Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan

[M.Dancer]

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.

Funny you don't hear much about Iraq these days. Something to do with the Insurgents getting the snot kicked out of them to the point where actually being part of the process was starting to look not all that bad.

[eyeball]

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.

So you want us to install and prop up yet another a military dictatorship in the world? Einstein himself would weep.

One thing I don't understand is what we could possibly ever teach the Afghans about defending themselves given they have repelled every invader bar none that tried to occupy them. But that's not really what their military is going to be used for is it?

[ToadBrother]

So you want us to install and prop up yet another a military dictatorship in the world? Einstein himself would weep.

Odd, I don't recall writing that. Where did I say we set up a military dictatorship? I said strengthen the army, because that's the only way we're going to extricate ourselves.

One thing I don't understand is what we could possibly ever teach the Afghans about defending themselves given they have repelled every invader bar none that tried to occupy them. But that's not really what their military is going to be used for is it?

You use a military to fight battles, not the police. But the police in Afghanistan are very corrupt, that is for those elements that aren't Taliban sympathizers. As to the government, well, one only has to look at the last election to see the team we're backing right now.

[GostHacked]

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.

The Soviets had a hard time for a couple decades to bring communism to the land. What makes anyone think that they will accept our North American verision of freedom and democracy? The reason why it is illogical is that two major superpoweres tried to pacify that country without considerable results.

I don't consider the sham corrupted government of Karzai to be any better than the previous Taliban. Sharia Law is STILL the law of the land. That has not changed. Karzai and Co only control a small part of afghanistan. It might be the recognized capitol, but nothing that the locals really call a capitol. The Taliban and Alqueda are still heavily represented in Afghanistan.

[eyeball]

Odd, I don't recall writing that. Where did I say we set up a military dictatorship? I said strengthen the army, because that's the only way we're going to extricate ourselves.

I just think that's going to be the result at least in the short term until the clannish feudalism that has historically characterised the country reasserts itself. The ANA won't stand a chance.

You use a military to fight battles, not the police. But the police in Afghanistan are very corrupt, that is for those elements that aren't Taliban sympathizers. As to the government, well, one only has to look at the last election to see the team we're backing right now.

Yep, the typical one.

[Moonlight Graham]

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?

I certainly do hope the best for Afghans, much more than my hope to stroke my ego with an "i told u so".. If this works, and in 50 years Afghanistan is a better country for it, then that would be wonderful. But i'm not very optimistic about this based on the realities of situation in the country, and i'm not afraid to criticize this decision. I'd much rather us 'do what is best' than 'hope for the best'.

[Guest American Woman]

Well said AM,

Thank you.

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.

I give all the credit in the world to you, and others like you, Army Guy, who are there with the desire to make things better for the Afhans. For a lot of people, it's not about/just about getting bin Laden and terrorists; a lot of good people are there in the effort to make things better for Afghans, and I applaud your efforts.

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....

I think the tendency sometimes is for issues like this to become nothing more than political; but there are real people involved, and I hope, when all is said and done, that they enjoy a better quality of life for having endured their hardships. We are so fortunate to live where we do, and as a woman and mother of girls, I find myself doubly appreciative of where I was fortunate enough to have been born.

[Guest American Woman]

I certainly do hope the best for Afghans, much more than my hope to stroke my ego with an "i told u so".. If this works, and in 50 years Afghanistan is a better country for it, then that would be wonderful. But i'm not very optimistic about this based on the realities of situation in the country, and i'm not afraid to criticize this decision. I'd much rather us 'do what is best' than 'hope for the best'.

But "if this works, and in 50 years Afghanistan is a better country for it," wouldn't this decision be "do[ing] what is best?"

[M.Dancer]

The Soviets had a hard time for a couple decades to bring communism to the land.

The Soviets were there for 9 years, not a couple of decades.

[Shady]

The reason why it is illogical is that two major superpoweres tried to pacify that country without considerable results.

Wrong. America barely had a troop presence in Afghanistan for the previous several years. I hardly consider that trying to pacify the country. And the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan thanks to the help of their rival superpower.

I don't consider the sham corrupted government of Karzai to be any better than the previous Taliban.

Then you're an idiot. The Karzai government recognizes the need for women's education. The Karzai government also refuses to give Afghanistan up as a safe-haven for Al Qaeda. Those are two huge differences.

Taliban and Alqueda are still heavily represented in Afghanistan.

