Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 01/13/2009 View Mon 01/12/2009 View Sun 01/11/2009 View Sat 01/10/2009 View Fri 01/09/2009 View Thu 01/08/2009 View Wed 01/07/2009
1
2009-01-13 Afghanistan
Obama To Send 30k more troops To Afghanistan but not to win
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by mhw 2009-01-13 08:49|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ]  Top

#1 30,000 more troops.
Hippies should be pleased.

Hee hee.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2009-01-13 09:08||   2009-01-13 09:08|| Front Page Top

#2 So the central front in the war on terror is this landlocked country we can't support troops in and is ten times easier for Pakistan to support its troops in than we can?
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-13 10:04||   2009-01-13 10:04|| Front Page Top

#3 "will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort"

Oh sure--send our guys into harm's way while you idiots try to figure out what you're doing.

"Um-uh-, look-- we haven't caught Bin Laden, so I'm sending thousands of troops into an area where they won't make any difference at all, and where many will be killed. Soon, it will be up to all of us to accept the differences between Islam and the West and to learn to live together in peace." ~Obama

Obama
Posted by ex-lib 2009-01-13 10:12||   2009-01-13 10:12|| Front Page Top

#4 what Obama has called the "central front on terror

Yeah, now that al Qaeda got their asses kicked in Iraq. No doubt Barack's mother-in-law will make him send a thank-you note to George W.
Posted by SteveS 2009-01-13 10:28||   2009-01-13 10:28|| Front Page Top

#5 The real zinger here will be if India follows through and sends a butt load of infantry to Afghanistan as well. It would rise the Pakistani infection like epsom salt.
Posted by Anonymoose 2009-01-13 10:36||   2009-01-13 10:36|| Front Page Top

#6 The real zinger here will be if India follows through and sends a butt load of infantry to Afghanistan as well. It would rise the Pakistani infection like epsom salt.

I've looked at the map, there doesn't seem to be a way of getting them there.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-13 10:44||   2009-01-13 10:44|| Front Page Top

#7 I saw an interesting (to me) report of a future logistics deal with RUSSIA a week or so ago. The amount mentioned was 50,000 railcars. The report seemed a bit odd, but I suppose the Russians could use the money.
Posted by Minister of funny walks 2009-01-13 10:49||   2009-01-13 10:49|| Front Page Top

#8 The Russians are needing money. Plus the propaganda value of helping the poor Americans in their quagmire, plus the political card to use in future negotiations of pulling the supply line out from NATO's feet.

Win-win-win for Russia.
Posted by DarthVader 2009-01-13 11:17||   2009-01-13 11:17|| Front Page Top

#9 The problem with inviting the Russkies in tends to be getting them to leave again.
Posted by mojo 2009-01-13 11:26||   2009-01-13 11:26|| Front Page Top

#10 Make ye no truce with Adam-Zad, the bear that walks like a man.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-13 11:34||   2009-01-13 11:34|| Front Page Top

#11 I've looked at the map, there doesn't seem to be a way of getting them there.

The route from Amritsar through Lahore, Rawalpindi and Peshawar should work just fine, once you secure it from the natives.
Posted by Glenmore 2009-01-13 12:20||   2009-01-13 12:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Isn't that the route the Brits tried?
Posted by bman 2009-01-13 12:43||   2009-01-13 12:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Putin might be smart enough to understand that we need to fight the muzzies. He's probably perfectly content to let us have at it. But it sucks to be beholden to him. Well, everybody knows that the real problem is Pakistan. Maybe we're just keeping Afghanistan on hold to use as a launching pad into Land of the Pure. I don't like to think of American troops slogging their way through there. Might work, though, if we can get together with the Indians to execute a pincer.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-01-13 12:44||   2009-01-13 12:44|| Front Page Top

#14 Correct bman. But the British problem was with the Afghans. We and the Indians don't seem to have that problem.

