• 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

yes, we threatened pakistan. we also have been paying them billions of dollars.
 
newsweek is part of the corporate media.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Certainly, its major objectives of denying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization a safehaven in Afghanistan and reversing the military gains achieved by the Taliban in its counteroffensive are urgent, important and well-focused.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but what do we do after that? Remember that a fair number of insurgents are fighting because they are being paid. Many are fighting because the government is corrupt and inefficient, that the Taliban can provide better services. Granted, the core true believer insurgency needs to be eliminated as it was in Iraq, but a sizable number of fighters are there for purely secular, economic reasons. Merely eliminating their safe haven without providing economic development and without cleaning up the government will inevitably cause more to join up and we're back in the same problem. In more then a few ways, there are Vietnam parallels. Some of that can be cleaned up with proper education is Pakistan, but I don't know of a single COIN operation that worked without near genocide that did not involve significant economic development. Which again leads me back to the question virtually no one (Thanks arch for giving me a suggestion!) is willing to answer: what can Afghanistan export to provide revenues for development and opportunities?

Bush never dealt with this in 7 years. I don't see Obama magically producing the answer in less than 1.
 
al qaeda did not need a base to attack ft. hood. the only base was hasan's mind.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Just as long as we start wars that we can't win.
Click to expand...

Oh, like the War in Iraq was justifiable? Please...

American didn't start this War on Terror(ism) in Afghanistan. Al Quaida, like the Japanesse at Pearl Harbor, brought this war to our doorstep from the barren foothills of Tora Bora. We, America, have a duty if not an obligation to defend ourselves against this global threat. And if that means going after Al Qaida militia men and their coherts in those mountains, hills and valleys in Afghanistan (or anywhere around the world they may hide for that matter), then that's what we MUST do.

They started this war. And I believe we now have the right strategy under clear objectives to finish it! And I'll call anyone - man or woman - a straight up COWARD if you speak out in any way, shape or form against continuing the fight to defend this nation against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC - and that includes Muslim extremist hiding abroad in caves - no matter how you try to deguise the rhetoric.
Joe1991 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hear you, Joe, and originally I felt the same way. It took seeing an American citizen defect from this nation and fight alongside "his Muslim extremist brothern" to make me realize that just because Muslim extremist, both pre- and post- 9/11, were all Saudi nationals doesn't mean that the Saudi nation was at fault. However, you do have to deal with the Saudi government and let it be known that they have to get their people in check. I don't give them a pass, mind you. I mean, you do have to wonder what BS their male citizenry are being feed that would cause some of their citizens to do an allied nation harm and you don't walk away blindly thinking the Saudi's are completely innocent, but I wouldn't have taken the fight to them even though I'm sure somewhere deep down there's some resentment of the West. You just have to make it known to the Saudi government that they must get their anit-American rhetoric - no matter how slight - in check and get their nut jobs on a tight leash. But no, I wouldn't have taken the fight to the Saudies (though I would have let it be known at the time that their American ally is royally pissed! And as an aside, it was good to learn that the Saudi's did step up to the plate and take prudent steps to right the wrongs their people committed.)

As to the President's proposals for handling this mess, he laid out his objectives exactly as I thought he would.

From the thread, posted well over a month ago:

Objective Voice said:
All the more reason to think this issue through before jumping to conclusions.

The mission was never to suplant the Afghan government. The mission was to defeat Al Quaida. But as we've all come to learn you can't defeat Al Quaida w/o mitigating Taliban intrusion. So, what do you do?

Do you change your mission and place your troops in a position to be a national police force?

OR

Do you tweak the mission of anti-terrorism/counter insurgency and mix in some police work with it?

OR

Does your mission now change from anti-terrorism/counter insurgency altogether and now take on the job of nation building?

These were the exact same questions the GW Bush Administration had to tackle, but Iraq had a far better infrustructer from which to work with. Not so in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the political side of things wasn't as difficult because Iraq did have a government body in place before the U.S./coalition forces intervened. That's not necessarily the case in Afghanistan since the Russian-Afghan war ended. Sure, the Taliban has been the government power base there, but it's hardly a truly functioning, recognized government.

So, where Afghanistan is concerned, the President does have some tough decisions to make because he's not just trying to solve a terrorist haven problem. He's also trying to improve things on a social/economic and political fronts as well w/Pakistan firmly a large part of the problem, as well as the solution. No easy feat by any means.
Click to expand...

He's on the right track. Congress just needs to give him the tools he needs to finish the job and then get out of the way.
 
Last edited:
No. It wasn't. Despite the inhuman things Saddem Hussein did to his people, his actions still amounted to genoside which in itself is a humanitarian issue and not necessarily a military issue. And even if military action were necessary, such a decree for the use of force would have to come from NATO, not America.

