Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort

Daily Telegraph ^ | 26 Nov 2008 | Alex Spillius

[ScaniaBoy]

The President-Elect's intention to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan has been bolstered by Robert Gates agreement to stay on as Defence Secretary.

Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge, which would not only put thousands more boots on the ground but involve negotiations with malleable branches of the Taliban. It would also aim to boost co-operation with Iran and Pakistan where some elements have supported the anti-Western insurgency.

The need for more US troops in addition to the 32,000 already serving, has been accelerated by the Afghan presidential election in September 2009, and the voter registration process that begins in the New Year, Mr Gates said.

[ScaniaBoy]

Interesting. Is this the right strategy?

I think this article should be contrasted with Rumsfeldt's oped piece in NYT. I posted a link to it in comment #10 here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138191/posts

PS: It will be fun to see the Europeans squirm when their hero Obama will request more troops from THEM to reinforce the international force in Afghanistan.

[XR7]

20,000 troop surge...

Are they the ones we've been waiting for?

[P-Marlowe]

Didn’t Kharzai just say today that he wanted the US out of Afghanistan ASAP?

[ScaniaBoy]

Are they the ones we've been waiting for?

LOL!

[AndyPH]

Am I wrong in thinking the ONE was against the surge in Iraq ? Did the ONE did not say the surge was not working ?
Maybe I am wrong again, but, it seems the ONE is turning into George W Bush,. At last the ONE has seen the light in following the former President of America way of fighting Islamic terror.

[Caipirabob]

Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort

"NO! WAIT! YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! LISTEN TO ME!!!"

[Chet 99]

The Dems have been militant when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but pacifist on Iraq. Go figure.

[SolidWood]

They are never pacifist. They are just stabbing the military in the back whenever it fits them politically (whenver a Republican is in charge).

[Dahoser]

It’s simply because they want to do anything opposite of George W. Bush. Had he put all our efforts in Afghanistan and nowhere else, they would have been totally against it.

[Ingtar]

They got his title wrong, it is Mr. Obama.

[FrankR]

"It’s simply because they want to do anything opposite of George W. Bush. Had he put all our efforts in Afghanistan and nowhere else, they would have been totally against it. "

This is going to be forever known as "Obama's folly".

It reminds be of a cartoon I once saw on a Bazooka bubble gum wrapper, when I was about 9-years-old; it was about a guy out on the street at night, under a street light, walking around staring at the ground.

His friend asked, "What's going on?"

The guy says, "I lost a quarter and I'm trying to find it."

The friend asks, "Where did you lose it?"

The guy answers, "Out in the back yard."

The friend says, "Well, why aren't you looking for it in your back yard?"

To which the guy answered, "Because the light is better out here."


Kinda dumb, but so is waging a new war where it's not needed just to be different from George Bush.

[ModelBreaker]

“Interesting. Is this the right strategy? “

Yup. It’s made possible by Bush prosecuting a successful war in Iraq so Obama has it easy. I think the decision is a big duh and is pretty much what would have happened had McCain been elected.

We can now move from success to success. It also keeps lots of boots on the ground in the middle east in case Iran gets frisky.

I don’t even mind letting BO have credit for it, if he will just prosecute the WOT. That’s despite that Bush and Petraeus made it all possible and despite that my nine year old could make the same decision with no difficulty.

He’s a democrat. He should be rewarded with praise and cookies for not making terrible decisions in foreign policy because all of his inclinations and all of the pressure from the folks who got him to the white house will be for him to make terrible decisions.

[RummyChick]

Check out some of the Viper Company videos on Youtube. You will see one of the soldiers say it is one step forward five steps back. The locals help the Taliban. You can give them all the free school supplies you want and it is not going to change. One of the reports shows that all the young men have left a village to support the insurgents.

I have been sending care packages to these outposts. They face tough conditions and do not have adequate number of soldiers or supplies. A 1st Lt recently posted on Anysoldier.com and they have very little. He was even asking for something as simple as nails.

Someone got a deal on those blankets you see at Walmart and is sending them a 100 according to a post on that site.

It is a losing battle with the amount of troops we have over there..but not sure 20,000 more will make a difference.

[ScaniaBoy]

Thanks for the comment. I know too little of the situation in Afghanistan. I have been following the British blog [http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/] and it is quite evident that the UK forces are too few and have the wrong equipment.

However, the political situation, both locally and nationally appears to me to be much worse in Afghanistan than in Iraq at the moment. On the other hand a few years ago the Iraqi situation was the one that was really worrisome.

So, the question that has to be answered is whether a troop surge will remedy both the military and political situation in Afghanistan?

[Son House]

Agreed. Brokaw, let me say it for you,

America!




Our National Security, The Economy, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Are No Joke to Most Americans



Thank you Media, for the Fraudulent, One-Sided, Election of 2008

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge, which would not only put thousands more boots on the ground but involve negotiations with malleable branches of the Taliban.

Is this what His Excellency Barack Hussein Obama Dada needs his "Civilian Security Force" for? Negotiating with the Taliban terrorists?

[Gaffer]

Hey! There’s a catchy name! Idi Obama Da Da, President for Life.

[NeoConfederate]

Afghanistan never attacked us...

Impeach the warmonger Obama!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Hey! There’s a catchy name! Idi Obama Da Da, President for Life.

(grin!) I thought he might like it: it's suits his style.

I intend to use it this way:

"His Excellency" <--- Shorthand version

"His Excellency Barack Hussein Obama Dada" <--- Longer version

"Field Marshall" <--- When acting as Commander-in-Chief

"His Excellency President For Life Field Marshall Al Hadji Doctor Barack Hussein Obama Dada, VC, DSO, MC, King of Scotland, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fish of the Sea, Burden of the White Oppressors and Conquerer of the Constitution of the United Emirate of America." <--- Formal version

That way I can always show a suitable amount of Respect for America's first President for Life.

God Bless America
*DieHard*

[NoGrayZone]

I think barry is getting bit@* slapped into reality. All his fluffy clouds and rainbows won him the election. It was very easy for him to sit and judge Bush, but now, not so easy.

I WOULD NOT be surprised if barry called a “do over” and stepped down....or released his real birth certificate showing he is NOT eligible to be President.