It's really an old engineering project - completing the Orient Express, linking the stub at Constantinople with - pick one, Delhi, Rangoon, Singapore, Saigon.
Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-01-13 12:47||   2009-01-13 12:47|| Front Page Top

#15 The route from Amritsar through Lahore, Rawalpindi and Peshawar should work just fine, once you secure it from the natives. Posted by: Glenmore|| 2009-01-13 12:20

Clearing and securing that route through Pakistan would pretty well eliminate the need for India to put troops in Afghanistan.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2009-01-13 12:50|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2009-01-13 12:50|| Front Page Top

#16 30,000 troops which the next administration calls a central front but does not think that they will make a difference.

30,000 sons and daughters so Obama can vote 'present'? Better not be.
Posted by swksvolFF 2009-01-13 12:51||   2009-01-13 12:51|| Front Page Top

#17 The "new surge" may succeed (as much as might be possible) without BHO's help and he probably dare not be seen as trying to lose. Cross you fingers folks, it's going to be a ride.
Posted by tipover 2009-01-13 12:54||   2009-01-13 12:54|| Front Page Top

#18 "Obama sends".... Why do I get this disgusting feeling? Maybe it's because I know Obama is "sending" but has never GONE.
Posted by Besoeker 2009-01-13 12:56||   2009-01-13 12:56|| Front Page Top

#19 Afghanistanization?

I went through this bullshit in my second tour of Vietnam, Vietnamization. Go die while the politicians figure out how to lose this sucker. That's why I ended my career at 10 1/2 years.

Go ahead and get a UN resolution against the Taliban, send the evacuation helicopters to the US Embassy in Kabul and call it a day.

Don't piss away the lives of our brave warriors.




Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-13 13:03||   2009-01-13 13:03|| Front Page Top

#20 they fly in
Posted by rabid whitetail 2009-01-13 13:09||   2009-01-13 13:09|| Front Page Top

#21 would pretty well eliminate the need for India to put troops in Afghanistan.

Well, yeah, OP. What's wrong with that?
Posted by Glenmore 2009-01-13 13:14||   2009-01-13 13:14|| Front Page Top

#22 I wonder what their ROE is going to be and what kind of support they will receive.

"We're going to send you 30,000 to the front lines... but we don't expect you to make any differences [except to die while we discuss this in commitee].

What leadership......
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-01-13 13:17||   2009-01-13 13:17|| Front Page Top

#23 Golf Bravo USMC: I was thinking the same thoughts, and you *know* that's what they've been thinking in the Pentagon since way back when.

I've always been concerned that Afghanistan was much more like Vietnam than Iraq could ever be. Substitute Iran for Laos and Pakistan for Cambodia and there you are.

And now you've got people like Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed, who are just itching to tell the military how to do their job. Who it is forbidden to shoot at, and how the enemy have to be notified before being attacked.

And the worse part is that radical Democrat federal prosecutors are going to want to prosecute soldiers for what might happen in Afghanistan.

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act law was written in 2000 and amended in 2004 primarily to prosecute civilian contractors who commit crimes while working for the U.S. overseas.

It was not intended to prosecute soldiers back in the US, but that is how it is already being used. Fortunately, Jose Luis Nazario, Jr. was acquitted, but the law is still on the books.

And that is just crap.
Posted by Anonymoose 2009-01-13 13:21||   2009-01-13 13:21|| Front Page Top

#24 no wonder they built this bastard a tank for a limo.
Posted by rabid whitetail 2009-01-13 13:24||   2009-01-13 13:24|| Front Page Top

#25 This sounds more like your typical Washington Post "doom and gloom" then Barry throwing in the towel already. Do you really think Barry wants to go down as a president who lost a war. His "legacy" and all that good shit...
Posted by tu3031 2009-01-13 13:42||   2009-01-13 13:42|| Front Page Top

#26 Patreus is still the theater commander and my gut says that he will use these troops wisely. Hopefully they will get enough air assets (helicopters) to support them. But I understand the quagmire-like characteristics of Afghanistan. Wish we could just leave. Although it is a nice spot from which to launch drones for HVT raids into the tribal belt.
Posted by remoteman 2009-01-13 13:49||   2009-01-13 13:49|| Front Page Top

#27 Moose:

I've been thinking that for a long time. At least in Iraq there is an educated base to build on no matter how imperfect the result. In Afghanistan we are building sandcastles at the water's edge at low tide and calling it a Nation.

