One is tempted to say "Is there another kind?"...but I'll refrain. I don't think it's so much a matter of being self-serving. I think it's a matter of being subject to very powerful and sometimes nefarious influences.

 

This is not about bean-counting. He called it "the necessary war". He said George Bush took his eye off the ball, and he was going to focus on Afghanistan. This action is consistent with that.

The trouble is, it's misguided.

 

The trouble is that Obama wants to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan on July 2011.

What he forgets to mention is that to do that, the Afghanistan military and police force has to be at an adequate level of training and adequate level of numbers of military and police.

General wants a much higher amount of military and police forces before Obama starts to remove troops, but Obama does not want it to happen. If Obama does start to remove troops by July 2011, then how is Afghanistan going to be able to contain the terrorists, without the sheer man power to do that?

 

And that's the truth. Any date given is only to appease the political pressure, the real withdrawl and handover cannot take place until the country is stable. Stability will only come with an adequately trained Afghan security force. Most of these troops won't see frontline service.

 

Where have I heard this song and dance before?


I have to say, though, that it's pretty comical watching the wingnuts among us scrambling to find something to criticize Obama about, now that he's doing exactly what they want him to do.

 

What, exactly, makes you think that it's possible to "adequately train" an Afghan security force? Didn't you hear enough of this in Iraq? Does the word "Vietnamization" mean anything to you?

 

Kimiko, that is what we, as the UN, have committed to. It is also a requirement from the Afghan leadership, they want to police their own country. What makes you think they can't be trained? Vietnam was a whole different war, fought under very different circumstances

 

I always tend to look at the flip side of the coin. I can be a pain in the ass like that, sometimes.

To steal a corporate talking point - "it may take some thinking outside the box to solve this problem."

Case in point; who is the enemy? An extreme religious group that believes in a higher power so strongly that it will take up arms against anyone, just so you can meet that higher power in person. If they fail in that attempt, well, then they get to meet the higher power as a suicide bomber.

We are fighting an enemy that is not tied to a geo-political organization. The funding comes from private donations from around the world. They change up the battle field by scurring across borders as if they were cockroachs when you turn on the light. How do you fight a war on these terms?

Let's look at a more personal example.

How would you feel if a government declared war on the Baptist faith because one or two extremeist groups thought their god wanted someone else to die. In this case it would be the death of an abortion doctor or in a milder instance those hucksters that keep posting Psalm 109 after the prayers for Obama.

What if it was the Catholics? Maybe we should ask some of the Jewish members of this forum what they think about declaring war against a faith.

I harbor no ill will toward Muslims. I do understand that I am 100% in opposition to some of the tennets of their faith. How do we track down the gun toting, blood letting extremist out of all the Muslims that just want to raise a family and live their life.

I am a diplomacy before war kind of guy. I think that by making a few plans and solidifying a few more allies would have been more effective before the first shot was fired.

If you disagree with this thinking, take a walk down the street. When you see the biggest, meanest thug you can find; punch him square in the face as hard as you can. Then ask him if he wants to chat quietly over a beer or two.

Anyone up for beer and BBQ?

 

Let me break this down in numbers, so you understand why this is not scrambling to find something to criticize Obama about, but it is based on facts.

Right now Iraq has about 600,000 men for their security forces, being military and police. The size of Iraq is 438,317 sq km.

Right now Afghanistan has less than 40,000 men for their security forces, being military and police. The size of Afghanistan is 652, 230 sq km.

Now if it is taking 600,000 to take care of Iraq, which is 1/3 smaller than Afghanistan. That means that Afghanistan should have 1/3 more man power for security forces, being a total of 900,000 men.

But General McChrystal is only wanting to raise 400,000 men for the security forces. And Obama is not going to allow General McChrystal enough time to accomplish that, because he wants to start pulling out troops by July 2011.

Furthermore, General McChrystal was chosen by Obama and then approved by the Senate. So why is Obama now ignoring the man who he chose to run operations in Afghanistan? General McChrystal was in Special Forces, if anyone knows how to win wars, it is a man from the Special Forces.

 

You got the main idea with the problem with this war.

You have the US as well as many other countries who have to follow the Geneva Convention when it comes to fighting against the enemy. But the enemy does not have to follow the Geneva Convention.

If the US were to give up on the idea of fighting while abiding by the Geneva Convention, this war would be over a lot more quickly. But because the US decides to play by the Geneva Convention, it will take longer, because they US has to fight around the red tape.

 

El Casanova don't start this off with some bullshit lie and then try to carry on for a week over it.

What President Obama said during his campaign was that he would end the war in Iraq and concentrate on the war in Afghanistan which he felt should have been our focus in the first place.

Got that? President Obama was very clear that he would escalate US involvement in Afghanistan.

