Obama sends in 30000 troops to Afghanistan

[Tiapan]

What do you think about the troop surge into Afghanistan?

To me personally I think it is absolutely STUPID. I think the problems are:

1) Cost. We are in a recession and this will only make things worse and we will be further in debt.

2) Lives. We will suffer only more causalities as the war escalates.

3) Pointless in the long run. Although it may help stabilize the region for a bit, it won't be permanent. Afghanistan has been going in a downward spiral politically for quite some time. Eventually the nation will go into turmoil. All things are impermanent as the Buddha said.

So what do you think?

1) Cost.
Apart from the cost of admitting defeat on something as cheap as financial grounds what of the moral lose?
Do you suggest that the dictatorships and corrupt theocracies should displace normal democratic process? What is the cost of the 6000 lost in Iraq or Afghanistan? I was an anti war demonstrator during the Vietnam crisis. I had to age a little longer before I understood the horror and importance of war in human sociology. Unfortunately it is inevitable unless we allow ourselves to become neutered. It is normal evolution and it will continue for thousands if not millions of years yet.

BTW, Here in Australia we are note particularly affected by the global economic down turn which was the direct result of the stupidity of Americans alone.

2) Lives
In inevitable conflicts where cultures clash the death of humans is an expenditure which while sad has no real consequence. Humans are adept after years of practice. Again normal species evolution.

3) Pointless
Pointless as in bashing your head against the wall when after building a school or hospital some moron blows it up, yes. But we must keep trying, they are humans too their brains may take a century or two to catch up but they are human.


Cheers

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was for invading Afghanistan at first, but by now, we will probably never find Bin Laden. It's nice to see our new president trying to go after the original problem, but it's likely to be futile.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I was for invading Afghanistan at first, but by now, we will probably never find Bin Laden. It's nice to see our new president trying to go after the original problem, but it's likely to be futile.

Maybe an understatement you have there. It's almost is like playing hide-n-go seek, but counting to 15 quadrillion, before you start looking.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's assume the goal is to establish peace and security in Afghanistan.

Who, I repeat, WHO is in a position to judge whether more troops will help or hurt the situation, and who has the RIGHT to make the decision?

Afghans.

Not Obama, not me, not you. Afghans.

I don't have a lot of information on this subject but the few polls and interviews with regular Afghans that I have seen indicate most Afghans believe the foreign occupation is the PROBLEM.

They could be right, they could be wrong but they are in the best position to judge, and they are the only ones with the RIGHT to make this decision. You can't go against peoples' wishes and say, "Trust me, I'm helping you." It is both morally wrong and an enormous waste of our resources.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Let's assume the goal is to establish peace and security in Afghanistan.

Who, I repeat, WHO is in a position to judge whether more troops will help or hurt the situation, and who has the RIGHT to make the decision?

Afghans.

Not Obama, not me, not you. Afghans.

I don't have a lot of information on this subject but the few polls and interviews with regular Afghans that I have seen indicate most Afghans believe the foreign occupation is the PROBLEM.

They could be right, they could be wrong but they are in the best position to judge, and they are the only ones with the RIGHT to make this decision. You can't go against peoples' wishes and say, "Trust me, I'm helping you." It is both morally wrong and an enormous waste of our resources.

Oh come now, where is the war-profiteering spirit in an attitude like that? pllllease...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually this BBC 2009 opinion poll of Afghans seems to indicate the people of Afghanistan continue to hate the Taliban and favor the presence of U.S. forces, presumably until they have their own coherent forces: BBC - Press Office - Afghanistan: national opinion poll

Hostility to the Taleban remains very strong throughout the country, with only 4% wanting them back, 58% saying the Taleban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% saying they are opposed to the Taleban and 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas.
...
Sixty-nine per cent of people still support the overthrow of the Taleban by foreign forces in 2001. But only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
...
Afghans are just about keeping faith with their government, perhaps because they can see no obvious alternative. Fifty-nine per cent think the government is making some or a lot of progress in providing a better life, 38% say little or no progress (no comparison). Forty-eight per cent think the government is doing a good or excellent job, down from 59% last year and 80% in 2005. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's equivalent figures are 52%, as against 63% last time and 83% in 2005. Sixty-three per cent support the presence of US forces – down from 71% in 2007 and 78% in 2006 [bold added]. Support for other foreign forces, including Britain, stands at 59%, down from 67% last year and 78% in 2006. There's an increase in the number of people who think foreign forces should start pulling out straight away – 21%, up from 14% last year (when the question addressed only US forces).
​

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Actually this BBC 2009 opinion poll of Afghans seems to indicate the people of Afghanistan continue to hate the Taliban and favor the presence of U.S. forces, presumably until they have their own coherent forces: BBC - Press Office - Afghanistan: national opinion poll

