• 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

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President Obama will outline Tuesday his intention to send an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials and diplomatic sources briefed Monday as Obama began informing allies of his plan.
Newsweek
 
This will be his Vietnam. He can kiss any chance of having history look upon his presidency in a favorable light, goodbye.

meet the new boss ..same as the old boss
 
This will be his Vietnam. He can kiss any chance of having history look upon his presidency in a favorable light, goodbye.

meet the new boss ..same as the old boss

Demonstrates both a perfect understanding of history and an unwillingness to jump to hysterics too early. :roll:
 
This will be his Vietnam. He can kiss any chance of having history look upon his presidency in a favorable light, goodbye.

meet the new boss ..same as the old boss

I am so sick of the Vietnam comparisons..How long will people continue to reference Vietnam to EVERY single controversial decision that is made in warfare?

I remember the opening days of OIF, when they took an operational pause to allow the supplies to catch up, all the news agencies were screaming Vietnam. The surge in Iraq, Vietnam. Opening days of OEF in Afghanistan, Vietnam. Fallujah, Vietnam. U.N headquarters bombing and subsequent withdrawal, Vietnam.

This will not be Obama's Vietnam and the comparison to Vietnam doesn't hold water for a number of reasons.

First and foremost being the geopolitical situation. The insurgents in Afghanistan don't have a large outside regional power providing them arms and supplies. Yea, they get some from Iran, Pakistan, etc, but no one is near as large of a player as China or the Soviet Union were.

This war will lose popular support like Vietnam did, but I doubt it will become a major factor in the eventual withdraw of troops. Look at the casualty rate in Afghanistan over 8 years compared to a month in Vietnam. You just aren't going to see large-scale protest and Congressman worrying about re-election over Afghanistan.

For time sake I won't go in to the differences militarily comparing the NVA and the Vietcong to the insurgents/Taliban, but they are hardly comparable.


Please, take a second before you think you have a bright idea in referencing the last major war that America didn't have a favorable outcome in to the present situation.
 
I am so sick of the Vietnam comparisons..How long will people continue to reference Vietnam to EVERY single controversial decision that is made in warfare?

Just as long as we start wars that we can't win.
 
Just as long as we start wars that we can't win.

I guess we started this war? What alternative do you think would've been appropriate, letting the Taliban stay in power after harboring an international terrorist organization that killed 3,000 of our citizens?
 
Demonstrates both a perfect understanding of history and an unwillingness to jump to hysterics too early. :roll:
Carry water much?
 
I guess we started this war? What alternative do you think would've been appropriate, letting the Taliban stay in power after harboring an international terrorist organization that killed 3,000 of our citizens?

Bush's appropriate response to 9/11 should've been to send SOF after those responsible and kill them. No war, no troops deployed.
 
I guess we started this war? What alternative do you think would've been appropriate, letting the Taliban stay in power after harboring an international terrorist organization that killed 3,000 of our citizens?

Not that invading and taking over whole countries was ever the right answer, but Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been my first choice:

-Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, trained and financing by yet another Saudi native – Osama bin Laden.

-The Saudi National Guard bombing in November 1995, which killed five Americans. All four of the men convicted and executed for the bombing were Saudis.

-The Khobar Towers bombing in June 1996, which killed 19 Americans. Of the 14 men indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for that bombing, 13 were Saudi Arabian, including all five of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb on the day of the attack.

-The Nairobi embassy bombing in August 1998, which killed 12 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb were Saudis.

-The USS Cole bombing in October 2000, which killed 17 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the explosives-laden boat used in that attack were Saudis.

-The Riyadh residential compound bombings in May 2003, which killed nine Americans. All nine of the suicide bombers killed in the attacks were Saudis.

-The Mosul mess tent bombing in December 2004, which killed 18 Americans. The lone suicide bomber responsible was identified in numerous press reports as a foreign insurgent from Saudi Arabia.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, sending in the SOF against specific targets with orders to terminate are against US law.

Congress almost unanimously voted to go into Afghanistan. We did a good job, mostly with just Special Forces, and removed the Taliban from power and chased them back to their Pushton powerbase near the Pakistani border. Then we got distracted by our economy followed by Iraq which gave the Taliban time to reorganize, build a better alliance with the drug runners, and begin to push back.

This 'surge' will supply the military commanders with enough strength to continue their attacks on the Taliban. The problem is with the non-military decisions. We have no coherent policy on what to do with the country for the long run. It is not truly a nation, so nation building would require a cultural change for the region - something that takes generations to achieve. So we have to do something else. I have not heard mention of anything other than nation building and this worries me.
 
Congress almost unanimously voted to go into Afghanistan. We did a good job, mostly with just Special Forces, and removed the Taliban from power and chased them back to their Pushton powerbase near the Pakistani border. Then we got distracted by our economy followed by Iraq which gave the Taliban time to reorganize, build a better alliance with the drug runners, and begin to push back.

