Afghanistan

[EasyEd]

Nov 12, 2009 13:12:06 GMT -5 nychoya3 said:

Obama rightfully has a wider lense than General McChrystal and he is absolutely right to ask for as many options as possible and to force everyone to examine their assumptions. He is commander in chief, not the General, not Mullen, not anyone else.

Agree 100%. What bothers me, however, is it's been three months since McChrystal sent his recommendations to the President and what we seem to be going through is paralysis by analysis. In other words it's looking like President Obama has become incapable of making up his mind, a somewhat typical professorial problem. If plans for getting out were foremost in President Obama's scheme of things he should have made this clear to his advisors from the start, or at least three months ago.

[nychoya3]

Since they were waiting for the elections to run their course, we have to start the clock from a couple weeks ago when Abdullah dropped out. We now know the government partner we have and we're not so happy about it. I think patience is a virtue on this account - you're entitled to disagree.

My take: We're in Afghanistan because of al Qaeda, and the only real success we've had in killing al Qaeda lately has been using drones. Which is great. But it doesn't require a 120k troop footprint.

Finally, I remember attending Karzai's speech at Gaston in 2002 and being really moved by his apparent convictions and commitment to democratic ideals. I think he meant what he said, but the reality of actually governing Afghanistan is just overwhelming. Put in someone new and they'd be equally tainted within a couple years.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 12, 2009 15:38:49 GMT -5 nychoya3 said:

Finally, I remember attending Karzai's speech at Gaston in 2002 and being really moved by his apparent convictions and commitment to democratic ideals. I think he meant what he said, but the reality of actually governing Afghanistan is just overwhelming. Put in someone new and they'd be equally tainted within a couple years.

I couldn't agree with this more. I attended Karzai's speech in McDonough in fall/winter 2001 on the occasion of his first trip to the United States as the leader of Afghanistan. The crowd was mostly Afghan-American ex pats, as this event IIRC was designed for him to connect with that constituency. I think roughly 200 students were lucky enough to attend.

One recollection (among few substantive recollections) of mine is that Karzai implored these folks to give back to Afghanistan or return to Afghanistan. The reasons for this could not be any clearer from a historical and political point of view. If you look at most westernized, liberal movements for representative government, they are carried by the dissemination of liberal ideas by socioeconomic/academic elites that then gain adherence among the masses.

What Karzai perhaps realized is/was that there is no such elite of significant clout in Afghanistan to bring such change about. Even worse, the opposition in Afghanistan - namely Al Qaeda/Taliban - is perhaps more "western" in background anyway than the actors for democratic change. Look at the 9/11 hijackers, and you will find a disturbed, evil bunch, no doubt, but also many who came to the west for its schools. Osama Bin Laden is an evil offshoot of one of the most "successful" families in Saudi Arabia in economic terms and, one, I believe that had not necessarily thrown its weight behind Wahabbism.*

That we are no closer now than 8 years ago in Afghanistan probably should not be a shock considering this and other factors. That we seem no closer to figuring it out, however, is probably the biggest problem.

* In fairness, there is reason for this in the practices of the Taliban, which served to limit the development of such an elite. Excluding women from schools and quashing dissent (putting it mildly) are surefire ways to prevent sophisticated, revolutionary thinking from developing and spreading.

[The Stig]

The Taliban aren't from the same background as Al Qaeda. Maybe a few of their leaders are from wealthier backgrounds (we actually don't know much about them - there's no verified photo of Mullah Omar), but the rank and file are mostly poor peasants who took up arms. Remember, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are NOT the same groups.

As far as timelines for Obama's decision, most are expecting a decision after he gets back from Asia. But even back in August the military was saying that the soonest they can deploy any additional troops is January, so those who say that Obama's delayed decision is endangering the situation there are wide of the mark.

[Boz]

Nov 16, 2009 7:14:10 GMT -5 The Stig said:

As far as timelines for Obama's decision, most are expecting a decision after he gets back from Asia. But even back in August the military was saying that the soonest they can deploy any additional troops is January, so those who say that Obama's delayed decision is endangering the situation there are wide of the mark.

Yes, and if he makes a decision now, the soonest we will be able to deploy troops will most likely be late spring. It takes time to spin up a combat deployment of 40,000 soldiers. That's why they said January back in August.

