Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan

[Moonlight Graham]

Made his decision obviously:

Obama vows United States will 'finish the job' in Afghanistan"

President said to favour sending 30,000-35,000 troops for nine-month period

- President Barack Obama said Tuesday his long-awaited decision on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan would include a clear outline on how his country would "finish the job" following eight years of war.

At a White House news conference, Obama said he will announce the new U.S. policy after the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, amid a widespread expectation that he will send fewer than the 40,000 troops requested by his top military commander in Afghanistan.

Obama is said to favour a so-called "middle ground" option of between 30,000 and 35,000 troops that has the support of Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Also of note, i found this in another article in the Guardian:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today that the US is in its ninth year of military involvement in Afghanistan and "we are not going to be there another eight or nine years".

Gibbs says Obama's recent meetings with military advisers have often focused on how to train Afghanistan's police and army so they can secure and hold areas taken from the Taliban after US forces are gone.

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey, it'll be neat to look back at this topic in 5 years when the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan in basically the same situation they're in now.

[Guest American Woman]

Hey, it'll be neat to look back at this topic in 5 years when the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan in basically the same situation they're in now.

Yeah, how neat will that be if in 5 years Afghanistan is basically in the same situation they're in now.

[eyeball]

Yeah, how neat will that be if in 5 years Afghanistan is basically in the same situation they're in now.

It'll make the saying 'told you so' more credible...maybe.

[M.Dancer]

He dithered over it long enough and made a dithering decision.

[BubberMiley]

He dithered over it long enough and made a dithering decision.

Yes, we want leaders who don't seek information or reflect before making a decision. They should just go by their gut and their ideology and hope for the best.

In that case, he would have made the sensible decision to bail.

[M.Dancer]

In that case, he would have made the sensible decision to bail.

I called him a ditherer, I did not say he was one caters to idiots.

Edited November 25, 2009 by M.Dancer

[sharkman]

He dithered over it long enough and made a dithering decision.

Actually, he's still officially dithering until he makes the announcement. I guess he wants to sleep on it one or two more times.

And the time he's let pass while his troops have been getting shot and blown up. Sigh, I don't fault someone for wanting to get information, but he's been in office 10 months. Contrast with me if you will, the rush job he put on congress with the stimulus bill, getting them to sign it without actually reading the damn thing!

So we know he can get the lead out when he wants to. It's obvious he didn't want to make the decision at all and was basically embarrassed into sending help for the aforementioned shot up troops. If he bucks up and sends help at all. Of course this will give the faithful fits and his approval numbers will drop even more. I love it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yeah, how neat will that be if in 5 years Afghanistan is basically in the same situation they're in now.

i was being sarcastic

[Sir Bandelot]

Saw this one coming a while back, and I knew I would end up saying this-

"Nobel Peace Prize"...

has just become the biggest joke.

In our world today, the smiling liars continue to give themselves accolades. All they do is cheapen the image of these once respected organizations.

He dithered for a long time, alright. But there wasn't much outcry from the opposition, so something else was up.

If this is his decision then I believe that McCrystal will not be pleased, I thought he asked for getting all the troops in his request, or don't bother sending any. Is this more war by half-measures? What is this, some kind of high school project?

Edited November 26, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[BubberMiley]

Is this more war by half-measures? What is this, some kind of high school project?

He said as he surfed the Internet from his cozy, warm basement. "What happened to the old days when we had total war? Somebody else should really be doing more!"

[Sir Bandelot]

He said as he surfed the Internet from his cozy, warm basement. "What happened to the old days when we had total war? Somebody else should really be doing more!"

Not me, friend, I actually want him to end the war. I just suspected that he wouldn't. And I condemn the liars who support this charade, and the fools who believed it.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

i was being sarcastic

Sarcasm or not, it seems as if it's just what eyeball said ... the opportunity to say 'told you so.' Why not hold out hope that we won't have the 'neat' opportunity you refer to; why not hope with new leadership things will work out for the better for Afghanistan? Why not refer to that instead of the negative attitude that nothing will change?

For the sake of the Afghans, I sure hope things won't be exactly the same as they are now in five years, and that's what I'll hold on to. After all, if the end result is a better life for them, how neat will that be?

[Sir Bandelot]

why not hope with new leadership things will work out for the better for Afghanistan? Why not refer to that instead of the negative attitude that nothing will change?

I could see it coming. Not that electing McCain would matter much, of course. Just the details would change but the overall objective, continues. Obama is a politician, first and foremost. Not a humanitarian, not a leader.

if the end result is a better life for them, how neat will that be?

If that's the objective, there might have been other ways to have done that. But it's all too late now, isn't it.

The ones who live, I doubt that they would have a better life. Maybe the next generation or two down the road, things will have improved. From what I've heard about Afghanistan, I doubt it.

[Guest American Woman]

I could see it coming. Not that electing McCain would matter much, of course. Just the details would change but the overall objective, continues. Obama is a politician, first and foremost. Not a humanitarian, not a leader.

What do you think the "overall objective" is? I would think if we pulled out now, and left Afghans hanging, that wouldn't be "humanitarian" on our part. I would love to see the troops come home, but is it fair to the Afghans to just pull out, leaving them to sort it all out themselves?

If that's the objective, there might have been other ways to have done that. But it's all too late now, isn't it.

If it's too late now, it was too late when Obama took office. All he can work with is the way things are.

The ones who live, I doubt that they would have a better life.

