"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.
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.
well, we’re letting Slow Joe Biden spearhead it, what would you expect?
...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
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!
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.
It’s called Mission Creep as occurred in Iraq. People can’t yet absorb that we don’t want to win, we just want to be there. McCain’s 100 years was the most honest estimate.
If anyone knows about FAIL it’s Obama.