DISQUS

texascowgirl · 1 month ago

Can we wait for an announcement before we all freak out. The media is wrong about almost everything all the damn time. A part of me says give the general his troops with the condition that he either gets shit done in a year or we declare "mission accomplished" and go the fuck home.

Admiral_Komack · 1 month ago

Good post.
I'll wait to hear about it from the President, thank you very much.

eclecticbrotha · 1 month ago

I know cable news has always had a bad habit of jumping the gun based on scant or unreliable sources but the media has completely jumped the shark in the Obama era. Remember Balloon Boy. Or, the way the resurrected the Fort Hood shooter from the dead hours after claiming he was killed. Months of frantic assertions that Obama was against the public option even though every official White House statement was in support of one. Its time we put a 24 hour fact checking window on anything that emanates from TV, radio, print or blogs.

Val · 1 month ago

eclecticbrotha - The minute I saw this post on weeseeyou my response was

one sec . . . .


I'm back . . . I had to go get a grain of salt.

I'm just surprised that folks keep falling for this nonsense.

blksista · 1 month ago

I shook my head when Katie Couric announced it on the news tonight, and wailed.

Was it the Fort Hood mess that forced his hand? I just wondered.

Biden was right on the money. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. I'm sure he's shaking his head, too.

I remember reading that BS a few years back that the Dems really wished they could have Bush's wars, because they claimed that they would manage them better.

Idiots. Your job was to get us the hell out of this no-win situation, especially with Karzai in there with his CIA-paid brother.

We're going on the wayback machine with a stupid move like this. We're only saving face while kids are killed.

SMH. Just SMH.

dthomas_85 · 1 month ago

Great post!

rikyrah · 1 month ago

EVENING OPEN THREAD IS UP

RobM · 1 month ago

The importance of Charli Wison war is that the Greek found the kid who set up the arms supply route to the mujahadeen. They supplied them w/ mostly arms from the USSR. the critical turning point was the introduction of stingers into the Battlefield.
The same circumstances do not exist today. If the decision is made to hunter/kill AQ, provide security to the main population centers and come to some deal w/ the Pushtun people we can win. It requires more years of resolve. It will be messy and the actions of many will seem like we are tyring to solve the problems of racism at home, i.e. no one really wants to confront it

rikyrah · 1 month ago

you think it can be won, RobM?

What is the end result of ' winning'?

I just don't see what ' win' is in this case.

RobM · 1 month ago

Win means no open intra religious/civil war w/ the National government. Both the Taliban and the central government are made up primarily of Pushtuns. The other problem is that the pushtuns need to set up another accomodation w/ Pakistan national government. The final piece is the buy off of the Pushtuns from AQ. This is the most difficult part of the deal because AQ has been very adept at exploiting the cultural norms of the Pushtuns to provide sanctuary to them. The quickest way would be to legalize opium. The price would drop because of crazy out put there and else where in the world. the loss of income could only come from changes in the agricultural economy. AQ can't provide that.
I believe w/o question that AQ is prepared to use radioactive, biological and nuclear weapons if given the opportunity. they are like the KKK they believe and unlike the KKK prepared to die for thier cause.

rikyrah · 1 month ago

can't this be done without 40,000 troops.

RobM · 1 month ago

I do not know. Remember there are parts of Afghanistan absolutely opposed to the Taliaban and AQ. They are different ethnic groups and religion, e.g. Tajiks, Uzbeks. You have the opportunity to turn those areas into safety zones for the local population within reason(suicide bombers are difficult to stop). By turning Afghanistan into cantons like Switzerland you have the opportunity to support local government that is local and likely to have the support of the population especially when you can hold down the corruption(repeat hold down) and build up local police and paramilitary forces. that helps your deployment and troop issues.

the most important thing in the long run is understanding the people you're dealing w/. The are going to vary in every way imaginable and you have to be sensitive to them. They can't turn into sand ni@##$%^. The troops have to be trained and worse they have to stay there longer than a 9-12 month deployment, think Malaysia.

texascowgirl · 1 month ago

I don' t think the number of troops is the real issue. It's the mission and the goals.

rikyrah · 1 month ago

what are the 'goals'?

what is a 'win'?

how do you define 'win' in this case?

I believe it's already 'lost' and 1,000 or 40,000 troops, it's a waste of time and money and American soldiers.

we can't ' nation build' in Afghanistan, because there is no nation to build. it's a bunch of tribes, and we should let them be.

Guns3000 · 1 month ago

Rob you can't legalize the opium because that is how the poor farmers feed their families. Most of them don't have any other crops and that's how they survive. If the price of opium drops the farmers are stuck in the same cycle of poverty. And what does a man do when he can't feed his family? He becomes a fanatic and he turns against US troops. We are having a hard enough time fighting the Taliban we don't want to piss off the locals. The United States has turned a blind eye to poppy farmers to try to "win hearts and minds" but to legalize opium is tempting on it's face but it would quadruple US problems. I know some people may say it would reduce the main source of funds for the Taliban but I think it would make the situation more complicated.