I'm not so sure of that. If the Taliban is defeated/loses its impact, they most definitely will have a better life. Girls who are allowed an education most definitely will have a better life. Women who are allowed to work again will have a better life.

Maybe the next generation or two down the road, things will have improved. From what I've heard about Afghanistan, I doubt it.

Not sure what you're getting at here. What have you "heard" that makes you doubt it?

Edited November 26, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Obama is a politician, first and foremost......, not a leader.

That's an oxymoron.

[Army Guy]

Sarcasm or not, it seems as if it's just what eyeball said ... the opportunity to say 'told you so.' Why not hold out hope that we won't have the 'neat' opportunity you refer to; why not hope with new leadership things will work out for the better for Afghanistan? Why not refer to that instead of the negative attitude that nothing will change?

For the sake of the Afghans, I sure hope things won't be exactly the same as they are now in five years, and that's what I'll hold on to. After all, if the end result is a better life for them, how neat will that be?

Well said AM, for alot of Canadians it is just an opportunity to piont thier fingers once again, for them it has never been about assisting in rebuilding a nation of millions, to give them a small taste of what we here enjoy and take for granted everyday...NO for them it has been about saying it is impossable tasking to accomplish, it's a waste of my tax dollars, and a waste of time, and energy... because thier victory has cost them nothing, but a few tax dollars....it is this investment that has them choked up, almost to the piont of actually getting out of thier chairs, and doing something about the mission.

And yet i've yet to hear anything from the supporters of this mission, no one threatening the "i told you so speach" instead most will reflect on the time and effort that went into the mission....No finger pionting , no parades, no speaches....

[Sir Bandelot]

That's an oxymoron.

He is a party member who prefers to maintain the status quo. He's too humble in front of the old guard. He does not want to ruffle feathers. He's too meek, not bold, not truly innovative, not willing to take a stand for what he believes.

Otherwise he would be able to just do the right things, and stop kissing so much ass.

- The essential difference between a "Leader" and a "Politician".

[M.Dancer]

He is a party member who prefers to maintain the status quo. He's too humble in front of the old guard. He does not want to ruffle feathers. He's too meek, not bold, not truly innovative, not willing to take a stand for what he believes.

Otherwise he would be able to just do the right things, and stop kissing so much ass.

- The essential difference between a "Leader" and a "Politician".

Politicians are leaders by definition. Every you said about him are your opinions abouty his style...never the less, to be a politician you have to gather support behind you....not in front, or beside...or you get lost in the crowd.

[Sir Bandelot]

If it's too late now, it was too late when Obama took office. All he can work with is the way things are.

I'm sure there's all kinds of creative options. How about offering a ceasefire and a discussion with the Taliban, has anyone tried that? But that's just me, what do I know about it. All I know is what I see in Mr. Obama- Change you can't believe in.

If the Taliban is defeated/loses its impact, they most definitely will have a better life. Girls who are allowed an education most definitely will have a better life. Women who are allowed to work again will have a better life.

This generation is already severely traumatized and fearful. The political and social change can only come slowly. It's been ten years and very little of substance has been accomplished, thats not subsequently bombed by some terrorist or insider working for the police. Ten years from now, things might calm down in Afghanistan, but measurable change will probably only come in decades or generations. We're talking about culture change here, not like winning some life-changing grand prize on "Let's Make A Deal".

[Shady]

Sarcasm or not, it seems as if it's just what eyeball said ... the opportunity to say 'told you so.'

You're exactly right. Unfortunately it doesn't suprise me that closet Taliban supporters exist, even in this forum. Mainly for a couple of reasons. First, their rabid and often illogical anti-Americanism. Second, their pacifist beliefs and moral equivalence, that all violence is wrong, no matter what side you're on, also rabid and illogical.

[sharkman]

I'm sure there's all kinds of creative options. How about offering a ceasefire and a discussion with the Taliban, has anyone tried that? But that's just me, what do I know about it. All I know is what I see in Mr. Obama- Change you can't believe in.

Can someone remind me, wasn't there an ax attack when Canadian soldiers were having discussions with village leaders a couple of years ago? It's the same old story, there is no point having discussions of peace while the other side is not interested in peace so much as hacking you to pieces.

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure there's all kinds of creative options. How about offering a ceasefire and a discussion with the Taliban, has anyone tried that?

Yes. Karzai has made overtures to the Taliban to include them into the political process but they rejected it.

Being essentially of the mind that their will is also the will of allah, they don't seem motivated to mitigate Allah's will through the democratic process...might be they didn't want to explian to God that they have to go easy on Kite flying cause their (allah's will) motion to stone Kite flyers got voted down.

[BubberMiley]

First, their rabid and often illogical anti-Americanism.

Yeah, there's that rabid, illogical guy who despises America so much he can't stop talking about his extreme hatred for their leader and the majority who voted for him.

[ToadBrother]

You're exactly right. Unfortunately it doesn't suprise me that closet Taliban supporters exist, even in this forum. Mainly for a couple of reasons. First, their rabid and often illogical anti-Americanism. Second, their pacifist beliefs and moral equivalence, that all violence is wrong, no matter what side you're on, also rabid and illogical.

I certainly don't support the Taliban, but they are numerous and popular enough in some areas of Afghanistan that I fail to see how, at the end of the day, an actual functioning Afghani government isn't going to have to come to terms with them. That's what happened in Nepal with the Marxists.

At the end of the day, we need to massively strengthen the Afghani military. The police are a total basket case, and the government is equally out to lunch.