Our Military has been handed a Blivet, 10 pounds of shit in a five pound bag.

The Pakistan/Afghanistan area is a fourth world toilet and it will always be that way. The Pashtuns are the problem on both sides of the border.

Give the Pashtuns their own country, quarantine that sucker and let them eat their poppies.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-13 13:53||   2009-01-13 13:53|| Front Page Top

#28 tu:
The libs write the history. They'll blame it on Bush because he got involved in Iraq when he should have been paying attention to Afghanistan.

You know the game, JFK had a plan to get us out of Vietnam but he was killed.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-13 13:59||   2009-01-13 13:59|| Front Page Top

#29 Fpr reasons I have alrady stated I am completely oppsoite to abandonnong Afgansistan. Howver I am concerned about the thinness and the unstabilty of the Allied supply lines in Afghanistan who could easily become a trap for troops sent there (in addition to making the Allies vulnerable to black mail). That is why, IMHO, the solution is keep as few troops as possible: the lesser, the easier to supply and the smaller the impact if things go badly with these supply lines) and pûtt the problem in Afgahan hands. A! and get rid of Karzai: he is at the very meast incompetent and probably corrupt, at the worst, well before the invasion his opposition to the Taliban was not taht strong...
Posted by n">n  2009-01-13 14:23||   2009-01-13 14:23|| Front Page Top

#30 If we invade Iran that kind of solves the Afghanistan logistics/land access problem.

Just saying...
Posted by Iblis 2009-01-13 14:25||   2009-01-13 14:25|| Front Page Top

#31 The route from Amritsar through Lahore, Rawalpindi and Peshawar should work just fine, once you secure it from the natives.

I don't really think the aristocracy here in the US plans on doing anything that decisive. Just sending people to bleed in place.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-13 14:44||   2009-01-13 14:44|| Front Page Top

#32 Yah, I think it's pretty obvious that the aristocracy over here latched onto working through a corrupt aristocracy over there, and it's been a massive force divider ever since.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-13 14:47||   2009-01-13 14:47|| Front Page Top

#33 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effor

All I have heard from these libs before the election is how GWB is doing it all wrong and how they have better ideas. So why the hell do they need time to reappraise? They already said "The One" has the answers. And that's why people should vote for them.

What a predictable bunch of empty suits.
Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2009-01-13 15:19||   2009-01-13 15:19|| Front Page Top

#34 Afghanistan will turn into Vietnam because Washington will soon be filled with the Best and the Brightest. They will turn Petraeus into some sort of John Paul Vann.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-01-13 16:09||   2009-01-13 16:09|| Front Page Top

#35 Exactly. While the left was claiming Iraq was another Vietnam because it was politically expedient to do so, they claimed the Vietnam Waiting to Happen was 'The Right War'.
Posted by Mike N. 2009-01-13 16:16||   2009-01-13 16:16|| Front Page Top

#36 #3 "will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort"

Oh sure--send our guys into harm's way while you idiots try to figure out what you're doing.

"Um-uh-, look-- we haven't caught Bin Laden, so I'm sending thousands of troops into an area where they won't make any difference at all, and where many will be killed. Soon, it will be up to all of us to accept the differences between Islam and the West and to learn to live together in peace." ~Obama

Obama
Posted by ex-lib 2009-01-13 10:12|


Obama -
P.S
Were going to lose and I dont care about you.

About summs it all up...
And this man is going to be POTUS because? Hes not fit to sell shoes.

Posted by lftbhndagn">lftbhndagn  2009-01-13 17:07|| http://lftbhndagn.wordpress.com]">[http://lftbhndagn.wordpress.com]  2009-01-13 17:07|| Front Page Top

#37 See CHINESE MIL FORUM > 2008 WORLD GDPS [end-of-year].