[EasyEd]

A non-decision is a decision.

[jerseyhoya34]

President Obama is scheduled to announce his decision on December 1.

[The Stig]

Nov 16, 2009 9:27:31 GMT -5 Boz said:

Nov 16, 2009 7:14:10 GMT -5 The Stig said:

As far as timelines for Obama's decision, most are expecting a decision after he gets back from Asia. But even back in August the military was saying that the soonest they can deploy any additional troops is January, so those who say that Obama's delayed decision is endangering the situation there are wide of the mark.

Yes, and if he makes a decision now, the soonest we will be able to deploy troops will most likely be late spring. It takes time to spin up a combat deployment of 40,000 soldiers. That's why they said January back in August.

I think the January date had more to do with the way troops were cycling out than straight logistics. We don't have 40,000 troops to deploy in December - that's how badly stretched the military is. In January a nice chunk of troops finish up the Pentagon's mandatory time at home period and become available to deploy.

If another major national security crisis requiring ground troops pops up, we're going to have to re-institute the draft.

[Elvado]

Good to see Hamlet has come to a decision.

[rosslynhoya]

Nov 23, 2009 22:38:54 GMT -5 The Stig said:

If another major national security crisis requiring ground troops pops up, we're going to have to re-institute the draft.

Will that move happen before or after they legalize rape?

[Deleted]

Some commentary from Gates and McCain over the weekend:

www.halifaxforum.org

[Bando]

Obama's sending 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan (McClatchy).

[Boz]

Nov 25, 2009 1:35:21 GMT -5 Bando said:

Obama's sending 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan (McClatchy).

As I know there are many liberals on this board (cough-jersey-cough ;D ) who think most conservatives wouldn't support Obama even if he brought about a new Golden Age of Enlightenment, Peace and Prosperity, let me be one of the first to applaud the President on making what I and many others believe to be the right decision here.

I won't offer 100% support just yet, simply because I want to hear more about the details, but I am very supportive of the decision and direction in general.

Yes, there will be conservatives (pretty sure Glenn Beck has already gone there), who say "34,000 is NOT 40,000!" Personally, I'd like to hear the rationale for making such a strong commitment, but falling a little short of the actual request (it seems so arbitrary that there must be a reason, possibly from a Pentagon assessment of availability, who knows?), before making any comments on the actual number.

In the meantime, I anticipate a very interesting Thanksgiving weekend with my brother - who supports Obama on everything but wants us out of Afghanistan and Iraq yesterday, while I oppose him on almost everything, but support this direction. It could turn into Bizarro world, with me defending Obama and him castigating him.

[SSHoya]

A brigade can typically have 4,000 - 5,000 troops. Sounds short one brigade than recommended. Could be operational reason for it, i.e., readiness. Given the ops tempo that wouldn't be surprising. I'd rather the CIC get it right, than to get it quick.

[rosslynhoya]

Nov 25, 2009 10:27:24 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

A brigade can typically have 4,000 - 5,000 troops. Sounds short one brigade than recommended. Could be operational reason for it, i.e., readiness. Given the ops tempo that wouldn't be surprising. I'd rather the CIC get it right, than to get it quick.

I believe the prevailing theory is that the Great Diplomat will charm another brigade out of our NATO allies in order to bring us up to the 40,000 that Gen. MacChrystall says are needed.

Of course, claiming that you can replace a U.S. brigade with an allied one on a one-for-one basis is not a very sound proposition, and no doubt the General was hoping for additional NATO contributions on top of the 40,000 Americans.

[EasyEd]

I'll wait for the President to state his case before chiming in.

[jerseyhoya34]

Kudos to Boz for his preliminary approval of this action/announcement. It is somewhere close to the McCrystal Plan in pertinent part, namely troop levels. That there are now calls to wait for a rationale is quite startling given that the push was previously to make a decision irrespective to the thought behind it or irrespective to whether the President felt that he had the information needed to formulate a plan.

This being said, I don't expect and haven't expected Republican support for Obama's decision for many of the reasons Boz gave. It takes a leap of imagination at this point to have a presumption in that favor, especially in light of polling data that reflects a belief among most Americans that elected Republicans are not exercising their responsibilities in good faith. Some RNC goblin is probably debating whether to demand equal time from the networks next week to oppose Obama's decision as we speak.