Hostility to the Taleban remains very strong throughout the country, with only 4% wanting them back, 58% saying the Taleban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% saying they are opposed to the Taleban and 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas.
...
Sixty-nine per cent of people still support the overthrow of the Taleban by foreign forces in 2001. But only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
...
Afghans are just about keeping faith with their government, perhaps because they can see no obvious alternative. Fifty-nine per cent think the government is making some or a lot of progress in providing a better life, 38% say little or no progress (no comparison). Forty-eight per cent think the government is doing a good or excellent job, down from 59% last year and 80% in 2005. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's equivalent figures are 52%, as against 63% last time and 83% in 2005. Sixty-three per cent support the presence of US forces – down from 71% in 2007 and 78% in 2006 [bold added]. Support for other foreign forces, including Britain, stands at 59%, down from 67% last year and 78% in 2006. There's an increase in the number of people who think foreign forces should start pulling out straight away – 21%, up from 14% last year (when the question addressed only US forces).
​

Well when your only choice is the devil or his servant, I guess you go with the devil ey?

 

[Smoke]

He put an 18 month withdrawal time. It's, like, in the article.

Nope. He said in 18 months we can begin to draw down our troops. We are now approximately where we were in 1965 with Vietnam.

 

[kai]

Nope. He said in 18 months we can begin to draw down our troops. We are now approximately where we were in 1965 with Vietnam.

the parallel eludes me?

BBC - h2g2 - War and Protest - the US in Vietnam (1965 - 1967) - A715024

 

[Smoke]

the parallel eludes me?

Johnson thought we had to increase our involvement to prop up the South Vietnamese government. All we had to do was go in and kick some Vietcong butt.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Johnson thought we had to increase our involvement to prop up the South Vietnamese government. All we had to do was go in and kick some Vietcong butt.

That's true but the Vietcong was a popular movement with the support of the people, in contrast to the Taliban (see the BBC poll I cited).

 

[kai]

Johnson thought we had to increase our involvement to prop up the South Vietnamese government. All we had to do was go in and kick some Vietcong butt.

and thats it! a troop increase is the factor in you deciding this is "another Vietnam" in some way.

Did you have the same opinion on Desert storm? the surge in Iraq ? every time US troops are deployed do you cry VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!

 

[kai]

Let's assume the goal is to establish peace and security in Afghanistan.

Who, I repeat, WHO is in a position to judge whether more troops will help or hurt the situation, and who has the RIGHT to make the decision?

Afghans.

Not Obama, not me, not you. Afghans.

I don't have a lot of information on this subject but the few polls and interviews with regular Afghans that I have seen indicate most Afghans believe the foreign occupation is the PROBLEM.

They could be right, they could be wrong but they are in the best position to judge, and they are the only ones with the RIGHT to make this decision. You can't go against peoples' wishes and say, "Trust me, I'm helping you." It is both morally wrong and an enormous waste of our resources.

Afghans believe foreign troops are the problem because they view them to be temporary and the Taliban are not. They don't believe that the Taliban can be defeated mainly because we have never had enough troops to consolidate ground gained from the Taliban.or secure the borders with Pakistan.

 

[Smoke]

That's true but the Vietcong was a popular movement with the support of the people, in contrast to the Taliban (see the BBC poll I cited).

I'm a little suspicious of the poll, since I couldn't find any explanation of how it was taken or the margin of error. In a country with few telephones, how do pollsters gather data? Do these data reflect primarily the opinions of a select group of well-off people and/or people living in areas secured by the NATO/US troops?

If we take the poll at face value, though, we see Afghans were already getting weary of foreign troops nearly a year ago when the poll was taken. I'm in favor of crushing the Taliban. My concern is how to do it, and I admit I don't know. What I do know is that the Afghans are a mountain people with a proclivity to violence, and even if they don't want the Taliban it doesn't mean they do want a permanent occupation by Western troops. There is still a substantial proportion of the population that strongly identifies with traditional Islamic an tribal values. There are still clan leaders and warlords who would like to overthrow Karzai regardless of whether they want the Taliban back. The Karzai government is by all accounts riddled with corruption. There is enormous potential for protracted fighting. And despite all this talk of withdrawing in 18 months, it seems that a permanent occupation is what we were planning under Bush and are still planning. Obama has not said we will withdraw in 18 months; he has said we will begin to draw down our troop level in 18 months, and that's not the same thing at all.

Obama's plan could work, but it's risky, and it comes at a time when public opinion in the U.S. and abroad is already turning against the war.

and thats it! a troop increase is the factor in you deciding this is "another Vietnam" in some way.