Got distracted? That idiot Bush started a war with Iraq and dropped the ball on going after those responsible for 9/11. It was a deliberate move on Bush's part. He was obsessed with Saddam.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, sending in the SOF against specific targets with orders to terminate are against US law.

I have no idea what the law is, but it's easily changed. Besides, since when has the law ever stopped a determined President from doing what he wants?
 
All true, but can you imagine the mess Bush would have been in if it had come out that he had broken the law?
 
Just as long as we start wars that we can't win.


the problem is that we want to fight a politicaly correct war, minimal casualties and destroy their infrastructure so we can build it back for them better than it was. The US militray is the most powerful human force in the world and cannot be stopped when on the offensive. The first time we went over there to save Kuwaits behind we should have continued to march through the middle east like Sherman marched through Atlanta and then we would gained enough respect that we would not be stuck in this quagmire. Another polically correct term coined from this conflict is the "war on terror", BS....terror is a tactic, not an enemy, the enemy is Islamic extremists but we are way to worried about offending someone to call it like it is. During WWII the Japanese flew suicide bombers onto American soil and our leaders answered back swifly and meant business. Now Islamic extremist fly suicide bombers onto American soil and our leaders play cat and mouse games for years and even bow to thier leaders
 
the problem is that we want to fight a politicaly correct war, minimal casualties and destroy their infrastructure so we can build it back for them better than it was. The US militray is the most powerful human force in the world and cannot be stopped when on the offensive. The first time we went over there to save Kuwaits behind we should have continued to march through the middle east like Sherman marched through Atlanta and then we would gained enough respect that we would not be stuck in this quagmire. Another polically correct term coined from this conflict is the "war on terror", BS....terror is a tactic, not an enemy, the enemy is Islamic extremists but we are way to worried about offending someone to call it like it is. During WWII the Japanese flew suicide bombers onto American soil and our leaders answered back swifly and meant business. Now Islamic extremist fly suicide bombers onto American soil and our leaders play cat and mouse games for years and even bow to thier leaders

We had no business saving Kuwait.
 
Obama is such a disappointment.

Actually, Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he campaigned on, sorry you weren't paying attention.
 
This will be his Vietnam. He can kiss any chance of having history look upon his presidency in a favorable light, goodbye.

meet the new boss ..same as the old boss

Yeah, losing wars makes the history books so much more kinder to one's legacy. :mrgreen:
 
Actually, Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he campaigned on, sorry you weren't paying attention.
Yeah, and he's still a disappointment.
 
Carry water much?

I'm not much of a fan of people who automatically declare a policy a failure before it's been enacted. Then what always gets me is declaring a Presidency a failure historically, long before historians would even be able to touch the records.
 
Not that invading and taking over whole countries was ever the right answer, but Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been my first choice:

From my understanding however, and I may be wrong here, there were a few key differences.

One, while many of the people may’ve been Saudi citizens or born Saudi, their current area of occupation was elsewhere

Two, the Saudi government post 9/11 was willing to assist and aid in attempting to stop terrorists and the funding of them. On the contrary the Taliban was directly funding and supporting Al-Qaeda and Saddam was directly supporting and funding other terrorists, with both groups refusing to work with America to deal with the issue.

Now, I still think Iraq at that point was the wrong move in the long run. But I definitely don’t think Saudi Arabia would’ve been the correct choice. How you can care more about where someone is born than whether or not a government is actually sponsoring/protecting and funding them as justification of which place is more important to deal with is a mystery to me.
 
I'm not much of a fan of people who automatically declare a policy a failure before it's been enacted. Then what always gets me is declaring a Presidency a failure historically, long before historians would even be able to touch the records.

Wanna borrow my crystal ball? :mrgreen:
 
I still think we'd be doing better in Afghanistan if we got a better handle on the poppy fields on the north side. They are well protected by bunkers and it's easy to get airdrops there with relative protection. There are only three entry points to defend and there are two bunkers which give you a good view of the area around the downed plane. Sure, the high ledge near the gas tanks might be a good spot, but it's too open to be a viable long-term solution, and as we know, airdrops are crucial to winning this.

The cavern is always going to be a source of fighting. Going in there is suicide, even with a stun grenade and/or flashbangs.
 
So tonight we hear how Obama is going to send more trips, but with an exit strategy and deadline firmly in place. That's my guess.

This will only force the locals to side with the Taliban, or face being beheaded the minute we leave. It also tells al-Quaeda to just hang out for a few months and we'll go away quietly.

Once again, Obama will try to play both sides. This one will cost more blood without any real commitment to stay as long as needed.

Remember when he called Afghanistan the "right war"? This is yours now, Obama. Your already ridiculous legacy will be greatly affected by this.

Gawd, I'd hate to be a soldier today with this clueless wannabe running the show.
 
Back
Top Bottom