• 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!

Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,354
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success - Yahoo! News

Associated Press- 1 hr 16 mins ago

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that more Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the 8-year-old war and more U.S. trainers and equipment can help meet that goal. But it's unclear, Levin said, what role tens of thousands additional combat troops will play and Obama has to make a compelling case during a national address he's scheduled to give Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," said Levin, D-Mich. "We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war."


Obama is going to have a hard time selling his plan to even his own party, which is not good news for him. Levin does raise a fair point though, as Afghanistan at some point does need to do the majority of the heavy lifting there.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has introduced legislation to impose a war surtax beginning in 2011. The bill would exempt service members and their families.

"If this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it's important enough to pay for," Obey said.

I am split on this, but overall agree that it is probably a good idea. If we want to go to war, we should pay for it. A good argument could be made that it is a bad time to add taxes(it is), but once you start allowing for that excuse, then we are never going to pay for anything, and end up with a deficit exactly like we have now.

With Obama's Afghanistan speech coming as the Senate takes up the debate over the health care overhaul, Lugar recommended that Congress postpone the health care effort until next year so lawmakers can concentrate on how to finance the war.

"The war is terribly important," Lugar said. "I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year ... and talk now about the essentials: the war and money."

Where was he the last 7 years when this "terribly important" was was on the back burner?
 
We need to help build a better infrastructure over there, on top of getting Afghan's to shoulder a greater load for their own prosperity and freedom. Afghanistan is not like Iraq. It is much more tribal and less developed making it harder for there to be centralized control.
 
"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," said Levin, D-Mich. "We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war."

I hope this isn't PBO's grand stategy.
 
I hope this isn't PBO's grand stategy.
I hope the Afghans have 30K extra troops for that surge. :lol: Oh I get it, the Americans will be disguised in Afghan uniforms. Shhhhhhhh....mums the word.
 
The President will have a tough sell on anything he decides to do in Afghanistan from all sides. I agree with Sen. Levin that US troops are not the long term solution to the problem, that the Afghan people themselves will have to manage this situation. Contrary to popular worldwide beliefs we are not there as conquerors or empire building, Afghanistan really has nothing that is in our national interests other than an inability or refusal to police its own population.

The Taliban refused to police them so we used that as an excuse to take them out of power. Whether this was a good/moral/greedy/stupid/etc decision in the first place is not applicable to this discussion. The facts are that the Taliban refused to aid in punishing al Queda so we did it for them.

The current government is unable to punish the Taliban or al Queda. The Afghan culture does not really have a national identity. This makes dealing with the nation a real problem. Our only hope is to damage the Taliban/al Queda infrastructure sufficiently that their power is broken in the region. We did that seven years ago, but then got distracted with Iraq (again a totally different discussion) and 'coasted' in Afghanistan. The techniques that were developed in Iraq have helped improve the situation in Afghanistan, but more troops are wanted by the commanders so that more comprehensive sweeps can be made and a wider area covered. Local troops are not going to be able to do that, they are neither trained, equipped, or led well enough for that.
 
I hope the Afghans have 30K extra troops for that surge. :lol: Oh I get it, the Americans will be disguised in Afghan uniforms. Shhhhhhhh....mums the word.

As usual, you should read the source material.

. He wants an overall Afghan security force of 400,000 — 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police officers — by October 2013.

Further, Europe has promised 5k additional troops. Not much, but still over 10 % of the additional troops we are sending.
 
We need to help build a better infrastructure over there, on top of getting Afghan's to shoulder a greater load for their own prosperity and freedom. Afghanistan is not like Iraq. It is much more tribal and less developed making it harder for there to be centralized control.

We may face strong difficulty if we push the Democracy issue. There is no majority in Afghanistan, and tribes are only willing to tolerate the United States because it's much less of an evil than the Taliban.

"Infrastructure" is a good term whenever you are on the positive side. Others might just call it "warlordism". Kabul and the United States rolls into your village, builds a few buildings and roads, and then levies a tax to support the "Afghanistan Government".

Unless there is a strong revisit of how to get the Kabul Government legitimate (possibly declaring most of the country in resemblance to the British Mandated "F.A.T.A") and playing a Pakistani/ISI role in respect to the early stages of the FATA and Paki relationship (funneling money, aid, some kick-backs for the Kabul Government, but largely keeping the region autonomous), then we can expect "sectarian" trouble like we've never seen.
 
