Article

2009-12-02 Afghanistan

Obama: 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan by summer

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 Grineng Clomolet2918 2009-12-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#1 ION GUAMPDN FORUMS > [Navy Times} THE UNFUNDED NAVY. Is the USDOD-Navy so $$$ broke its Sailors have to buy their own industrial tools to perform thier work???

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-12-02 02:19|| na]">[na] 2009-12-02 02:19|| Front Page Top

#2 I wonder if the leftists in Obama's party realize that 'starting to leave Afghanistan in 2011' may be like 'starting to leave Korea is 1953'.

Posted by lord garth 2009-12-02 07:38|| 2009-12-02 07:38|| Front Page Top

#3 If I were the Taliban, I would keep up the harassing action, demoralize the troops, play games with civilians to put the US on the defensive, and wait it out till 6-2011.

Between O and the Taliban, our troops should be thoroughly demoralized by that time.

/spit

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-12-02 09:50|| 2009-12-02 09:50|| Front Page Top

#4 Here is how the Obama team probably played this out. (1) Troops go in. (2) Jihadi, knowing they have a deadline, bury their weapons and wait it out. Perhaps keeping low scale attacks to keep relevant. (3) Obama claims he pacified the area. Claims victory and pulls out. (4) Jihadi unbury their weapons and take Afghanistan. (5) Loss of Afghanistan is blamed on locals.

Here is how it will really play out. (1) Troops go in. (2) Jihadi bury their weapons and go to Iraq to destabilize there some more as troops are withdrawn from Iraq. (3) Iran is happy.

Be careful Obama. One thing Bush knew was that Iraq is a far more valuable piece in the game. Don't lose it.

Posted by rjschwarz 2009-12-02 10:59|| 2009-12-02 10:59|| Front Page Top

#5 General Stanley A. McChrystal: Message to the troops

We have been presented a great opportunity to take the tremendous work of our Coalition force to the next level. The clarity, capability, and commitment outlined in President Obamas address are critical steps toward eliminating an insurgency in Afghanistan and terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

Each of you can be proud of the effort we have made here not just in bringing the fight to the enemy, but in reshaping that fight to achieve more lasting effects, grow our partnership with Afghan security forces, and strengthen relationships with government officials and the Afghan people. You have performed magnificently, and I believe our renewed Coalition campaign is fortified by the path President Obama has put forward.

Our NATO International Security Assistance Force objective remains clear: We will work toward a transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. They need our help and we are here for them, for their future, and for the safety and security of coalition nations.

The additional resources called for by President Obama will continue to advance a winning strategy. In recent months we have seen real progress that must be preserved and expanded. The increase of Coalition forces earlier this year in the Helmand River Valley, along with expanded civilian capacity, have improved security and stability. This is also helping to foster essential governance and basic economic development.

We still face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our mission has renewed purpose sustained by one unassailable reality: Neither the international community nor the Afghan people want this country to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The price to be paid in this conflict is high. But the stakes are higher.

President Obamas decision is a clear reflection not only of his intended strategy, but of his confidence in the success we can achieve success earned by the competence and courage you display every day in Afghanistan.

I am privileged to be serving with you, and I am confident that our partnership with Afghans will enable real change to Afghanistan, grounded in a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, economic independence and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how to live. In doing so, we will preserve for our own Coalition nations the lasting security we seek for the people of Afghanistan.

General Stanley A. McChrystal

Commander, International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan

Link

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-02 11:04|| 2009-12-02 11:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't ever underestimate the rad's inability to control themselves. How are they going to keep the boys in the mountains if they just sit back and do the opium rather than fulfilling their jihad. It's the story of the scorpion and the frog. They too have issues that will suppress the 'smart solution'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-12-02 11:10|| 2009-12-02 11:10|| Front Page Top

#7 "(1) Troops go in. (2) Jihadi, knowing they have a deadline, bury their weapons and wait it out. Perhaps keeping low scale attacks to keep relevant."

If they do that, they allow us to achieve our goals in training up the Afghan forces unmolested. Not to mention physical reconstruction, etc. Nah, that's a pretty questionable strategy. And it was not what AQinIraq did, despite knowing our surge there was not sustainable long term.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:04|| 2009-12-02 12:04|| Front Page Top

#8 well.

I feel I understand BHO better now than I did a few weeks ago. I feel less anxious now.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:05|| 2009-12-02 12:05|| Front Page Top

#9 "(2) Jihadi bury their weapons and go to Iraq to destabilize there some more as troops are withdrawn from Iraq."

