Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Obama promises 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan

2008-07-15

I didn't realize he had that authority ...

Barack Obama yesterday pledged to increase US troops in Afghanistan by a third if he becomes president, sending 10,000 more to reinforce the 33,000 already there.

Obama has promised, soon after becoming president in January, to begin scaling back the 156,000 US troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and to shift the focus to Afghanistan. He is to fill out his plans in a foreign policy speech in Washington today ahead of his first visit to Iraq and Afghanistan since he launched his presidential bid early last year.

Details of his trip have been kept secret for security reasons but a senior Palestinian spokesman, Saeb Erekat, disclosed yesterday that Obama would be in the region next week, with a meeting in the West Bank on July 23 with the ~~ineffectual~~ Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Perfect, since Abbas doesn't stand for anything and can't do anything ...

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said today's speech "will focus on the global strategic interests of the United States, which includes ending our misguided effort in Iraq". He added that a gradual, phased withdrawal of US troops "will allow the US to properly address the growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan".

Previewing the speech in an article written for the comment page of the New York Times yesterday, Obama wrote: "As president, I would pursue a new strategy and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more non-military assistance to accomplish our mission there." He said that ending the war in Iraq is "essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven".

In a separate comment on the campaign trail, Obama said the killings on Sunday reinforced the need to switch resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. "I continue to believe that we're under-resourced in Afghanistan," he said. "That is the real centre for terrorist activity that we have to deal with and deal with aggressively."

This concern of yours seems a little .. sudden, Senator. You could have brought this up anytime the last two years and sponsored a bill in Congress to pay for more effort in Afghanistan.

His Republican rival, John McCain, is also to discuss Afghanistan this week. Randy Scheunemann, a senior McCain foreign policy adviser, noted yesterday that Obama had voted in the senate last year against increased resources for US troops in Afghanistan. "Senator Obama is not trying to have it both ways, he's trying to have it every way," Scheunemann said.

Posted by:Steve White

#16 In my opinion, both McCain and Obama have made about the same pledge regarding Afghanistan.

The main difference is that Obama doesn't call it a surge.

Furthermore, assuming that, in Sept. we determine that we can reduce the Iraq deployment by 30k over the next 6 months, that Afghanistan surge (or augment) becomes a very real option.

What would have been better though is to be able to use some of the 20k non combat Eurotroops in combat.

What would be even better is to be able to surge the Afghan army.

What would be best of all is to partly surge the Afghan army and also have Iraq deploy some of their forces to Afghanistan to help out the coalition there.

Posted by: mhw 2008-07-15 16:38

#15 Troops loyal to The Taliban(tm)?

Posted by: Uncle Phester 2008-07-15 15:40

#14 yes, he is obviously C-n-C, thanks for the edification...and in cases where orders are unlawful military personnel are obligated to disobey them.

Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-07-15 13:51

#13 they have to obey the constitution, which specifies that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.

This is all silly, the armed forces of the US have obeyed Presidential orders since 1865. In all kinds of controversial situations, attacks, withdrawls, firings of commanders, etc.

And even in 1861, the currently serving officers who chose to join the confederacy formally resigned their commisions in the US Army, IIUC. There has never been a mass mutiny in US history, that I am aware of.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-07-15 12:51

#12 Actually the Military Officer oath of office makes no mention about obeying the president.

Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-07-15 11:58

#11 see #8 Steve. Long tangled discussions of Int law, and unverified and unverifiable claims. Is this what we want?

Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-07-15 11:30

#10 Procopius2k: A very unknown part of the Iranian hostage rescue plan I got right from the horses mouth at the US Army Chemical School at Ft. McClellan, AL.

Carter's rage was such that he directed the army to produce over a ton of agent BZ, which had been eliminated from stocks, and to initiate the hostage rescue with a chemical attack on Tehran. And if you examine the situation carefully, this appears to be about the only way this rescue mission could have worked.

Estimated civilian killed at over 10,000, even though BZ, a hallucinogen, is classified as "less than lethal".

Col. Charles Beckwith took the hit for the failure of the clusterfuck, which was guaranteed to not be reproducible because a list of the CIA informants in Tehran was left behind, and they were all arrested and executed.

I cannot suggest that the military intentionally fouled the mission, and with the loss of the lives of service members, to prevent the incredible international repercussions against the United States for clearly violating multiple treaties and US law.

However, had they fudged the mission intentionally, it would have been worth it.

Damn Carter his insane rage and lust for murderous revenge. He didn't care what it did to the US, as long as he got even.

But the military is more than aware of the risk having a Democrat president now entails. I cannot blame them for right now circling the wagons and protect the funding of critical projects.

And especially for not wanting to be ordered to war against a prepared enemy, with no support, ill-equipped, and on the whimsical order of someone who has no grasp of the military, war, history, diplomacy or foreign policy.

Soldiers can be ordered to undertake suicide missions, but they have the right not to be cursed while doing so.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-15 10:43

#9 Carter's order directing the Iranian hostage rescue was not only an unlawful act of aggressive war, but incorporated elements in contravention of numerous treaties, US law, and the UCMJ.

Huh? You lost me Moose. The violation of the embassy and holding American diplomatic personnel was a causa bellum. The Hague Convention of 1907 stipulates that if the host country isn't going to act, then we may pursue our own actions. If you want precedent, just look up the founding father Jefferson and the dealings with the Barbary pirates. He help write the book. Congress doesn't have to meet and issue paper every time the President needs to address a crisis be it on the, then, frontier or internationally. That is why the intent of the founders was to keep the military small, less of a tool to jam into somewhere.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-15 10:03

#8 oh, and Steve, could we clean up the troll here, before things get out of hand?

Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-07-15 09:29

#7 Baluchistan isnt arab, though. Its Baluchi.

If youve followed the RB posts on the Baluchi insurgents, I dont think youd consider them terribly reliable potential allies.

OTOH, if promise the Russkie we wont admit Ukraine or Georgia into NATO anytime soon, we can probably get their indefinite cooperation on access via the central asian stans.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-07-15 09:28

#6 A free and independant Arab Balochistan would solve that logistic problem. Bandar Abbas is a very nice port.

Just saying.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-15 08:44

#5 Barack Obama yesterday pledged to increase US troops in Afghanistan by a third

With Iraq winding down we are already seeing a bit of relocation of troops to A'stan, and BO is probably right that at least a third more are needed. That said, it is tough to do, because of the logistical issues of supplying them through quasi-enemy territory.

Posted by: Menhaden S 2008-07-15 07:42

#4 dogsbody: "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials."

The devil, however, is in the details.

Both Bush administrations spent months carefully arranging the *international* legal groundwork for invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and extended military operations in both nations. While some of this is still debated, in the opinion of most legal scholars, it was more than enough to insure compliance with international law, the Geneva Conventions, US national law, and the UCMJ.

However, *neither* Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton could be bothered with such difficult and time consuming efforts as establishing a legal groundwork for offensive operations. Carter's order directing the Iranian hostage rescue was not only an unlawful act of aggressive war, but incorporated elements in contravention of numerous treaties, US law, and the UCMJ. Incorporated into the plan would have been significant collateral civilian casualties as an intentional part of the attack.

Bill Clinton was equally willing to ignore international law by ordering a cruise missile attack against a non-belligerent nation and an internationally protected target, a baby food factory. That it was based on flawed intelligence in no way changes the character of the act being unlawful.

Barack Obama has not so far demonstrated either an understanding of compliance with international treaties, US law, the UCMJ, or to incorporate individuals into his prospective administration different than that of his Democrat predecessors.

Unless he does so, almost any military action he contemplates has a staggeringly high chance to be unlawful. And following such orders does not have as a defense that you were only following orders. And while disobedience of lawful orders, or mutiny, is a punishable offense, the reasonable alternative is to be unable to carry out unlawful orders due to inefficiency.

This is defensible in court, and insulates military personnel from prosecution.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-15 06:24

#3 @ dogsbody

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Dogsbody, there is a reason the bold text comes before obeying the orders of the President. That reason is to allow the Military to carry out their primary allegiance, which is to The Constitution and The Nation first should someone be elected President and be proven an enemy of the United States.

Obama isn't even elected and I already consider him along with all the Dems and a good percentage of the Repubs to be internal enemies. There is nothing despicable about Anonymooses post.

Maybe you should reread the oath and ask yourself where your primary allegiance lies.

Posted by: Lampedusa Glack5566 2008-07-15 05:04

#2 I will never vote for the copperhead dems but if BO is constitutionally elected I expect the military to adhere to their oath and follow orders to their upmost ability. I took that oath and I find comments like those from Anonymoose despicable and the type of thing one would hear in a banana republic.

Posted by: dogsbody 2008-07-15 02:03

#1 He could order the entire US Army there, and they would at least prepare to go. However, it is unlikely that they would be able to get there, as the number of clerical errors would approach infinity.

He could order this and order that, and replace senior officers like musical chairs. And when all was said and done, there would be a lot of retirements, boot lickers would have been promoted, but not a damn soldier would have found his way to Afghanistan.

He can order until he is blue in the face, and none would dare call it mutiny. Lethargy, ennui, inefficiency, maybe, but not mutiny.

Same result, however.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-15 00:28

00:00