• 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

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.
One worth considering.
 
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. :)

The nut of the whole thing is Pakistan. I thought he failed to address that. Afghanistan is basically spillover land for the ne'er-do-wells of Pakistan.

I was ready to give him somewhat of a pass having sent the troops. What I didn't want was a timeline, or a bashing of Bush or the U.S. in general.

I hated the "we're not as innocent as we once were" remark about America.
 
The nut of the whole thing is Pakistan. I thought he failed to address that. Afghanistan is basically spillover land for the ne'er-do-wells of Pakistan.

Agreed.
I was ready to give him somewhat of a pass having sent the troops. What I didn't want was a timeline, or a bashing of Bush or the U.S. in general.
Well, it's very much in his interest to keep Bush in everyone's mind so it doesn't make it seem like any mishaps in the "War on Extremism" (which is actually Rumsfeld's term) is entirely his fault.

I hated the "we're not as innocent as we once were" remark about America.
That's unfortunate, but nobody thinks America is innocent. I mean, we've been around the block once or twice.
 
That's unfortunate, but nobody thinks America is innocent. I mean, we've been around the block once or twice.

But what president of any country EVER says such things. All this bowing and apologizing is not only unnecessary, it's dangerous in my opinion.
 
But what president of any country EVER says such things. All this bowing and apologizing is not only unnecessary, it's dangerous in my opinion.

Nah. Everybody agrees that the US President is full of ****.

It's never the public figure-head that makes the call, it's the nerds behind the scenes. That is why you find so many conspriacy theorists not of the American elk.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
The 'tell them how long we'll be there anr thery will sit back and wait" criticism is completely valid. No reason for them to do anything different.

And, noted before, the REAL problem here is the sentiment that Afghanistan is critical 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.

Either the objective is critical or it isn't. If it is, you stay until you achieve it or you are -forced- to leave.
 
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.

1. Some Americans want to win, some want out. He needs to choose, and there's no way he can put a timeline on it. Does he really think this thing will be all wrapped up in 12 months?

2. I don't think the rest of the world cares how long we're in this wasteland of a country, and I think they're relieved that we have the gonads to fight when they obviously don't.

3. Even Christiane Amonpour (sp?) said the Afghans love that we're there. They're more afraid of us leaving than staying.

Rest assured, I don't think this is easy no matter who the president is, but you don't speak politically about war, period. Love him or hate him, Bush never did. He spoke on behalf of the military's purpose, not the politicians who threw barbs.
 
Unfortunately, this timeline is the Afghanistan version of declaring victory and getting out.

I was also disappointed about the lack of discussion around Pakistan, cooperation, and the safe havens.

All in all, not a commitment to COIN long-term.

We just lost Afghanistan.
 
I don't think so. But hell, we gave GW Bush 7 freakin' years! Can we atleast give President Obama 18 months before calling the battle a total and complete defeat?
 
Unfortunately, this timeline is the Afghanistan version of declaring victory and getting out.

I was also disappointed about the lack of discussion around Pakistan, cooperation, and the safe havens.

All in all, not a commitment to COIN long-term.

We just lost Afghanistan.

I don't think so. But hell, we gave GW Bush 7 freakin' years! Can we atleast give President Obama 18 months before calling the battle a total and complete defeat?

We must ignore the partisan politics surrounding this controversy. Turn off CNN and Fox News. The Office of President of the United States has assured the population it's capability of acting juxtaposed to the will of the citizens. Whenever we are dealing with the President we must not place his actions on some line of partisanship, but deal with his actions and nothing more than his actions.

With that said, the rhetoric involved with the time-table and the surge is to entice both sides of the argument. We should probably wait and watch how these units are to be deployed.

The Office since 9/11 has been steadfast on the reasoning for the war in Afghanistan, and has not wavered on the justification-- This is different, and there are elements of the conflict that we may not be totally aware of.
 
Well, if your military does their job right, there shouldn't be a remnant of Al Quaida or radical Taliban remaining.

Sure, just go shoot all the people in Al Quaida and radical Taliban uniforms and be done.
 
Deja vu, all over again!

Well, supporting the President when he's trying to protect our country from psychotic mass-murderers seems like the sensible option to me.
 
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.

The time-table is contingent upon the situation on the ground.
 
Moderator's Warning:
PM's deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think so. But hell, we gave GW Bush 7 freakin' years! Can we atleast give President Obama 18 months before calling the battle a total and complete defeat?

Just a few things from his speech...
  • That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. [ed. COIN strategy]
  • Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaida has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.
  • And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. [ed. yeah, seize the initiative to turn around and drop it]
  • So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaida can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaida, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
  • To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaida a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
  • We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
  • Second, we will work with our partners, the U.N., and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
  • Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
  • We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
  • We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.
  • These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
  • There are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.
  • The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What a strange mixture. It is a critical national security interest, but we are leaving in 18 months. We will secure the population, transition to afghan security forces and leave in 18 months. We will bribe the Pakistanis to eliminate safe havens, and hopefully it is done in 18 months, cause we are leaving. I know that setting a timetable was done for Iraq, but that was done after the surge. We aren't as far along in AFG. This is worse than just getting out. We should either stay for 10 years or get out.
 
This policy makes no sense to me from Obama's standpoint.
If your general asks for 40,000 and you are willing to send 35,000 (or 30,000) why not just go ahead and send the 40,000?
At 30-35 if the offensive fails, he gets blamed because he didn't send the troops that were requested.

He may have had problems getting enough troops. Soldiers are a finite resource. There are only so many.
 
He may have had problems getting enough troops. Soldiers are a finite resource. There are only so many.

True but one would think a general would have some idea how many troops are available so I don't think this is the case.
 

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?
 
Winning is such a dirty thing these days.


j-mac
 
i don't think we are going to win in afghanistan. but general mccrystal says we should reach out to the muslims. i agree with that.
 
we "won" in iraq by paying the insurgents.
 
Back
Top Bottom