NUTSHELL = CHINA is offic ranked #3 behind #1 USA + #2 JAPAN, RUSSIA T'AINT [ Russ wayyyyyyyy down there].
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-13 17:43||   2009-01-13 17:43|| Front Page Top

#38 The good news for VLADVEDEV = RUSS is that the RUSS + NON-RUSS SLAVIC BABES on Net dating sites are totally Hawt.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-13 17:45||   2009-01-13 17:45|| Front Page Top

#39 Winning is impossible as long as an overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to shake the belief that Muslims are anything but inherently belligerent. (At least those who understand the koran terror manual)

Bush allowed the Heroin industry to flourish because he wanted to keep up appearances of Pashtun support for the nominal national government. He knew that most Pashtuns support Taliban, and allow tacit shariah constitutionalism to serve as the real basis of law in that territorial gutter.

I can't see how Obama could possibly be any worse. As long as the local drug business is allowed to flourish, Taliban Summer offensives will continue unabated.

In 1984 George Orwell predicted a future polluted War-Wars, fought only to sustain popular illusions. That is what we have in Afghanistan.
Posted by Albert Throth9101 2009-01-13 19:03||   2009-01-13 19:03|| Front Page Top

#40 John Frum can correct me if I am wrong... but I suspect if India sends those 120K troops -- they will be supplied via the land of India's friend IRAN.

(Just something to ponder)
Posted by 3dc 2009-01-13 19:40||   2009-01-13 19:40|| Front Page Top

#41 From things I've been reading lately, it seems that US presidents have historically had a hard time controlling their secretaries of state and defence/war. President-elect Obama hired himself very strong individuals in both those positions so that he would, I think, be able to concentrate on domestic issues, which is where his interests lie. Secretary of Defence Gates has accumulated a reputation for success based on Iraq, which gives him a great deal of influence on future decisions within his pervue. Add to that the weight of any opinion General Petraeus should choose to express on the matter. Neither of the two gentlemen will want to lose in Afghanistan if they believe the war can be won. They have legacies to protect as well as their incoming boss.
Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife  2009-01-13 20:57||   2009-01-13 20:57|| Front Page Top

#42 If the Pentagon brass sees disastrous policy being dispensed, they should honorably resign rather than implement said policy
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2009-01-13 21:20||   2009-01-13 21:20|| Front Page Top

#43 The logistics supply problem will shortly get a lot worse in Pakistan. Food shortages will trigger social unrest and hungry people are not going to standby while trucks full of MREs roll by.
Posted by phil_b 2009-01-13 21:41||   2009-01-13 21:41|| Front Page Top

#44 Iff both INDIA + CHINA send 100,000 - 120,000 of thier own troops into Afghanistan [andor Pakistan] as indic in Mil Forum news threads, THE US WID 30,000 TROOPS WON'T BE ALLOWED TO WIN.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-13 22:04||   2009-01-13 22:04|| Front Page Top

#45 INDIAN MILITARY FORUM > CHINA: STRATEGIC EXPERTS TALK ABOUT A PARTIAL/LIMITED SINO-INDIAN WAR. China = PLA + CMC worry over possible conflict scenarios as per:

* NORTH KOREA - Chin cannot allow the US = US-Allies to control or occupy NOKOR.
* INDIA-PAKISTAN - potential for Regional-Global nuclear war, INDIAN improvements in Miltechs vee CHINA.
* US-IRAN WAR [includ ISRAEL-IRAN] - Chin prevented from assisting ally Iran, or protecting Chin interests in the Persian Gulf-ME due to variable US-ISRAELI-Allied actions agz Iran.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-13 22:12||   2009-01-13 22:12|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:48 Abu do you love
23:46 Gabby C.
23:41 Pappy
23:26 Alaska Paul in Haines, AK
23:26 Pheans Panda2611
23:24 Pheans Panda2611
23:20 Verlaine
23:11 Alaska Paul in Haines, AK
23:10 Spike Uniter
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:04 Alaska Paul in Haines, AK
23:01 mojo
22:57 Alaska Paul in Haines, AK
22:55 Mike N.
22:54 Spike Uniter
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:38 crosspatch
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:26 Alaska Paul in Haines, AK
22:19 Spike Uniter
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:17 Scooter McGruder









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com