Given the current balance of forces in Iraq, I don't think thats a viable strategy. Also I don't think this jives with the Pashtun makeup of the Taliban - they aint leaving greater Pashtunistan.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:06|| 2009-12-02 12:06|| Front Page Top

#10 What could have possibly come out of this to make you feel less anxious?

The summary is:

He doesn't send as many troops as the general asks for. Instead he simply placates the people that want him to send troops by sending some and asks our allies to pick up the slack. This way, if it doesn't work, his ass has some political cover by being able to blame the generals and our allies by claiming he sent troops but our allies didn't and the generals didn't get the job done with the tools they asked for.

He also sets a kinda-sorta timetable on the operation to soothe the left.

There is nothing in here that indicates a military victory is what he's trying to accomplish. In fact, it's plain as day that political victory is the purpose of this plan.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-12-02 12:21|| 2009-12-02 12:21|| Front Page Top

#11 Mike - he could have gone with Bidens no increase plan, or with 10,000 to 20,000 (Close to McCrystals high risk option) Instead he went with something pretty close to the McCrystal primary option. The difference from 40000 is probably due to Gates concerns about the footprint, and to Dept of the Army concerns about the stretching of the force. Its too big a number to assuage any of the doves on size grounds alone. It seems to me that its a very serious military commitment, with a very serious strategy accompanying it.

When we discussed this months ago, I dont think this is the level of troops most people here thought BHO would do, and he think at least some other than me agreed that 30,000 would be enough for McCrystal to feel his report had been accepted, in essence.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:25|| 2009-12-02 12:25|| Front Page Top

#12 That Bidens idea sucked or that this is not what some people expected from Obama in no way makes this plan good or any less a political calculation.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-12-02 12:37|| 2009-12-02 12:37|| Front Page Top

#13 The issue is not having the theater commander feel that his report was accepted.

The issue is winning this conflict, for which the most knowledgeable people in the field believe 30,000 is not sufficient, especially not since Obama has dragged his feet sufficiently long to give the Taliban a huge advantage and to demoralize those looking positively towards us.

Posted by lotp 2009-12-02 12:52|| 2009-12-02 12:52|| Front Page Top

#14 I feel I understand BHO better now than I did a few weeks ago. I feel less anxious now.

Feelings - hopeful or otherwise - are neither an analysis nor a strategy, and most especially so when war is the topic.

Posted by lotp 2009-12-02 13:00|| 2009-12-02 13:00|| Front Page Top

#15 I feel I understand BHO better now than I did a few weeks ago. I feel less anxious now.

Is that the Snark Of The Day or did he really mean it?

Posted by SteveS 2009-12-02 13:57|| 2009-12-02 13:57|| Front Page Top

#16 in no way makes this plan good or any less a political calculation.

It is the job of the president to get the politics right, Mike N., so that the generals can do the war fighting right. In my opinion, President Obama made the right decision while doing the politics wrong. His open and leisurely consultation process led many here and abroad to conclude he is a ditherer, which reputation will harm him in all his endeavors for the rest of his time in the White House.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-12-02 14:21|| 2009-12-02 14:21|| Front Page Top

#17 Word search of the speech for "victory" = 0.
All you need to know.

Posted by Black Bart Ebberens7700 2009-12-02 14:24|| 2009-12-02 14:24|| Front Page Top

#18 "V" for Victory. Something a pudgy old, cigar chomping, Englishman would say. Sort of unenlightened, racist, imperlist overtones, no?

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-02 14:42|| 2009-12-02 14:42|| Front Page Top

#19 so, we'll have 25-30% less the capability we had in Iraq in manpower/equipment/ports of embark and expect to get the job done 50% faster w/a group or natives who are even less literate then the ones in Iraq? This appears sound to some of you on here? I must've woke up in the twilight zone.

Obama may think he has the internal politics right for getting re-elected in a couple yrs but telling the enemy on national t.v. what your general course of action, end-ex & coordinating instructions are w/out a defined (& determined) end state is irrational...sort of like sitting on the report of the guy you hired for 3 months.

Posted by Broadhead6 2009-12-02 14:43|| 2009-12-02 14:43|| Front Page Top

#20 It is the job of the president to get the politics right, Mike N., so that the generals can do the war fighting right. In my opinion, President Obama made the right decision while doing the politics wrong

I agree with the first part, but we differ in our view of the later. Yes, getting the politics right is his job, but he did not get the politics right and that will hamper the generals ability to do the warfighting right. What he did was get the politics right for him personally; He did not get the politics right for American generals to be best able to fight the war.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-12-02 15:36|| 2009-12-02 15:36|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't think President Obama even got the politics right for himself, Mike N. I believe the widespread perception that he chose to dither will impact his effectiveness abroad as well as at home, even when he does make the right decision.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-12-02 15:44|| 2009-12-02 15:44|| Front Page Top

#22 That one we agree with. The delay hurt him a lot. Excepting the dithering, though, it looks like this position was staked out for himself, not the country.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-12-02 15:53|| 2009-12-02 15:53|| Front Page Top

#23 FWIW, November 2009 was not a particularly successful month for the Taliban. Coalition casualties were down more than 50% from Oct. Remember, we only had about 35k over there late in 2008 and have about 65k there now. Assuming we also move enough UAVs and other stuff there the CI has a good chance to work.

The issue of training Afghans is worrisome however, very worrisome. Karzai is also a worry.

Posted by lord garth 2009-12-02 16:27|| 2009-12-02 16:27|| Front Page Top

#24 I don't think you can argue he got the politics right. Anything less than getting us out pisses off his moonbat base. And by tacking on the date he's pissed off the right. I do wonder if McChrystal really believes zero is committed or if that is the good General playing politics. Remember, the position of General is highly political. I'd love to know his true, unedited thoughts. Personally, I'd wager, much like the economy, he blew it. He waited too long and by attaching that 'draw down' rider he's given aid and comfort to the Taliban. If they were smart, they'd hunker and wait for that date. Of course, maybe they will be stupid and come out and fight. But I doubt it.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2009-12-02 18:55|| 2009-12-02 18:55|| Front Page Top

#25 As I see it, this decision is wrong on a strategic level. The assumption that we can begin to draw down forces in 2011 is predicated on the buildup of a trustworthy, competent Afghan military and the cooperation of outlying tribes and villages in the suppression of Taliban forces (as U.S. forces will be concentrated near major population centers). Culturally, the Afghans are closer to the Taliban than to us so the latter part is iffy. And the corrupt and weak central government is unlikely to be able to pick up the slack over the proposed timeline even in the most optimistic scenario. Nation building in Afghanistan has proven chimerical so moving toward a lighter yet still mobile and deadly military footprint weighted toward special forces would have been better.

Posted by Jinens Lumplump6738 2009-12-02 19:20|| 2009-12-02 19:20|| Front Page Top

#26 There are other Islamically oriented weak states which are potential recruitment bases and training grounds for al Qaeda, such as Somalia. Considering the lack of enthusiasm on the part of U.S. allies with regard to sending their *own* troops in significant numbers to support this mission in Afghanistan, can America really afford to maintain this level of military commitment in a country which is not strategically crucial (the proximity to Pakistan notwithstanding)?

Posted by Jinens Lumplump6738 2009-12-02 19:28|| 2009-12-02 19:28|| Front Page Top

#27 a lighter yet still mobile and deadly military footprint weighted toward special forces would have been better.

Doubtful. Think of squeezing a partially-inflated balloon. At best, the Taliban get harassed. At worst, you end up with a lot of dead special forces troops.

Then again, dead operators don't make the news.

Posted by Pappy 2009-12-02 21:49|| 2009-12-02 21:49|| Front Page Top

#28 Considering the lack of enthusiasm on the part of U.S. allies with regard to sending their *own* troops in significant numbers to support this mission in Afghanistan, can America really afford to maintain this level of military commitment in a country which is not strategically crucial (the proximity to Pakistan notwithstanding)?

1. Europe has always had a "lack of enthusiasm".

2. Apparently America "can afford" domestic spending.

3. Funny you should mention Somalia. IIRC, the US withdrawal from there was mentioned by Al Qaeda. Funny how nobody ever remembers that.

Posted by Pappy 2009-12-02 21:54|| 2009-12-02 21:54|| Front Page Top

23:43 Old Patriot
23:29 Old Patriot
23:20 Super Hose
22:58 Procopius2k
22:49 Pappy
22:38 trailing wife
22:29 trailing wife
22:29 Dale
22:18 Pappy
22:01 Pappy
21:58 Rhodesiafever
21:54 Pappy
21:49 Pappy
21:41 Rhodesiafever
21:14 Redneck Jim
21:10 Old Patriot
21:00 Old Patriot
20:51 Redneck Jim
20:49 Redneck Jim
20:35 JosephMendiola
20:25 JosephMendiola
20:22 Redneck Jim
20:20 JosephMendiola
20:19 Dar