Military leery of Afghanistan escalation with no clear goals

McClatchy ^ | 9-07-09 | Nancy A. Youssef, Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel

[444Flyer]

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration and Congress begin a heated debate about how many more American troops to send to Afghanistan, military observers, soldiers on the ground there and some top Pentagon officials are warning that dispatching even tens of thousands more soldiers and Marines might not ensure success.

Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces.

The heart of the problem, soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and some officials in Washington told McClatchy, is that neither Barack Obama's White House nor the Pentagon has clearly defined America's mission in Afghanistan. As a result, some soldiers in the field said, they aren't sure what their objectives are.

Current officials and military officers who're wary of escalation refused to speak on the record because they aren't authorized to talk to the media and because doing so would be hazardous to their careers.

"Gen. McChrystal's latest assessment reportedly indicates that the situation in Afghanistan is 'serious,' " said former deputy secretary of state and Pentagon official Richard Armitage, referring to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan. "President Obama needs to define, more clearly than he has so far, what our country's objectives in Afghanistan are and his strategy for achieving them. Without that, it's impossible to assess whether the mission requires additional troops."

The administration's stated goals in

[444Flyer]

"...As a result, some soldiers in the field said, they aren't sure what their objectives are..."

[444Flyer]

“No deadline for troops withdrawal from Afghanistan: Obama admn”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334327/posts

[444Flyer]

Ping

[444Flyer]

So, are they PURPOSELY trying to destroy morale or are the just nimrods?

[coconutt2000]

Well, Obama did say that “Victory” wasn’t really the goal in Afghanistan...

So where does that leave us?

Beats me... I’m not smart enough to figure out that nuance.

[Nachum]

Thanks for the heads up 444Flyer

The list, ping

[The Comedian]

The last thing Obama wants is ~200,000 well-trained patriots back on American soil. Promises to Code Pink be damned, he and his Soros masters do NOT want these wars to end. They want America poor, sick, defenseless, and unguarded.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[RC2]

To have clear goals, you need a Commander in Chief that knows what the hell he’s doing. Our military will wait a loooooong time for that to happen. His leadership is the reason I say that we need to bring our troops home.

[Just A Nobody]

So, are they
a) PURPOSELY trying to destroy morale or
b) are the[y] just nimrods?
c) All of the above

I'll take C for $600 Flyer

[ChildOfThe60s]

It may turn into another Nam after all. And double irony, because of a Democrat, same as before.

How much howling is going on out there by the left? Where are all of the anti war protests now? Dummies of the President hung in effigy?

Politicians rarely understand the concepts of goals and strategy in matters military. But Democrats have somehow managed to carry that incompetence to extremes matched by none.

[OldMissileer]

Obama’s objective is to grind the rest of the military equipment into junk and completely demoralize the military.

When this is accomplished he can take all of his civilian corps (whatever they are called) and press ahead with the subjugation of the nation.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks 444Flyer.

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT