plan?
 
Well, in theory, the Taliban would not be the dominant force in Afghanistan when they come out of hiding. This would be because a major component to the plan is to strengthen the afghan army. With a strengthened army the afghans can hold off the Taliban itself, without the U.S, and the US troops can withdraw and allow them to. To give not only us, but the afghan army a sense of urgency, or a need to get this done now we set a date for withdraw. How is this a dumb plan?

That sounds awfully familiar. Where did we try that and it was a total cluster ****? Anyone remember?

You don't shape events on the ground to a timeline, you shape a timeline to events on the ground.

PBO did nothing, but give the Tallies an 18 month period to rest and reconstitute their forces, so as to launch a major offensive after there are enough American troops withdrawn from the theater to stop them.
 
That sounds awfully familiar. Where did we try that and it was a total cluster ****? Anyone remember?

You don't shape events on the ground to a timeline, you shape a timeline to events on the ground.

PBO did nothing, but give the Tallies an 18 month period to rest and reconstitute their forces, so as to launch a major offensive after there are enough American troops withdrawn from the theater to stop them.

Not true. Taliban and A.Q. is unusually busy for this time of year. I don't think they are going to buckle down. We just have to out fox them.
It's strange how often people forget that the Taliban/AQ doesn't fight conventionally. Their tactics are ambushes, suicide bombings, and IEDs. A larger troop force will only barely deter their attacks.
 
Not true. Taliban and A.Q. is unusually busy for this time of year. I don't think they are going to buckle down. We just have to out fox them.
It's strange how often people forget that the Taliban/AQ doesn't fight conventionally. Their tactics are ambushes, suicide bombings, and IEDs. A larger troop force will only barely deter their attacks.


They can't sustain those tactics and succeed. At some point they must transition to main force actions.
 
They can't sustain those tactics and succeed. At some point they must transition to main force actions.

I disagree. Taliban and A.Q. is currently feeding off of refugee and other poor people within Pasthun controlled Kandahar/ South Afghanistan, Pakistan-Afghan borders, rural Pakistan.

We don't know the extent, but one can only assume that the Taliban/A.Q. is receiving help in the form of weapons from Iran, the ISI, Pakistan Military, Pashtun sympathizers, elements within Tajik and Uzbek populations (and their -stans) and possibly China.

Hell, the Pakistani military led operations in Khyber to bust up Lashkar-e-Islam, where
Fayyaz also claimed that the military found evidence that India was providing weapons to the Lashkar-e-Islam

I feel that we're also the third party in a proxy war between India and Pakistan, as it were.
 
I disagree. Taliban and A.Q. is currently feeding off of refugee and other poor people within Pasthun controlled Kandahar/ South Afghanistan, Pakistan-Afghan borders, rural Pakistan.

We don't know the extent, but one can only assume that the Taliban/A.Q. is receiving help in the form of weapons from Iran, the ISI, Pakistan Military, Pashtun sympathizers, elements within Tajik and Uzbek populations (and their -stans) and possibly China.

Hell, the Pakistani military led operations in Khyber to bust up Lashkar-e-Islam, where


I feel that we're also the third party in a proxy war between India and Pakistan, as it were.

And, now all they have to do is launch token attacks at Allied forces, all the while conserving their main force units for the big push as the Allies leave the theater of operations. This is what you call history repeating itself.
 
And, now all they have to do is launch token attacks at Allied forces, all the while conserving their main force units for the big push as the Allies leave the theater of operations. This is what you call history repeating itself.

I mean, do you honestly believe that the United States will pull out if they have made zero headway in the war with the Taliban?

Both administrations have been consistent with their justification for the Afghanistan war. It's what I call "Harvesting National Security". Do you believe that this administration will abandon the operation, if it's no favorable improvement in struggle against the extremists?

I think you are implying partisanship unnecessarily in this objective.
 
I mean, do you honestly believe that the United States will pull out if they have made zero headway in the war with the Taliban?

Both administrations have been consistent with their justification for the Afghanistan war. It's what I call "Harvesting National Security". Do you believe that this administration will abandon the operation, if it's no favorable improvement in struggle against the extremists?

I think you are implying partisanship unnecessarily in this objective.[/QUOTE]


PBO says we will. He stated with no ambiguity that we're outta there by the summer of '11. The bad guys were watching TV last night, ya know. They heard him say it, too. He sent them a clear message to just chill and wait for us to leave.

The One set a hard timetable. All the enemy has to do is lay low, give the impression of inactivity and wait for us to leave. Then, the blood bath begins.

After telling everybody that we're definitely hauling ass in 18 months, how much real cooperation do you think we're going to get from the locals? They're saying right now, "You're leaving in 18 months. The Tallies are still going to be here...**** you!"

Words to describe this diabolically idiotic plan escape me right now.
 
PBO says we will. He stated with no ambiguity that we're outta there by the summer of '11. The bad guys were watching TV last night, ya know. They heard him say it, too. He sent them a clear message to just chill and wait for us to leave.

The One set a hard timetable. All the enemy has to do is lay low, give the impression of inactivity and wait for us to leave. Then, the blood bath begins.

After telling everybody that we're definitely hauling ass in 18 months, how much real cooperation do you think we're going to get from the locals? They're saying right now, "You're leaving in 18 months. The Tallies are still going to be here...**** you!"

Words to describe this diabolically idiotic plan escape me right now.

I was not aware that the time table was "set it stone", as it goes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom