Article

2009-02-17 Afghanistan

Obama OKs about 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan

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 tu3031 2009-02-17 16:33|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 i guess this is a sign of how he will do things. HALFASS

Posted by rabid whitetail 2009-02-17 17:30|| 2009-02-17 17:30|| Front Page Top

#2 seek a more comprehensive, diplomatic approach to Afghanistan

Diplocode for doing a deal with Iran.

Posted by phil_b 2009-02-17 17:57|| 2009-02-17 17:57|| Front Page Top

#3 The wheels were turning for this before Bambi became president. Now if Bambi had a strong core (hah) he might have had a new policy in place ready to go, but of course he's hemming and hawing.

I'm not sure Afghanistan can be saved. I'm not sure pouring more American troops into the place will save it. Bambi is beginning to look like LBJ, not Carter.

Posted by Steve White 2009-02-17 18:29|| 2009-02-17 18:29|| Front Page Top

#4 This is actually a setback, he's sworn to bring the troops home, now he proves it's just another lie to get elected.

Posted by Rednek Jim 2009-02-17 19:54|| 2009-02-17 19:54|| Front Page Top

#5 "All hat, no saddle" - i.e., he looks the part, but has the clumsiness of a mule in dancing shoes.

He can campaign, but he can't govern. He's never before been forced to make a serious decision. We're in for a very long four years.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2009-02-17 21:45|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2009-02-17 21:45|| Front Page Top

#6 I have a question for the Rantburgers who know far more about these military matters than myself: Putting aside the significant political challenges Afghanistan faces and given the current security situation on the ground, is 17,000 more troops enough to establish any semblance of law & order, or at least keep the inmates from taking over the asylum?

My gut tells me it's not enough. If so, and as someone who's not ready to give up and turn my back on the place just yet, this really pisses me off. Mainly because if 17k is nothing more than a half-ass attempt (as others have pointed out and I'm inclined to believe) then this is nothing but an empty gesture on 0's part. A gesture which says "I'm not seriously committed to success in so much as we can define it vis-a-vis Iraq. I'm only committed to covering my ass when things don't go well over there." It's nothing but the bare-ass minimum and he has to know it. The outrage of it all is that he's playing CYA with the lives and well-being of American boots on the ground.

I pray that's not the case. I hope that 17k more troops represents a serious commitment to victory and not some half-ass effort so he can say, "see, I tried." Sadly, I've been given little reason to believe that's the case.

Posted by eltoroverde 2009-02-17 23:29|| 2009-02-17 23:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Related issue, eltoroverde: whatever the number of troops on the ground, can we keep them supplied? The route through Pakistan is subject to disruption whenever belligerent locals along the way feel the need for a bribe or exercise, the route through Russia is subject to disruption whenever they feel the need for a bribe or ego stroke, and idea of shipping through Iran is utterly absurd.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-02-17 23:55|| 2009-02-17 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:58 trailing wife
23:55 trailing wife
23:47 trailing wife
23:29 eltoroverde
22:47 Frank G
22:10 lotp
22:08 JohnQC
22:03 JohnQC
21:59 Procopius2k
21:54 3dc
21:51 GORT
21:49 JohnQC
21:45 Old Patriot
21:44 JohnQC
21:44 Frank G
21:35 Old Patriot
21:28 Frank G
21:28 JohnQC
21:21 JohnQC
21:20 Large Snerong7311
21:19 JohnQC
21:05 Darrell
21:00 Frank G
20:46 Mike N.