Posted on 10/08/2009 6:41:55 AM PDT by La Lydia
President Obama kicked off his reconsideration of strategy in Afghanistan by questioning on national television whether the United States needed to keep supporting the Afghan government and army. But the alternatives the president appears to be considering do not depart so radically from the plan proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Obama told congressional leaders that he did not intend to reduce U.S. troop levels or limit U.S. operations to drone attacks on al-Qaeda. Nor, according to his national security adviser, would he give up on building the Afghan government and army.
The White House's Plan B would mainly amount to refusing Gen. McChrystal most of the additional U.S. troops he has requested -- thereby saving the president a decision that would anger his political base...
Such a choice by Mr. Obama would hardly amount to a surrender in what he has called "a war of necessity." It would, however, repeat the strategic errors of the Bush administration...
In Afghanistan, Mr. Bush's error was incrementalism -- sending just enough reinforcements each year after 2003 to match the growing threat of the Taliban but never enough to turn the situation around...The alternative to Gen. McChrystal's plan would essentially perpetuate that losing effort. It likely would mean accepting hundreds more deaths of U.S. and allied troops in the next year without significant progress against the Taliban; probably there would be further losses of ground. It would mean decreased leverage over the Afghan and Pakistani governments, which would be less willing to go along with the objectives of an administration that was curtailing its own commitments. It would damage the effort to persuade Taliban fighters and low-level commanders to switch sides. And it could doom the effort to create an Afghan army that could pacify the country on its own...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"By resolving to maintain troop levels as they are, he [Obama] has chosen to continue the fight. The question that remains is whether Mr. Obama will prefer the risk of defeat that the general outlined to the costs of sending tens of thousands of more American forces. The latter course does not guarantee success by any means, but the former is a proven loser.
Yes, I thought that was very interesting. The WP is endorsing McChrystal’s request. The John Kerry position is “a proven loser.” They must have hired some adults when I wasn’t looking. Or maybe their apparent suicide was temporary.
The first thing that has got to be tackled in Afghanistan is the widespread corruption. THat must be done first. And part of the way you get that done is with a massive troop surge. Then you concentrate on changing people’s minds, showing them how to do things for themselves like farming and becoming self-sufficient and rebuilding their infrastructure and then winning over their hearts and their minds and showing them that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are evil and not to be trusted. You help the population develop their own natural resources in a positive way, but the drug trade has got to go because it is that area that is where the majority of the country’s corruption comes from. You get the government to write a new constitution and set up a representative government for all the people the way we did in Iraq. Then hold free and fair elections all over again the way we showed them how to do in Iraq. But it is going to take a massive troop surge in order to get all this done first if we are to win this war.
The first thing that has got to be tackled in Afghanistan is the widespread corruption. THat must be done first. And part of the way you get that done is with a massive troop surge. Then you concentrate on changing people’s minds, showing them how to do things for themselves like farming and becoming self-sufficient and rebuilding their infrastructure and then winning over their hearts and their minds and showing them that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are evil and not to be trusted. You help the population develop their own natural resources in a positive way, but the drug trade has got to go because it is that area that is where the majority of the country’s corruption comes from. You get the government to write a new constitution and set up a representative government for all the people the way we did in Iraq. Then hold free and fair elections all over again the way we showed them how to do in Iraq. But it is going to take a massive troop surge in order to get all this done first if we are to win this war.
No surprise. The Wall Street has loudly supported every war in the last hundred years.
Thanks. Mea culpa. Still no surprise, however..
well, we’re letting Slow Joe Biden spearhead it, what would you expect?
“Joe Biden” and “spearhead” in the same sentence is a frightening concept.
As someone who has subscribed to the WP on and off for over 35 years, this is a big, f*cking surprise. You can bet that it will make news on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress. It is going to be quoted many times over the next few days by those supporting McCrystal's position.
Afganistan will never have a strong central government and the people really resent large numbers of foreign troops in their country.
Russia pulled out all of the stops in the 80’s including the use of nerve gas, massive numbers of troops couldn’t prop up the communist regime. I’ve met a former Soviet Colonel who lost a leg there and heard some real horror stories.
I still think we’re better off with a fairly large number of special ops, target Taliban commanders and any of the warlords supporting them. Make a few examples. After the Daniel Berg beheading one of the warlords on our side had something like a hundred Taliban executed and had thier heads set on poles to set an example.
Afgans are a proud people and their loyalties are to the clan/tribe etc before any central government.
...and in the back of my mind, I hear my fighter-pilot father’s bitter cry in 1975: “[The administration] wouldn’t let us win”. This is pissin’ me off.
Colonel, USAFR
I don't even know what planet these people are on. As far as I know, Iraq has turned out pretty well.
But the alternatives the president appears to be considering do not depart so radically from the plan proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
_____
Obama fully intends to use General McCrystal as a scapegoat, which is why I am glad that McCrystal and Petraeus went public with their request for more troops.
And of course, then there’s the old SOP, blame Bush!!!
Bah humbug!
The problem with being clannish or having a system based on tribalism is that it never accomplsihes anything of value and it keeps the general population steeped in poverty and hopelessness. A strong representative central government and a constitution can accomplish great things for its people. That is the lesson that must be taught. The people can only attain various levels of prosperity if they adopt a more free but representative government.
You won’t get an argument from me on that. I agree but it is very difficult to change a few thousand years of tradition.
Some of the tribes there have had blood fueds going on for almost that long.
It’s going to take a very charismatic Afgan leader to change the system and everytime someone like that appears they get assasinated.
Here is what we need to do:
Make ONE major city perfectly safe, surround it with barb wire and missiles - whatever it takes.
Invite in the venture capitalists to build roads, bridges, factories, schools, using whatever natural resources this place has (does it have any?)
Once it is a booming success (as capilaism always is) move onto the next city until you have an actual country that is viable.
“Joe Biden” and “spearhead” in the same sentence is a frightening concept.
Look at that! Imagine misspelling “dick” so badly! It doesn’t start with an “s”!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.