Be that as it may, I can't say that I agree with the decision for reasons that I have stated before. It appears to be a half-measure without a clear commitment to a particular strategy - counterforce or countervalue. If the object is to kill off Al Qaeda, go all in. If the object is to bring about a change in the values that give rise to terrorism, go light on our footprint and use intelligence services to a greater extent.

This apparent result is not unexpected, as I noted earlier. The easiest course was something between McCrystal and Biden, but, as with many things, splitting the baby can be ineffective. My hope is that this won't be the case, but I have my reservations.

[EasyEd]

All we have heard so far is leaked information which may not be correct or may be taken out of context so I repeat I will not comment until I hear it from the horse's mouth.

[Boz]

That's not entirely fair, Ambassador.

I do support the President preliminarily and in principle on this, pending more detail. But I said I would like to see a rationale for the variance in the number, and I would. It seems pretty logical to me to ask why 34,000 instead of 40,000, doesn't it? I am not rejecting the number, certainly not, but can you think of a single reporter who wouldn't also want to ask that question? I would also like to see the details of his plan, to judge whether they are in accordance with the strategy that has been proposed. Also reasonable.

I do not think that is at all at odds with previous calls for the president to make this decision more quickly. Your characterization that conservatives were calling for a decision before the president "had the information he needed" is not an accurate portrayal of the conservative objections. Our (if I may speak for all of us from our secret mansion in the mountains) position was that he had all of the information necessary and I haven't seen anything in the last few weeks to lead me to believe that he is more informed now than he was before.

Yes, I realize that is an arrogant statement, as the president has access to so much more information than I will ever see. I don't mean it to be arrogant, though. I do expect that he will offer an explanation next week of the factors that made him take the time he did to make this decision. He doesn't have to, of course, but I don't think it's unreasonable for want that.

Yes, I think the Glenn Beck types will be as snarky as ever. But I also think you might be surprised by the Republican support he does get, particularly by elected officials. Just a hunch.

I'm probably overreacting, but thought that deserved a response.

It's all just blather right now anyway. We'll have more detail soon enough, and then we can evaluate in full, like ed. Which is probably the best thing to do. So I'll shut up...or at least I'll end on a positive note:


Happy Thanksgiving to all of our men and women serving our country overseas....and those that are serving at home too!!! Thank you for all that you do!!!

[Bando]

Nov 25, 2009 18:42:11 GMT -5 Boz said:

That's not entirely fair, Ambassador.

I do support the President preliminarily and in principle on this, pending more detail. But I said I would like to see a rationale for the variance in the number, and I would. It seems pretty logical to me to ask why 34,000 instead of 40,000, doesn't it? I am not rejecting the number, certainly not, but can you think of a single reporter who wouldn't also want to ask that question? I would also like to see the details of his plan, to judge whether they are in accordance with the strategy that has been proposed. Also reasonable.

I do not think that is at all at odds with previous calls for the president to make this decision more quickly. Your characterization that conservatives were calling for a decision before the president "had the information he needed" is not an accurate portrayal of the conservative objections. Our (if I may speak for all of us from our secret mansion in the mountains) position was that he had all of the information necessary and I haven't seen anything in the last few weeks to lead me to believe that he is more informed now than he was before.

Yes, I realize that is an arrogant statement, as the president has access to so much more information than I will ever see. I don't mean it to be arrogant, though. I do expect that he will offer an explanation next week of the factors that made him take the time he did to make this decision. He doesn't have to, of course, but I don't think it's unreasonable for want that.

Yes, I think the Glenn Beck types will be as snarky as ever. But I also think you might be surprised by the Republican support he does get, particularly by elected officials. Just a hunch.

I'm probably overreacting, but thought that deserved a response.

It's all just blather right now anyway. We'll have more detail soon enough, and then we can evaluate in full, like ed. Which is probably the best thing to do. So I'll shut up...or at least I'll end on a positive note:


Happy Thanksgiving to all of our men and women serving our country overseas....and those that are serving at home too!!! Thank you for all that you do!!!

You have to realize that the President will get support on this from people who will not parlay that into support on any other issue. Knowing that, GOP support on this issue is practically useless. You can blame Glenn Beck for that, for sure.

Happy Thanksgiving, Hoyatalkers.