The President will have a tough sell on anything he decides to do in Afghanistan from all sides. I agree with Sen. Levin that US troops are not the long term solution to the problem, that the Afghan people themselves will have to manage this situation. Contrary to popular worldwide beliefs we are not there as conquerors or empire building, Afghanistan really has nothing that is in our national interests other than an inability or refusal to police its own population.

The Taliban refused to police them so we used that as an excuse to take them out of power. Whether this was a good/moral/greedy/stupid/etc decision in the first place is not applicable to this discussion. The facts are that the Taliban refused to aid in punishing al Queda so we did it for them.

The current government is unable to punish the Taliban or al Queda. The Afghan culture does not really have a national identity. This makes dealing with the nation a real problem. Our only hope is to damage the Taliban/al Queda infrastructure sufficiently that their power is broken in the region. We did that seven years ago, but then got distracted with Iraq (again a totally different discussion) and 'coasted' in Afghanistan. The techniques that were developed in Iraq have helped improve the situation in Afghanistan, but more troops are wanted by the commanders so that more comprehensive sweeps can be made and a wider area covered. Local troops are not going to be able to do that, they are neither trained, equipped, or led well enough for that.

Why is that the problem of 100,000 American kids whose lives are about to be put in danger by Obama? I am not sure why you are saying we " got distracted. We are told that there are less than 100 Al- Queda in Afgan and we have 60K troops, why do we need any trrops. There are probably more terrorists in France, should we invade there next.
 
IMO, placing emphasis on working with the tribal leaders rather than the inept, corrupt, and among many Afghans, illegitimate, government in Kabul will be key. Reliance on Kabul will likely lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. A more robust counterinsurgency strategy will probably fare little better. Unfortunately, from scraps of information that have been made public, it appears that the new strategy will remain Kabul-centric.

Afghanistan is not a "nation" in the true sense of the word. It is comprised of largely autonomous areas, each with its own leaders, traditions, cultures, and needs. A functional military strategy has to be built on the structure that exists in Afghanistan, not one that might be preferable but is not present. A Kabul-centric strategy will likely leave things pretty much as they currently stand, with swaths of territory held by the Taliban and Taliban attacks continuing.

In such circumstances, one can expect numerous excuses from those who engaged in the military planning. The reality will be, as it is now, poor military planning that did not take into consideration the historic experience in Afghanistan (British and Soviet) nor the structure of Afghan society did much to shape the outcome. By then, American strategic interests will have been further damaged.
 
IMO, placing emphasis on working with the tribal leaders rather than the inept, corrupt, and among many Afghans, illegitimate, government in Kabul will be key. Reliance on Kabul will likely lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. A more robust counterinsurgency strategy will probably fare little better. Unfortunately, from scraps of information that have been made public, it appears that the new strategy will remain Kabul-centric.

Afghanistan is not a "nation" in the true sense of the word. It is comprised of largely autonomous areas, each with its own leaders, traditions, cultures, and needs. A functional military strategy has to be built on the structure that exists in Afghanistan, not one that might be preferable but is not present. A Kabul-centric strategy will likely leave things pretty much as they currently stand, with swaths of territory held by the Taliban and Taliban attacks continuing.

In such circumstances, one can expect numerous excuses from those who engaged in the military planning. The reality will be, as it is now, poor military planning that did not take into consideration the historic experience in Afghanistan (British and Soviet) nor the structure of Afghan society did much to shape the outcome. By then, American strategic interests will have been further damaged.

Prehaps a restructuring of "states" or provinces with an emphasis on key infrastructure improvements within each province would be the key. If these people truly value the autonomy of their regions, then working with them to make improvments within their provinces would give them something they might feel is worth defending, rather than some vauge nationalistic programs they likely won't respect.
 
I agree with you, WI Crippler.

IMO, helping each region in terms of infrastructure improvement, education, economic development, and formation of credible local security forces would probably promote an improved outcome.
 
There is no single "key" to success in Afghanistan, and saying US forces are not a key to success in Afghanistan is ignorant. How can we shape the Afghan forces without a strong military presence!? Teleconferencing, perhaps?

I'm also saddened by the far left's recent bout of defeatism; it seems they're intent on undermining any efforts on the part of the President to pursue victory in Afghanistan. The only way this will turn into another Vietnam is if the media and politicians pursuade Americans we can't win again, or that fighting AQ is the same as fighting the Vietcong.

If Obama wants to commit to Afghanistan and send more troops, I will fully support him. Even though he's taking forever to make up his mind, I'll still support him if he commits to Afghanistan. The Republicans should do the same...
 
