Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Understand whats happening.

Pakistan is a known Taliban hideout during the winter months from their fight in Afghanistan that's why there is the new big Pakistani push being assembled. This is also why McCrystal is asking for more troops. Once the Pakistanis push them out of their safe haven they will flood back into Afghanistan.

Pakistan Braces for Taliban Attacks as It Prepares Offensive

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani interior minister said Tuesday that the government was expecting more attacks by the Taliban as the military prepared to launch a major offensive in South Waziristan, the rugged northwestern tribal region considered a stronghold of Taliban.

Obama's Afghanistan decision easier than claimed

President Obama has what everyone is conceding is a momentous decision on Afghanistan. The decision is whether to follow the recommendations of General McCrystal and send in more troops or not.

Now take a step back for a moment and imagine the world and our armed forces at little risk pieces.

We are moving pieces out of Iraq into Afghanistan at a rapid pace. Simple.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart

SNIP

It's the puppeteers who did the "approving", who chose the number, 13,000 and who chose the date, Oct 13, to make the "announcement".

What am I missing here? What is the alleged significance of 13,000 troops and 13th of October?

Hi LadySkadi,


Just search this: " 13 Knights of Templar " and you'll find the answers.

They are clutching for straws. This is just a birds-eye view of what's to come in the future. As for the President winning the Nobel Peace Prize and his current involvement in two wars, that is open for debate and for another thread. However, 13,000 troops is only a test, to see how far they can go before the American public objects to continual increases in force levels in Afghanistan.

It is only a matter of time before the situation becomes untenable, and I fear the US is dangerously close. The Afghans are a war-hardened people and they have no problem spilling blood of invaders or occupiers. We know from history just how aggressive they can be. Hopefully, the US contingent can renew the support of the Afghan people before it is too late. Only through the acceptance of the people can the US meet its objectives. Because, lets face it, they have been morbidly neglected since the US entered the country in 2001. They are still living in squalor, with no running water, electricity, or even the assistance and the know-how to harvest something other than the poppy.

Oh yes, objectives, that is when the US figures out what they are? Who knows when that will be, because right know, I think Nato is operating on auto-pilot. Perhaps, the forces are deaf, dumb, and blind. Lack of direction by the military, is a witch's brew for carnage and potential defeat. I have yet to hear any strategic objectives by General McChrystal or the Obama Administration. They had better get some direction, and very soon, because the insurgency is like a snake coiling ready to strike.

I haven't ruled out hope, but I think the US/Nato are entering the point of no return and casualties will skyrocket very soon. The US has been through the meat-grinder before, and I fear it may go down that road once again. Hopefully, things shape up for the better, but at the rate things are going, it seems problematic that the doom and gloom scenario may grace the doorstep of US for a second time. I think the Head of Central Command, General David Petraeus, the mastermind behind the successful surge of 2007 in Iraq, says it best ,about the current situation in Afghanistan in this "NewsWeek," article about Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Privately, Petraeus is said to reject comparisons with Vietnam; he distrusts "history by analogy" as an excuse not to come to grips with the intricacies of Afghanistan itself. But there is this stark similarity: in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we may now be facing a situation where we can win every battle and still not win the war—at least not within a time frame and at a cost that is acceptable to the American people.

www.newsweek.com...

Now does the tactical superiority sound familiar? To those versed in Vietnam War history, the US never suffered a tactical defeat during the war, but lost altogether in the end. What did the US have to show for it, but an extreme loss of life on both sides and a waste of treasure as well. That is why, there needs to be objectives in place to aspire to and work toward. Not complicated, but narrow objectives with clear-cut bench marks. If that doesn't happen, welcome to the meat-grinder and the world of tactical victories with seemingly no positive results in the greater scheme of things. I will end with a fine example of Afghanistan at present, with a conversation between a US commander and their a Vietnamese opponent about their respective country's involvement in the Vietnam War.

One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, "You never defeated us in the field." To which the NVA officer replied: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."

www.newsweek.com...

Please, by all means, read the entire Newsweek article because it is quite alarming the comparisons made between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

www.newsweek.com...