GW Bush got his justification for war w/Iraq based not on the humanitarianism issue, but rather on the threat of Iraq possessing, manufacturing and concealing WMDs that could be used by Muslim extremist who wished to do harm to this nation in a post- 9/11 environment. I submit that humanitarian aid is not necessarily justification for war atleast not by a single nation where such genocide is NOT being inflected upon the "invading" nation. Pilliging and wrongful occupation is one thing; to that, America coming to the defense of Kuwait was the right thing to do. But a pre-emptive strike against Iraq - a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and possed no threat to this nation...no, sir. That war was NOT justified. Not in the slightest.

Now, please, don't hijack this thread.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
No. It wasn't. Despite the inhuman things Saddem Hussein did to his people, his actions still amounted to genoside which in itself is a humanitarian issue and not necessarily a military issue. And even if military action were necessary, such a decree for the use of force would have to come from NATO, not America.

GW Bush got his justification for war w/Iraq based not on the humanitarianism issue, but rather on the threat of Iraq possessing, manufacturing and concealing WMDs that could be used by Muslim extremist who wished to do harm to this nation in a post- 9/11 environment. I submit that humanitarian aid is not necessarily justification for war atleast not by a single nation where such genocide is NOT being inflected upon the "invading" nation. Pilliging and wrongful occupation is one thing; to that, America coming to the defense of Kuwait was the right thing to do. But a pre-emptive strike against Iraq - a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and possed no threat to this nation...no, sir. That war was NOT justified. Not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Read the thread and comment there. No need to hijack this thread.
 
Last night was like an address from Obama to the Taliban and al-Quaeda.

"Hey, you guys just hunker down for a year or two, and I'll get these troops out of the way for ya! Deal?"

And to think this man knows our greatest national secrets and stratagies.
 
Ya, hunker down while we re-build the afghan army and have 30,000 more troops attacking them.
 
drz-400 said:
Ya, hunker down while we re-build the afghan army and have 30,000 more troops attacking them.
Click to expand...

Sure, the Afghan army is going to root out terrorism in Pakistan for us, too. You betcha.

Now that we've announced our pull-out schedule, the Afghans will hedge their bets with the Taliban so they don't get beheaded upon our leaving.
 
Erod said:
Last night was like an address from Obama to the Taliban and al-Quaeda.

"Hey, you guys just hunker down for a year or two, and I'll get these troops out of the way for ya! Deal?"

And to think this man knows our greatest national secrets and stratagies.
Click to expand...

The US Military would love fro the Taliban and A.Q. to pop back up in a "year or two". They may have a safe haven in Pakistan, but as soon as they cross those borders they'll be exploded.
Just because we pull out of Afghanistan does not cease operations in combating A.Q. and the Taliban.

The problem we are facing is that we are trying to Nation build in Afghanistan, as we dismiss the Afghani Government. We cannot stop corruption through military force.

Also, take note that the military surge is just one facet of the strategy. The most important step, and easily the hardest step, is trying to Westernize Afghanistan; building infrastructure, building schools, etc.

The Media's criticisms of the Obama address only reinforce that the American mainsteam media is absolutely inept to make any fundamental change in the way we approach the premise of the Afghanistan war.

N.A.T.O and Europe has spoken; they do not support this war. Sure, they send 5,000 troops, but the best estimates, to duplicate the success we had in Iraq, is to bring the troop total to 600,000.
 
Erod, drz-400,

Just what would you have him do? Pull out? Why when clearly extremist are STILL trying to inflect harm upon this country. You'd really be able to claim this was another Vietnam then. We left there before the mission was done as well.

The FBI/CIA recently arrested a domestic terrorist who allegedly received his instructions (third party) from Al Quaida/Taliban members abroad. We just had a rogue soldier attack his fellow servicemen and women at Ft. Hood, someone who likely also received his instructions from members associated with Al Quaida, and you want the President to order the troops out of Afghanistan? You want him to pull out of the "just" war, the same war former VP Cheney claimed the President was "dithering" over prior to finally making his decision to stay the course with a new strategy?

I have one word for the both of you: COWARDS!
 
Erod said:
Sure, the Afghan army is going to root out terrorism in Pakistan for us, too. You betcha.

Now that we've announced our pull-out schedule, the Afghans will hedge their bets with the Taliban so they don't get beheaded upon our leaving.
Click to expand...

So, that's the only reason you oppose the President's decision? Because he accounced a timeline for withdrawl? :doh
 
Let me get this straight...

Afghanistan is central to our security and if we fail there we’ll be in a world of hurt... but if we cannot win in 18 months, its too hard, so we’ll leave.

:shock:
 
Arch Enemy said:
The US Military would love fro the Taliban and A.Q. to pop back up in a "year or two". They may have a safe haven in Pakistan, but as soon as they cross those borders they'll be exploded.
Just because we pull out of Afghanistan does not cease operations in combating A.Q. and the Taliban.