Edit: Any legalization of drugs would have to approved by the Afghan government which isn't going to happen in a traditional Muslim country or any Muslim country for that matter. The backlash from Muslim religious leadership not only in Afghanistan but from Islamic leadership around the world would be unimaginable.

RobM · 1 month ago

I hear what you are saying about the poverty issue. It is how e win however. We can offer cash crops and food crops that can survive in Afghanistan w/ little water. I am thinking of things like potatoes grown the way they are in the Andes mountains.

Legalization is for our benefit not theirs. It is easier to treat people for addiction than to continue the farce drug policy that does nothing but corrupt our society through hypocrisy and cash. You take that money out you will have alot more quiet on our streets.

Alexander2 · 1 month ago

Rikyrah:

Could I give a nice constructive criticism? Think about updating your original post with the information that lamh32 provided. It would provide balance and perspective. There is no reason to fly off the handle about rumors and speculation from news organizations seeking to outscoop each other. There shouldn't be a rush to judgment until we know all the facts.

Guns3000 · 1 month ago

As much as this is a hard pill to swallow. This is the correct choice. Let me preface my statement with it's quite obvious that the occupation has been completely mishandled.

Send the 40,000 troops
Get some semblance of security
Cut deals with the leaders of tribal areas
Get the Karzai government to fix the corruption the best that you can.
Cut deals with the Taliban as a last resort
Get the Pakistanis to flush out the Taliban on their side of the border

Then get the hell out of Dodge.

Not looking for "victory" just stability

caribgirl · 1 month ago

I agree with you. Though on the last point about getting the hell out of dodge, ideally yes but what is more likely to happen is that the troops will be drawn down but the US will have a base there with troops for the forseeable future though not engaging in ongoing combat.

Guns3000 · 1 month ago

Yeah, I should have specified a measured reduction of forces but I think we are going to have a permanent base over there for decades. If war breaks out in the middle east we don't want to be in the situation like we were in 1991 where we had to beg the Saudis and Turks for use for their bases.

ochyming · 1 month ago

Seems reasonable to me.
Victory there has NO flag, anyone can scream it.

Al Qaeda IS no longer THE main target, they are all over the NET anyway, without a face just like a cancer.
The real issue is the nuclear technology from Pakistan in the hands of … you know who.

dthomas_85 · 1 month ago

"Get the Karzai government to fix the corruption the best that you can. "

So you gonna get people who are corrupt to "fix the corruption"? lol.

"Cut deals with the Taliban as a last resort'"

Oh yea, the Taliban are real trustworthy and negotiable people. I could have swore they were the same people that were allegedly harboring Bin Laden, now we're gonna cut deals with them. Are you serious?

Guns3000 · 1 month ago

You damn right I'm serious. After 8 years of screw ups. It's time to cut deals with the devil. It's not about whether they are trust worthy or not. They are human beings. They have wants and needs that can be exploited. You know what gained traction with some of the local tribal leaders to start working with us. Viagra Look it up. It's true. Not every single person in the Taliban is some religious fanatical monster that that wants to sleep on the side of mountain for the rest of life and wipe his ass with leaves. These are the same people that cut deals with Bin Laden. Oh you think they allowed safe haven to Bin Laden for nothing. Not the case. Bin Laden was a rich boy from Saudi Arabia who came from a wealthy construction family that provided equipment to build a lot of the roads and buildings in Afghanistan. Don't buy into the neo-conservative rhetoric that these people are animals and they don't have a modus operandi. We may not be able to cut deals with the senior leadership but we can cut deals with mid-level leadership and the lower ranks. It's unfortunate that some of us have bought into Bush's doctrine that we don't "negotiate with terrorists" . Nonsense, you do what you have to do to accomplish your goals especially if you have made a clusterfuck of things after 8 years. It's the same concept of brothas in the ghetto taking up arms and joining a gang. If gives them something to believe and sense of belonging. These people are poor and have no options. If you provide most men with a better option than his current situation most men will choose the better option.

dthomas_85 · 1 month ago

I truly hope you're right and that strategy works

elisabeth1518 · 1 month ago

FWIW, MSNBC is saying that no decision has been made. And I do think adecision depends on meetins the president is having while in Asia.