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
I thought Obama said before or while he was just elected that he'd withdraw troops from Afghanistan?
Another misleading lie wouldn't be a surprise, the decision will be made for him either way so it's irrelevant I guess.

Send more into Afghanistan, and withdraw from Iraq I believe.

Was never a secret that he wanted more war Afghanistan, but even during the election all of the anti-war people turned a blind eye...cough democrat cough.

Originally posted by sos37
Amazing, the two headlines you have today.

Nobel Peace Prize jury defends Obama decision
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan
news.yahoo.com...

I'll say this loud and clear - if this kind of OXYMORONIC occurrence had happened when Bush was in office, the news media outlets would be going apes**t - Keith Olbermann would be screaming himself into a heart attack and the Obama puppets on ATS would be screaming bloody murder.

Star for you my friend.

Paraphrasing the Kennedys:

Let the word go forth from this place and time that this is truly Obama's war.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by dooper


After all, the other 27,000 are being martialed for Obama's war with Fox News.

wow damned if he does, damned if he doesn't on this board.


Grumble grumble grumble Obama send more troops, bad Obama, no should gotten peace prize. grumble grumble grumble.

Grumble grumble grumble Obama send too few troops, bad Obama, no listen to generals get men killed grumble grumble grumble.



Ok let's see, Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place, the rock being Afghanistan is still a war, a war that isn't going too well for the US. His generals are requesting more troops, Obama sends them 13,000 (a drop in the bucket for what they really need over there) And people aren't happy.

Of course having sent more troops to a war that was already going on thanks to Bush not remembering what happened with the Soviet Union back in the 80s, Obama get's bashed for sending more troops after winning the Nobel Peace prize.

Something is afoot in the Midwest tonight.
We have had over 10 huge military transports entering/exiting the base (SAC).
Was this an immediate order? Wait, make that 11 now.
They are coming and going like clockwork.

reply to post by Historical-Mozart


I will do that search, thank you!

Originally posted by whatukno
wow damned if he does, damned if he doesn't on this board.


Grumble grumble grumble Obama send more troops, bad Obama, no should gotten peace prize. grumble grumble grumble.

Grumble grumble grumble Obama send too few troops, bad Obama, no listen to generals get men killed grumble grumble grumble.

Ok let's see, Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place, the rock being Afghanistan is still a war, a war that isn't going too well for the US. His generals are requesting more troops, Obama sends them 13,000 (a drop in the bucket for what they really need over there) And people aren't happy.

Of course having sent more troops to a war that was already going on thanks to Bush not remembering what happened with the Soviet Union back in the 80s, Obama get's bashed for sending more troops after winning the Nobel Peace prize.

Obama is stuck nowhere except in certain failure. How many more innocent people need to die for nothing this time around until an adult stands up and points out staying there is a historically bad idea. The Soviet Afghan war was a teachable moment about the Afghan people; it would be easier to tickle an angry tigers ass in a phone booth than win a war against those dirt urchins.

When they don't have yet another silly occupier to shoot at, they're so crazy and used to violence they fight each other. My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin And I against the Stranger are practically words they live by.

Russian advice: More troops won't help in Afghanistan Link

Many challenges that bedeviled the Soviets confront the American operation today, the retired envoys and generals said. Among them are vicious tribal rivalries, a weak central government, radical Islamists, power-hungry warlords, incompetent or corrupt local military commanders, failing infrastructure and the complexity of fighting guerrilla groups. The former officials also cautioned that trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan, or anything resembling it, will be as fruitless as their attempts to install communism.

What I find hysterically ironic, if feces meets fan on a global scale where man kind is in a struggle to survive and re-populate the earth, it will be the Afghans who will emerge in large numbers. They are tough as cockroaches and can survive just fine on very little in the harshest environments.

Our fat lazy "leaders" might just emerge from their luxurious underground base sanctuaries and find themselves surrounded by Afghans with an attitude... wouldn't that be a great scifi movie lol

Afghanistan should have stayed a SOF-based conflict. when Rumsfeld decided to start throwing all kinds of conventional forces into the mix, it completely screwed up our relations we had with the small villages and the networks we had in place. ''Win the Hearts & Minds of the People'' was our mindset and it was ruined as soon as the PTB decided to throw more money and troops at the war. Now, you have conventional generals running the show along with NATO's useless ass while us in the SOF community are forced to standardized tactics because they are incapable of grasping the concept of 'unconventional warfare'.

with a couple of SOF batallions, some rangers, and the spec ops avn guys, this conflict would have been done by now. but what do i know?