The problem we are facing is that we are trying to Nation build in Afghanistan, as we dismiss the Afghani Government. We cannot stop corruption through military force.

Also, take note that the military surge is just one facet of the strategy. The most important step, and easily the hardest step, is trying to Westernize Afghanistan; building infrastructure, building schools, etc.

The Media's criticisms of the Obama address only reinforce that the American mainsteam media is absolutely inept to make any fundamental change in the way we approach the premise of the Afghanistan war.

N.A.T.O and Europe has spoken; they do not support this war. Sure, they send 5,000 troops, but the best estimates, to duplicate the success we had in Iraq, is to bring the troop total to 600,000.
Click to expand...

I think you've misread what the President said. There will be no nation building, not by U.S. military forces. Now, in the long run we may "partner" with Afghanistan politically to show them a better way to bring about economic and military stability in their nation, but what I gather from the President's speech last night was the U.S. has no intentions of being in Afghanistan indefinately.

I've said for years now to family, friends and neighbors that the best thing we could do in Afghanistan is to supply them with farming equipment so that they could become an agricultural nation in the Middle East. They've got some of the most fertile soil of all Middle Eastern nations, and there more open land there than pretty much anywhere else that's NOT desert. The problem is they've never been seen as an international exporter; regional maybe, but nothing on an international scale. It stands to reason to try and teach them a better way.

So, yes, President Obama appealled to the Afghan nation to start thinking and doing for themselves. Because in the short-term, American and coalition troops will leave the region and they'll once again be left to fiend for themselves. And unless they want history to repeat itself and their nation is once again left in a power vaccum where lawlessness is and remains the norm, they'd better wake up and get on the winning side.
 
Goobieman said:
Let me get this straight...

Afghanistan is central to our security and if we fail there we’ll be in a world of hurt... but if we cannot win in 18 months, its too hard, so we’ll leave.

:shock:
Click to expand...

I think the biggest question that needs to be revisted is whether or not Afghanistan is central to our security. I am giving the Government the benefit of the doubt on this one, and will believe it.

We mustn't forget the absurdity of this concept that I call "Harvesting National Security". We have our military personnel in Afghanistan in order, allegedly, to keep America safe. This promotes the idea that "Security" is something we can go and get. We must realize that A.Q. is highly capable of large scale destruction, but it is also a parasite; meaning it has to rely on the failures elsewhere for it's plans to be carried out.

Just a thought.
 
Objective Voice said:
Erod, drz-400,

Just what would you have him do? Pull out? Why when clearly extremist are STILL trying to inflect harm upon this country. You'd really be able to claim this was another Vietnam then. We left there before the mission was done as well.

The FBI/CIA recently arrested a domestic terrorist who allegedly received his instructions (third party) from Al Quaida/Taliban members abroad. We just had a rogue soldier attack his fellow servicemen and women at Ft. Hood, someone who likely also received his instructions from members associated with Al Quaida, and you want the President to order the troops out of Afghanistan? You want him to pull out of the "just" war, the same war former VP Cheney claimed the President was "dithering" over prior to finally making his decision to stay the course with a new strategy?

I have one word for the both of you: COWARDS!
Click to expand...

While I do disagree with the euphemism, the war on terror, I was simply pointing out that setting a date for the withdrawl of troops hardley shows weakness by the President.
While I do not agree with this war, I do happen to agree with the presidents plan to strengthen the afghan army and continue to improve realations within the afghan government, as I believe this will benefit our mission and allow for a faster and more pernament withdrawl of troops.
 
Objective Voice said:
Erod, drz-400,

Just what would you have him do? Pull out?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! Quite the opposite.

But don't tell them, "hey, we're going to send more troops and hang around for a few more months, and then re-evaluate."

NO, the message should be that we're sending more troops and we will stay at their side no matter how long it takes to win. That is the only thing that could bolster the Afghans resolve to defeat these people that I believe they genuinely want gone but are afraid to commit for fear of us leaving too soon.

Obama, as he always does, tried to placate both sides last night. "We're sending more troops before we leave." That is just not how you fight a war.
 
Objective Voice said:
I think you've misread what the President said. There will be no nation building, not by U.S. military forces. Now, in the long run we may "partner" with Afghanistan politically to show them a better way to bring about economic and military stability in their nation, but what I gather from the President's speech last night was the U.S. has no intentions of being in Afghanistan indefinately.
Click to expand...
He mentions a system of partnering our military forces with this ideal "Afghan National Army" (ANA) in order to increase security, and repel future Taliban attacks. He also mentions the civilian approach that is going to undermine the N.G.Os already set up in the region, and give the aid directly to the citizens (through local ministers, etc, the logistics are not yet solid); a completely different approach than Iraq.