And if things go your way, they'll have complete political power as well. Well done.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

How exactly are we going to strengthen the Afghan military enough for NATO to be able to leave and protect its sovereignty from attacks from the Taliban if NATO itself, and the country with the most powerful military in the world leading the fight, cannot even defend Afghanistan adequately from the Taliban?

The Afghan military has no air-force whatsoever. That should give us some idea of how far the Afghan military has to come before we can leave. It's going to take decades and trillions of dollars to get Afghanistan able to defend itself against the Taliban as well as we are now, which isn't very well at all!

And at the same time, yes you are indirectly calling for a military dictatorship in Afghanistan because that is what more than likely gong to happen if we prop up this military and leave. Sooner or later, which has happened in other developing countries before, is that when we leave Afghanistan, giving them this powerful army to protect itself from the bad guys who will likely become the bad guys themselves. A military coup is initiated, goodbye democratic government we spent much lives/money/years fostering, and hello to yet another in the long list of corrupt and violent authoritarian regimes ruling a country in the "third world".

There are other instances where the West has politically, financially, and militarily supported/assisted regimes, having it blow up in their faces years later. Here's one example.

The problems in Afghanistan are vast. It is the second lowest ranking nation on the U.N.'s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2009. It is a very complex situation.

For those of you who are saying that i'm just being a defeatist, that's B.S. I'm being realistic. I'm looking at the evidence, looking at the country, it's history/society/culture, what has occurred in other developing countries, and making an informed opinion. I believe this troop surge, in the long-term, is going to have a negative affect on Afghanistan and on Canada/NATO countries. You can "hope" all you want, but its better to deal in evidence than wishful thinking. I can hope all i want that the fat limping horse who lost 20 of its last 22 races is going to win the next race, but odds say its not likely gooing to happen.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[Oleg Bach]

Obama is sucking up to India..God knows that Pakistan was quiet useless to the Americans. I guess they might in time sacrafice a ton of Indian flesh instead of the high grade American cut. I will never understand what the problem is here. Most if not almost all Afghans are simple common people just wanting to life and survive - I am shocked to see how many are drug addicted..That is a major problem but I guess with millions of American dopers crawling out of the cracks at home the situation is tolerable and exceptable..The liberals always talk about the emotional issues such as "so a littel girl can go to school" OR - "We must stop them from beating their woman who show an ankle."

The most important social issues in Afghanistan is not that it was once a former terrorist training area but that it is full of poverty and dope. These are the real issues but non of the western leadership is mentally or emotionally qualified to deal with real human difficulties...They are more focused on military contracts and securing the dope trade for themselves. Where is the real western leadership or the real Afghani leadership that is actually concerned with the welfare of human beings - instead of the continued accumulation of money and stuff - STUFF is of no value - the only true thing of value are living things - like people. But seeing capitalism is based strickly in materialism - there really is no hope of improving life in Afghanistan because - the west simply does not give a damn - If they really cared they would be assisting the people - instead of continueing to find new ways of turning a damned profit - like sending thousands of more troops and their very expensive war supplies that goes with those boots on the ground - It's digraceful that our leadership dispised humanity...as does theirs!

[August1991]

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....

You of all people AG should know that this is not an easy mission. Afghanistan is a difficult place.

On Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., Obama is expected to announce he will be sending more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Brown has said that several allied nations will offer a total of 5,000 more troops, which, combined with Obamas troops, would be close to the 40,000 more soldiers McChrystal has called for.

The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion US.

CBC

This decision may have taken a long but it is good news. I hope that the troops will be deployed in a way that helps the mission. I think Obama is the right kind of president to get this right.

----

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.

As much as I hate to compare Iraq and Afghanistan, but MG, people said that about Iraq five years ago too. And look what is happening now.

More generally, the Americans defeated the Soviets in the Cold War and that took a long term commitment to Western Europe. The US still maintains large troop numbers in South Korea.

The spectre of Vietnam (falsely) hangs over too many. No one should accuse the Americans of cutting and running or giving up.

Edited November 30, 2009 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

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....

That's a big pile of bologna. Just like there haven't been any "i told you so's" from the pro-war/pro-Bush crowd with the "success" of the troop surge in Iraq?

Neither side in these debates can claim to be "taking the high road" over the other.

[DogOnPorch]

How exactly are we going to strengthen the Afghan military enough for NATO to be able to leave and protect its sovereignty from attacks from the Taliban if NATO itself, and the country with the most powerful military in the world leading the fight, cannot even defend Afghanistan adequately from the Taliban?

Good question...