Last edited:
There is no single "key" to success in Afghanistan, and saying US forces are not a key to success in Afghanistan is ignorant. How can we shape the Afghan forces without a strong military presence!? Teleconferencing, perhaps?

I'm also saddened by the far left's recent bout of defeatism; it seems they're intent on undermining any efforts on the part of the President to pursue victory in Afghanistan. The only way this will turn into another Vietnam is if the media and politicians pursuade Americans we can't win again, or that fighting AQ is the same as fighting the Vietcong.

If Obama wants to commit to Afghanistan and send more troops, I will fully support him. Even though he's taking forever to make up his mind, I'll still support him if he commits to Afghanistan. The Republicans should do the same...

I don't support Obama in this and his efforts should be undermined. We have no business being there. He should shut it down and bring our troops home.
 
IMO, placing emphasis on working with the tribal leaders rather than the inept, corrupt, and among many Afghans, illegitimate, government in Kabul will be key. Reliance on Kabul will likely lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. A more robust counterinsurgency strategy will probably fare little better. Unfortunately, from scraps of information that have been made public, it appears that the new strategy will remain Kabul-centric.

Afghanistan is not a "nation" in the true sense of the word. It is comprised of largely autonomous areas, each with its own leaders, traditions, cultures, and needs. A functional military strategy has to be built on the structure that exists in Afghanistan, not one that might be preferable but is not present. A Kabul-centric strategy will likely leave things pretty much as they currently stand, with swaths of territory held by the Taliban and Taliban attacks continuing.

In such circumstances, one can expect numerous excuses from those who engaged in the military planning. The reality will be, as it is now, poor military planning that did not take into consideration the historic experience in Afghanistan (British and Soviet) nor the structure of Afghan society did much to shape the outcome. By then, American strategic interests will have been further damaged.

Perhaps they should resort to a partition solution, similiar to the one Biden proposed in regards to Iraq.
 
Perhaps they should resort to a partition solution, similiar to the one Biden proposed in regards to Iraq.

Just what we needed ..another stupid, longterm occupation.
 
I don't support Obama in this and his efforts should be undermined.

If Obama commits to the war, supporting him and the military helps troops win, and stay alive.

We have no business being there.

9/11.

He should shut it down and bring our troops home.

And this solves our problems, how? You think AQ is just going to forget about desotrying our country?

Osama Bin Laden would slice your mother's head off for the chance to nuke an American city...:)
 
If Obama commits to the war, supporting him and the military helps troops win, and stay alive.

I won't support a war I don't believe in.

There's no way we'll ever win this war, unless we commit tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite occupation.

Our best option at this point is to cut our losses and go home.
 
Yes. One must occupy land in order to defeat their enemies. Basic principle of warfare, I'm afraid.

How long are you prepared to stay? ..10 years? ..20years? ..50 years?
 
I won't support a war I don't believe in.

There's no way we'll ever win this war, unless we commit tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite occupation.

We can draw down the number of troops over the years.

Bottom line, we should keep as many troops in Afghanistan as are necessary for as long as is necessary to achieve victory. There is no time limit on wars.

Our best option at this point is to cut our losses and go home.

Once again, how does this solve our problems? AQ will still try to destroy America. We have to be proactive, not reactive in our approach to America's enemies.
 
Once again, how does this solve our problems? AQ will still try to destroy America. We have to be proactive, not reactive in our approach to America's enemies.

What problem would that be?

Being proactive is how we got in this mess. You can only piss off other people and nations so long, before radical elements decide to strike back.

Our interventionism is the problem. Changing our foreign policy to one of non-interventionism would go a long way to reduce the threats against us and to ease tensions in the world.

It's the libertarian thing to do ;)
 
What problem would that be?

t1main.1057.twin.towers.gi.jpg


Being proactive is how we got in this mess. You can only piss off other people and nations so long, before radical elements decide to strike back.

What's done is done. AQ is playing for keeps and they will not be bargained with. It's a war.

Our interventionism is the problem. Changing our foreign policy to one of non-interventionism would go a long way to reduce the threats against us and to ease tensions in the world.

It's the libertarian thing to do ;)

Our foreign policy should be situational and flexible.
 
Last edited:

We lost our opportunity to get all of those responsible when Bush diverted our efforts to start a war in Iraq.

At this point in time, we cut our losses, go home, and quit interfering in the ME.
 
Back
Top Bottom