''De Opresso Liber''

Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, and Soviet Russia: they all wised up after invading Afghanistan. Now it's the US's turn to learn that wisdom through their own trials and experiences in history.

Or Obama could, you know, just pick up a history book and call it a term, so some odd thousand of troops, mostly kids with otherwise long lives ahead, don't learn that wisdom the hard way from fighting a war of ideology with guns and bombs (non-winnable).

There is only one way to conquer Afghanistan: rip the roots from under the people. The Afghans have a saying, "when an Afghan finds no enemy to fight, he will fight his own." They're tribal warriors by nature. You cannot defeat that kind of enemy with a conventional force. NO, mercenaries won't work either, so your 50+ PMCs operating in there don't change the story.

Washington, you reading this? Wise up.

Why is it the US that is sending more troops, why is it none of the other NATO countries aresending more troops. Seems to me the US is having to carry the burden once more.

Originally posted by Lucidliving
Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, and Soviet Russia: they all wised up after invading Afghanistan. Now it's the US's turn to learn that wisdom through their own trials and experiences in history.

Yep at this point we are just sending young kids to die for nothing. The best that can be done in a country like Afganistan is to disrupt the more dangerous elements using highly trained SAS troops and work with the lesser evil locals (anyone who isn't al qaeda). More Australians have died fighting the "war on terror" in the last few years (2007-2009) under Labor (who is historically our anti-war party or at least they are when in opposition) than the entire campaign before that (2003-2007) under the Liberals (pro-war Bush lover party).

Despite the increase in casualties, the media appears to no longer care as much about the war now we have a different government in power. Well I still care, I was against the war under the liberals and I'm still against it under labor.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Jacob08]

reply to post by Historical-Mozart




He did say he would do this but not everyone was listening.

At least he has done one thing he has said instead of contradicting himself like he normally does.

End war in Iraq, pump all soldiers into Afghanistan.

I dont agree with that personally but he said he would do this.

reply to post by XXXN3O


Looks like you had a similar choice to us. Two choices, war mongers or worse war mongers. I chose to go with war mongers.

reply to post by Jacob08


I am in the UK, we didnt even get a choice.

Brown walked in without a vote.

Yet people still kid themselves in this country that there is a democracy in place.

gotta laugh, its better than accepting the instanity of reality.

All this trash on the tv counts for absolutely nothing in this country yet people still argue amongst themselves as if their vote counts.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by XXXN3O]

reply to post by XXXN3O


Well, OK...but we still have troops in Iraq. Which, in my opinion, goes against his campaign promise. Despite Obama's efforts to convince us that having our troops in Iraq as "secondary" troops lying in wait should they be called upon by the Iraqi forces is different than actually being at war in Iraq, I think he's walking a precarious line in semantics.

I can't possibly be the only person that, when he announced he would "bring all of our troops out of Iraq", thought he meant all of our troops.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by XXXN3O

 

Well, OK...but we still have troops in Iraq. Which, in my opinion, goes against his campaign promise. Despite Obama's efforts to convince us that having our troops in Iraq as "secondary" troops lying in wait should they be called upon by the Iraqi forces is different than actually being at war in Iraq, I think he's walking a precarious line in semantics.

I can't possibly be the only person that, when he announced he would "bring all of our troops out of Iraq", thought he meant all of our troops.

August 2010 will be when no soldier remains in iraq according to him.

They will be training and introducing security forces which will include troops at first. (classic doublespeak)

This guy did say this but people were not listening enough to understand, too busy with the hope, change and thank you satan, oops I mean yes we can

Im not here to stick up for Obama but he did say this to the public backwards and forwards

Its political double talk that any "good" politician can do and this guy can do it when it comes to speaking forwards.

He will keep HIS promises, whether or not anyone understands that is irrelavant.



[edit on 14-10-2009 by XXXN3O]