Glad I am ot the only one thinking these things.

darthtang aw

Active Member

Why is Obama sending troops to Afghanistan?













By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 1, 201
From the beginning, the call to arms was highly uncertain. On Dec. 1, 2009, commander in chief Barack Obama orders 30,000 more Americans into battle in Afghanistan. But in the very next sentence, he announces that an American withdrawal will begin after 18 months.
Astonishing. A surge of troops -- overall, Obama has tripled our Afghan force -- with a declaration not of war but of ambivalence. Nine months later, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that this decision was "probably giving our enemy sustenance." This wasn't conjecture, he insisted, but the stuff of intercepted communications testifying to the enemies' relief that they simply had to wait out the Americans.
What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground -- meaning, the political cover -- for failure.
Until now, the above was just inference from the president's public rhetoric. No longer. Now we have the private quotes. Bob Woodward's new book, drawing on classified memos and interviews with scores of national security officials, has Obama telling his advisers: "I want an exit strategy." He tells the country publicly that Afghanistan is a "vital national interest," but he tells his generals that he will not do the kind of patient institution-building that is the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gens. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus crafted and that he -- Obama -- adopted.
Moreover, he must find an exit because "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This admission is the most crushing of all.
First, isn't this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns -- John Kerry's and then Obama's -- argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? Now, after acceding to power and being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat, lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan war all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively antiwar?
Whatever the reason, is it not Obama's job as president and party leader to bring the party with him? This is the man who made Berlin coo, America swoon and the Nobel committee lose its mind. Yet he cannot get his own party to follow him on what he insists is a matter of vital national interest?
Did he even try? Obama spent endless hours cajoling and persuading individual members of Congress to garner every last vote for health-care reform. Has he done a fraction of that for Afghanistan -- argued, pleaded, horse-traded, twisted even a single arm?
And what about persuading the country at large? Every war is arduous and requires continual presidential explication, inspiration and encouragement. This has been true from Lincoln through FDR through Bush. Since announcing his Afghan surge, Obama's only major speech that featured Afghanistan was an Oval Office address about America leaving Iraq -- the Afghan part being sandwiched between that and a long-winded plea for his economic policies.
"He was looking for choices that would limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out," writes Woodward. One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn't understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it -- and then decided it was all a mistake.
Fair enough. But in that case, what is he doing escalating it?
Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, asked many years ago: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.
"He is out of Afghanistan psychologically," says Woodward of Obama. Well, he
may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.
Some will not come home.
 
Say what you want about Obama and his choice to have an exit date and exit strategy. That's hardly the point anymore. It doesn't matter if we have 300,000 troops, or no troops in the country. It's a logistical war at this point that we're losing, not a numbers game. Fact of the matter is, that years ago, we the United States had a chance to sniff out Al Quaeda and Bin Laden and most of the shot callers. We failed. That's on Bush and Obama. By not getting in there and getting the job done, we allowed them to move, regroup, recruit, build alliances and grow globally.
That's the problem now. We have this terrorist network spread out across three continents, not just Afghanistan. You could in theory nuke the hills and caves, but all that would do is slow down Al Queda in Afghanistan, and rally the supporters everywhere else. They would slowly regroup, and you would still have them to deal with later.
The problem isn't religious, it isn't territorial, it isn't even about terror.
The real problem is socioeconomic.
I've been saying this for years... Why is it that these terrorist groups have such an easy time recruiting these young men and boys to join their terrorist camps? It's because they have nothing else to fall back on. In the United States, Europe, most of South America, the far East and Australia, people usually have an honest chance at making a decent living, getting whatever education they want, and in the end game, putting a roof over their head and food on the table.
In Afghanistan, most of Africa, Iran, Iraq, parts of southeast Asia, and anywhere else that these terrorist groups are strongest... did you ever notice the exact correlation between the standard of living and the number of terrorists? When these kids are born into a family that can't feed them, sleep in a room with 16 people that was built for three...
So of course when the warlord with the big guns, food, a purpose come along, what do you think these kids are gonna do? The terrorist groups rally around "Islam" as the reason they do what they do, but it could really be anything, and these people would do what they were told.
So here's a novel idea...
Instead of the U.S. and British and the other allies spending billions upon billions of dollars on a war, why not spend that same money on improving the infrastructure of these countries? Give these kids something to choose OTHER than becoming a terrorist. If you educate them, they will have the chance to make something of themselves. If you give them skills, they can make money, and provide a life for them and their families.
And the best part, is that they will also become empowered, which means that they won't want to work for 20 cents a day anymore, and places like America who have lost all their jobs to these overseas countries like these, might see an economic backlash in our favor. I know I'm a dreamer, but people have to see the reasons WHY the terrorists are there, and not JUST the ways to eradicate them.
 
S

saxman

Guest
An even MORE novel idea...since we're dreaming,
Let's look to our OWN country. Spend all that money you propose we spend on foreign aid to help our own hungry, homeless, jobless countrymen. With those resources spent on the US, I'm pretty sure not a single American citizen would be doing without the basics of food, education, a job, and medical care. I'm not talking giving everyone a "free ride" either...put some programs in place that work...that (to use your word) empower them.
I'm pretty tired of many other nations talking smack about the US, even tho we seem to be the first to aid them in times of disaster, war, etc.
We need to quit fighting other countries' wars, tighten up our borders, fix the welfare and social security systems, and let the other countries fend for themselves for awhile (after all, who helps the US?). If they need to change their lives, they can bloody well kick out their offending government like we did in 1776. They need to use the US as a model and not an ATM with a stolen PIN number.
And if anyone complains or tries anything based on the new policy, we're the biggest, baddest dog in the yard and retribution should be swift and decisive...in and out, maybe even done without ground troops. I'm talking "no more Mr. Nice Guy" here, and again, who's going to complain unless they want a little whoopa$$ too?
I guess I just really have an issue with the ingrates in other countries...wouldn't it be nice to wake up and hear GOOD news about what's happening in America?
[/soapbox]
 

monsinour

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxman http:///forum/thread/381011/glad-i-am-ot-the-only-one-thinking-these-things#post_3317061
An even MORE novel idea...since we're dreaming,
Let's look to our OWN country. Spend all that money you propose we spend on foreign aid to help our own hungry, homeless, jobless countrymen. With those resources spent on the US, I'm pretty sure not a single American citizen would be doing without the basics of food, education, a job, and medical care. I'm not talking giving everyone a "free ride" either...put some programs in place that work...that (to use your word) empower them.
Hear Hear!! Take care of our own first. I need a freaking job and health care. My wife needs health care that doesnt cost $300 a month. I would be more than happy to take whatever position i could get, but when the LFS hires a pimply kid over me to work the day shift, then there is something else going on.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Problem with trying to improve their infrastructure is what we've seen in Iraq. One faction will fight the other to the death for power. It would take such a military presence to keep the peace we'd still end up in endless wars plus going bankrupt to rebuild their countries.
Obama really screwed up with the exit strategy talk. Not that he shouldn't have one but more emphasis should have been put on having a victory strategy. At this point what the Afghanistan people know is Obama needs to have a short term exit strategy lest he lose the whole party. Those people see him as being more worried about his political future than them. I don't know how they could have been so dumb as to let that comment out but it really hurts the cause.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Wow, Clemson missed the premise for the op piece and totally started discussing something else.
to sum it up, Why send more troops in harms way if you don't plan to win? if you are pulling out at a set date, why send more to just bring em back?
 
Top