I didn't say it was "another Vietnam." I'm pointing out that we are in a situation similar to the one we were in 35 years ago. We are increasing our involvement in a land war in Asia for the purposes of (a) propping up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government and (b) eliminating an enemy which is both determined and elusive. Eight years into this war, we're not much closer to eliminating the Taliban than we were at the start.

I'd like to see the Taliban eliminated, but I'm not overly optimistic. A bombing campaign would undoubtedly make the Western powers more and more unpopular. A permanent presence there of our troops is unlikely to be popular in the long run. Sending in death squads to brutally eliminate the opposition as we did unsuccessfully in Vietnam and Nicaragua could easily backfire, too. I'm not sure what the best plan is, and maybe Obama's plan is the best plan. I'm just not convinced. We don't really know exactly what they're planning.

Did you have the same opinion on Desert storm? the surge in Iraq ? every time US troops are deployed do you cry VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!

Why yes, Kai. Yes, I do. In fact, every time I see uniformed personnel, whether it's a Veterans Day parade or a Boy Scout jamboree, I foam at the mouth and scream Oh, my God, it's Vietnam all over again!!!! It's not easy to articulate the multiple exclamation points, but I can manage it, because I'm just that damned hysterical. Thanks for asking.

 

[Magic Man]

We are increasing our involvement in a land war in Asia

That's one of the classic blunders. Next thing you know, we'll be going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now, did I imply the bags were for the US troops only? Either way it is sick what we are doing...

Yes....

I mean you did Say " Might as well title it Obama sends 30,000 body bags to Afganastan..."

Nowhere in your statement did you say "UN sends...." or "Allied forces sends...."

So we can only conclude you meant US troops since Obama can't send troops into battle that are not part of the US Armed Forces.....:sarcastic

 

[Shamuwn]

What do you think about the troop surge into Afghanistan?

To me personally I think it is absolutely STUPID. I think the problems are:

1) Cost. We are in a recession and this will only make things worse and we will be further in debt.

2) Lives. We will suffer only more causalities as the war escalates.

3) Pointless in the long run. Although it may help stabilize the region for a bit, it won't be permanent. Afghanistan has been going in a downward spiral politically for quite some time. Eventually the nation will go into turmoil. All things are impermanent as the Buddha said.

So what do you think?

First Whatever Obama Does The Republican / Others Are Going To Say It Wrong . But Bottom Line Here Everyone Who Try Lost , That Should Tell Them Something . It's Not Win-Able . Anyway Babylon Falling Falling Falling

 

[tumbleweed41]

Nope. He said in 18 months we can begin to draw down our troops. We are now approximately where we were in 1965 with Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson, Oct. 1964

We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.


In early 1964, the US had 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam who were advisers to the South Vietnamese military. On July 27, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson ordered 5,000 additional military advisers to South Vietnam, bringing the total US troop level to 21,000.
In March 1965, 3,500 US Marines "surged" to be the first US combat troops in South Vietnam, adding to the 25,000 US military advisers already there. In May 1965, the 173d Airborne Brigade "surged" to become the first US Army ground unit committed to the conflict in South Vietnam.
Seven months later, by November 1965, US military forces had "surged" to over 120,000. On November 27, Pentagon officials recommended that to defeat North Vietnamese troops and National Liberation Forces (NLF), US troop levels in South Vietnam would have to "surge" from 120,000 to 400,000.
In a series of meetings between General Westmoreland and President Johnson held in Honolulu, Hawaii, in February 1966, the general argued that the US presence had succeeded in preventing the immediate fall of the South Vietnamese government, but that another troop "surge" would be necessary to conduct offensive operations to defeat North Vietnamese and NLF military forces.
As a result of the Honolulu conference, President Johnson authorized a "surge" in troop strength to 429,000 by August 1966. So, in less than two years, the presidential "surge" in Vietnam had reached over 400,000 troops - from 21,000 in July 1964 to 429,000 in August 1966.
Late in 1967, Westmoreland said that it was conceivable that in two years or less, US forces could be phased out of the war, turning over more and more of the fighting to the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN).
Richard Nixon had campaigned for president in 1968 on a "secret plan to end the Vietnam War." But Nixon had no such plan, and the American involvement in Vietnam continued for another five years. The goal of the American military effort was to gradually build up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces and to re-equip them so that they could defend their nation on their own: the "Vietnamization" of the US effort.
Source

Barack Obama, 2 October 2002
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income.



"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein

 

[dogsgod]

Bush and Obama, dumb and dumber.

 

[xkatz]

The Karzai government is by all accounts riddled with corruption.

And how is that different from any other gov't? There are always corrupt people.