I think it is important to remember that McChrystal's request was leaked by someone. That someone may be trying to force the president's hand by continuing leaks like the ones we're seeing regarding a decision which has not been formally announced. If the president, in fact, comes out in favor of a smaller troop increase (I accept that there will be some number of additional troops) the Republicans will say that he is not listening to the commanders on the ground and is trying to lose the war (if only to satisfy the sissy Democrats).

aleth · 1 month ago

The Media want to force his hands on the back of some members in the Pentagon. The military industrial complex in action.


I do think he is going to Asia for this reason too. The problem with Afghanistan is linked regionally

1. India/ Pakistan/ Kashmir = the reliance of Pakistan on some element of militancy to keep India at bay or whatever illusion they have of somehow india taking them over. Hence, they prop up fighters that have joined up with the taliban on the boarder of Pakistan

2. The proxy wars b/w Russia and US has left the Afghans disillusioned as a whole

3. Internal strife- From Opium trade to lack of facilities in the entire nation

The key as everybody noted: " The first year in Afghanistan was key and where the war was lost, anything thereafter is a show or cover for gas pipes being built from Iraq."

I will not be paying attention to the media until I hear the decision and strategy, tactic from Obama.

lamh32 · 1 month ago

WH denies Afghan decision made, as tensions flare with Pentagon

Washington (CNN) - White House National Security Adviser Retired Gen. Jim Jones issued a rare public statement Monday vehemently denying media reports suggesting President Obama has privately decided to send close to 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as tensions between the White House and Pentagon appear to be flaring up over exactly what the president will announce.

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," Jones, who generally keeps a low public profile, said in a prepared statement Monday night. "He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

The statement was issued shortly after CBS News' veteran Pentagon Correspondent David Martin reported that Obama has "tentatively decided" to send four more combat brigades to Afghanistan and several thousand more support troops starting early next year. That would bring the total number of new troops to close to the 40,000 figure originally requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Two other senior administration officials flatly told CNN that the CBS report and other similar speculation is false. The Associated Press reported Monday that Obama is "nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though not quite the 40,000 sought [by] his top general there."


The two senior administration officials suggested the information is being leaked by Pentagon sources who are trying to box Obama in by setting public expectations that he will send close to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as McChrystal requested.

"People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome," one of the senior administration officials told CNN.

Both senior administration officials insisted Obama has not made any decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, noting the President has another meeting with his national security team on Wednesday to receive a final set of recommendations from the Pentagon brass. The senior officials said the president could not possibly make a decision on troop levels before even receiving the Pentagon's final recommendations.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday it's "doubtful" Obama will announce a troop decision before he leaves for a trip to Asia on Thursday. It's considered unlikely Obama will make such an announcement during his trip to Asia, which is largely focused on economic matters and separate diplomatic issues like North Korea's nuclear program.

Obama is scheduled to return from Asia on Friday November 20 after stops in Japan, Singapore, China, and South Korea. Officials have suggested the President could announce a troop decision sometime shortly before or after Thanksgiving, though Gibbs has vaguely said the decision will be revealed in "coming weeks" so as not to be pinned down.

Town · 1 month ago

TRANSLATION: Somebody is either itching to go to Afghanistan and trying to force the President's hand with this "leak" or b) Somebody's trying to start up ish to get ratings and cause drama.

Alexander2 · 1 month ago

Thank you.

dthomas_85 · 1 month ago

If this report is true, Obama is making a terrible mistake and will get more people in our military killed for no reason - he'll have more blood on his hands. Afghanistan cannot be democratized with military occupation. This will get worse than Iraq because our puppets in their country are corrupt and the people of Afghanistan do not remotely like Americans; they also have been fighting foreign occupiers for years and I don't blame them. Who the hell does the US (or anybody else) think it is that it just has the right to occupy countries?! Imagine if a foreign country (with a foreign culture) tried to occupy America and change our way of life under the guise of fighting terrorism. In case people have forgotten the people who allegedly attacked us on 911 were Saudis. Yet we maintain deep financial and business relationships with Saudi Arabia and don't bomb them (nor should we).

America does not have the moral high ground to tell any country what to do. We want to tell other countries not to have nukes when we are the only nation in human history to ever use nukes on civilians - the arrogance is unbearable and it's no wonder people want to fly planes into our buildings.

If the people of Afghanistan want to live like it's biblical times then let them live like it's biblical times - it's their choice and not our business. God knows we can barely fix our own domestic problems without dictating to the world about what they should and shouldn't be doing. I agree with Congressman Ron Paul and the CIA when they say the US gets "blowback" for meddling in the affairs of others. The occupation is what fuels the terrorism and I wish these warmongers in our government would realize this instead of abusing the military for their own mercenary and political benefits.

aleth · 1 month ago

U make great points. However with a nation heavy dependent on middle eastern oil from Saudi, i think our choices are limited, UNTIL we get serious on getting off the oil

kalendello · 1 month ago

Obama will send the troops because remember... this is the war of necessity.