I must admit I have mixed thoughts on this. On the one hand I want out of these wars entirely, and the sooner the better. But on the other hand I wonder if President Obama really had any choice.

I have to admit that I fear that if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle East today, by tomorrow an unprecedented blood bath would be underway.

It seems to me we do have the responsibility to avoid that.

For once I really hope you're wrong here Kimiko. First, the whole war on terror has been misguided from beginning and I don't think President Obama can change that in one stroke. First, there are some humanitarian issues to consider. If we pull a Sarah Palin and just throw our hands in the air and walk away I do believe the Taliban will return with a vengeance.

Likewise all recent polls aside I think it would be political suicide for President Obama to just pull our troops and walk away. That's what most people say they want now but the slightest incident afterward and public opinion could turn rabid on him.

What I like is the timeline. I think that's about as fast as we could have gotten out of there anyway.

Ok El Casanova if those Taliban Boys are so fucking tough that we need more than a 20 to 1 advantage we really do need to get out of there before they really kick our asses. If 20 to 1 odds won't do it I sure don't know what will.

By the way President Obama committed 30,000 US troops and come up with the other 10,000 troops the general requested from NATO.

 

el casanova, whilst i agree with you, just one minor point. Its not just the US. Please dont do the rest of us the dis-service of forgetting our sacrifices.

 

The sheer number of Taliban foot soldiers is not the only problem here. You also have to take into consideration the terrain and the weather. The terrain in Afghanistan is much worse that that of Iraq or Vietnam. And the weather is much worse than that of Iraq or Vietnam.

Taliban has an advantage by knowing the terrain and area better than the US. This causes a disadvantage when trying to find the Taliban. Not to mention that anyone who holds higher ground in a battle usually win, and if the US cannot control those points, then again, another disadvantage.

 

Trust me, I would never dis-service nor forget you guys who help us who are part of the coalition forces efforts. Served with you guys in both countries, you guys are awesome. We can never forget the sacrifices all our countries have done.

I see what I did, I mentioned the coalition forces in the first paragraph but not in the second one. I apologize for that.

 

Mighty strange thinking you've got going on here El Casanova. First you say General McChrystal is wrong. Then you turn right around and say President Obama should not ignore General McChrytal. But that contradiction is not the real problem. The real problem is President Obama is not ignoring General McChrystal at all. What makes you think he is?

Tell me El Casanova if our troops did not have to perform according to the Geneva convention what would we be doing differently that would result in victory?

 

I disagree. There are many similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam and so we need to heed the lessons we paid for in blood in Vietnam so we don't end up paying twice.

And the most important lesson is that we cannot shoot our way to a victory. Its not the terrain that is most difficult. It is that there are so many factions and so much desperation anyone could become a Taliban on any given day. And they can disappear as fast as they appear.

The only way we can succeed in Afghanistan is by changing the hearts and minds of the people and killing just ain't much good for that.

 

I never stated that General McChrystal was wrong, I know you assumed that because of the calculations that I made. It just means that General McChrystal believes that he needs less men than my calculation, that does not mean he is wrong, just means he has a different opinion. And considering he out ranks me by so many ranks, my opinion does not matter in his world.

If General McChrystal says that Afghanistan is needing to raise and train up to 400,000 security forces to be able to keep Afghanistan civil, and Afghanistan currently has under 40,000 men, that means 360,000 men have to be raised and trained into the security forces in a timeframe of 19 months. So that means that General McChrystal would have to raise and train 18,947 men per month. Currently the security forces in Afghanistan is going up 1,500 men per month. So currently the output is 13% of what it should be to meet the 400,000 men quota that has to be met, to be able to keep Afghanistan civil and protected.

That is how Obama is ignoring McChrystal.

If Obama starts pulling out troops out of Afghanistan starting July 2011, then that means two things. One is that the amount of protection and man power the US needs will decrease. And then the amount of men to join the Afghanistan security forces will decrease as well, due to trainers leaving.

I would personally be able to attack hospitals, mosques, and many other places that we are not allowed to access due to the Geneva Convention which is being used as places for them to hide and escape.

We would not have to worry about rules of engagement, and we would not have to worry about warning shots, and escalation of force, etc.

I am not going to go much further into this, due to the fact that it would be too revealing of our ways of fighting. I am sure you would respect that.

 

We have been doing that for awhile now. The military leaders have great ties with the cities and communities of the Afghans, and the leaders of those towns are in accordance with helping us.

And I cannot speak much more about this topic, please respect that.

I cannot tell you why the surge is needed, because it would give away classified information and detailed information about the operations. But I am telling you, this is very important, and when the operations begin, you will understand how the surge was instrumental in the victories.

 

el casanova, whilst i agree with you, just one minor point. Its not just the US. Please dont do the rest of us the dis-service of forgetting our sacrifices.

 

Congress' approval rating is pretty high these days right?