Posted on 12/02/2009 12:37:05 PM PST by NormsRevenge
KABUL (Reuters) – Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.
"Even if they bring the whole of America, they won't be able to stabilize Afghanistan," said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. "Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life."
U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital, where few watched the speech on TV before dawn and fewer seemed to think new troops would help.
Obama said his goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda in Afghanistan and "reverse the Taliban's momentum."
The extra U.S. forces, and at least 5,000 expected from other NATO allies, would join 110,000 Western troops already in the country in an effort to reverse gains made by the Islamist militants, at their strongest since being ousted in 2001.
Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.
"The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops," he said. "Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy."
For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.
"More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties," Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.
"The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the U.S. image and cause more indignation among Afghans."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Graphic showing the breakdown of the main ISAF troops currently deployed in Afghanistan. NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged allies to join the United States in a major troop surge in Afghanistan, with thousands more soldiers needed for a new strategy to seize the initiative from the insurgents. (AFP/Graphics)
This is nothing more then window dressing for political purposes.
And most conservatives will trip over themselves supporting it.
“Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life.”
He’s right. They live a tribal, violent way of life.
Lots of good hiding places in them mountains.
cleaning out the rats nests in 18 months.? a tall task, one I'm sure our troops will not shirk as time permits.
another shining example of how liberals wage war? or just history repeating itself?
A U.S. soldier from Task Force TF Yukon shields himself from dust that blows as a Chinook CH-47F transport helicopter leaves FOB Salerno, Afghanistan, December 2, 2009. The top U.S. battlefield commander said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama's 30,000-strong troop increase for the Afghan war would make a huge difference, as the White House prepared to sell the new strategy to Congress. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra (AFGHANISTAN CONFLICT MILITARY POLITICS)
Sdaly, much of the resources are to be aimed at training afghans to defend their new government and fight their own battles and keeping the peace .. the bad of the bad will retreat .. and wait.
It’s not like we don’t have a good idea of who is hiding where.. Release the hounds , Mr. Obama.. not the instructors.. the afghans can learn OJT.. the pakis are learning real quick as they finally assault the major rat nests in South and North Waziristan.
Sadly
Barack was right about one thing. It’s not going to be Vietnam. It’s going to be Cambodia. Will the MSM show the caves full of skulls?
LLS
We need troops who are acclimated to the environment, especially in the mountains.
We entered only to drive out the Taliban, not to stay there for 10 years.
This is a perfect example of 'mission creep'.
When we leave in a few years, we would have accomplished more except then to have many more dead and wounded, and a weakened military.
Conservatives need to recognize U.S. limitations and advocate a far more limited role in the region,using our mobility and firepower, not U.S. land forces.
I’d really hate to see that.
British soldiers conduct a patrol outside Kandahar Air Field in 2006. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says US allies are ready to send at least 5,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan after President Barack Obama's decision to begin a troop surge. (AFP/File/John D Mchugh)
LLS
Heard Savage mention the same thing tonight. He said maybe we should bomb the hell out of them with the B-52’s.
You both have a valid point. They would be decimated for some time. The sticky wicket is the other banana republics. What would they do? Smart ones, wouldn’t do anything, Islamofacists, who knows?
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.