I gathered, the only way to ensure that these resources reach the civilians will be through our military prescence, as we establish "bases" (of sorts) in the larger populated areas.

I don't think it will be up to the United States military to teach the teachers who will teach the future generation of Afghanistan (creating a national identity), but I do think we must rely on our soldiers in uniforms to make sure the Taliban isn't skimming off the top.

there have also been reports of the Kharzi government's willingness to extend a diplomatic, albeit temporary, peace with the Taliban and co-lead the new Afghanistan .

I've said for years now to family, friends and neighbors that the best thing we could do in Afghanistan is to supply them with farming equipment so that they could become an agricultural nation in the Middle East. They've got some of the most fertile soil of all Middle Eastern nations, and there more open land there than pretty much anywhere else that's NOT desert. The problem is they've never been seen as an international exporter; regional maybe, but nothing on an international scale. It stands to reason to try and teach them a better way.
Click to expand...
It's not Middle Eastern. The most fertile of the land is on the Iranian border, ruled largely by a Pashtun with historical ties to Mullah Omar; the ruler is currently playing the netural role.

I agree, with you and with Obama's premise, we cannot give American companies the contracts to do what the Afghan people should be doing. We need to give them realistic goals, so that they have something to work towards.
We do see a significant amount of Wheat and Cereal being produced in areas that once used to produce mainly poppy (namely the Northern regions), but the fact is that the population gets more money from growing poppy.
Italics: A better way by our standards. We are giving the population a choice, to lose their autonomy to the Taliban or to West/Kabul. This particular statement (italics) smells like some phrase used to justify colonialism-- We must teach the second class how to become first class, like us. (Just an interesting note)

So, yes, President Obama appealled to the Afghan nation to start thinking and doing for themselves. Because in the short-term, American and coalition troops will leave the region and they'll once again be left to fiend for themselves. And unless they want history to repeat itself and their nation is once again left in a power vaccum where lawlessness is and remains the norm, they'd better wake up and get on the winning side.
Click to expand...

I don't think they want their history to repeat. However what we are asking of them is to trust us, that we have their best interests at heart. And while that may be true, which is going to be difficult to explain to a population whose memories of outsiders are that they will try and destroy you.
 
Goobieman said:
Let me get this straight...

Afghanistan is central to our security and if we fail there we’ll be in a world of hurt... but if we cannot win in 18 months, its too hard, so we’ll leave.

:shock:
Click to expand...

American and coalition forces effectively have Taliban and Al Quaida forces "contained" to the south-east region of the country leading to the mountains that boarder Pakistan while Pakistan forces have the Taliban/Al Quaida forces "contained" along the south-west boarder region in their country. All that's needed are troop strength large enough to make their push (possibly from the north) and box them in to deliver that crushing blow.

I think 18 months is a good timeline, but I doubt if it's really set in stone. If a strong resistence force remains in that region or if somehow strong Taliban and Al Quaida forces resistence forces emerge outside the "battle zone", I'm sure American and coalition forces will remain. BUT giving a timeline (which I would have done privately to the State Department, DoD and to Congress and not made public) tells our military, the American people and the Afghan people we have no intentions of staying there indefinately. Moreover, it singles to our military leaders that if they want the troops to come home they'll need to step up their game once reinforcements arrive. But it in no way implies that if the battle isn't won by the summer of 2011 that American forces will just pack up and go home.

The argument that the Taliban will just wait it out for 18 months...I don't think so.
 
Goobieman said:
Let me get this straight...

Afghanistan is central to our security and if we fail there we’ll be in a world of hurt... but if we cannot win in 18 months, its too hard, so we’ll leave.

:shock:
Click to expand...

Bingo.

And what's funny is how "Mr. Polls and his Flying Circus" totally misread what the reaction would be.

The far left is pissed. The far right is pissed. The middle is confused...and pissed. The troops are scratching their heads. The MSM is completely dumbfounded in how to spin this.

This is what happens when you give your 8-year-old the keys to the car.
 
Erod said:
Bingo.

And what's funny is how "Mr. Polls and his Flying Circus" totally misread what the reaction would be.

The far left is pissed. The far right is pissed. The middle is confused...and pissed. The troops are scratching their heads. The MSM is completely dumbfounded in how to spin this.

This is what happens when you give your 8-year-old the keys to the car.
Click to expand...

Overraction indeed.

He gave two addresses in one. One to the Americans and one to Afghanistan. He made some really smart decisions in the address, but people were ready to bitch over every little detail-- I sure as hell was ready. :)
 
Objective Voice said:
I think 18 months is a good timeline, but I doubt if it's really set in stone.
Click to expand...

Why put a timeline on it? Two months or 102 months, who cares? Just commit to it and get it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom