Moscow Reacts to US Buildup in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by Sunni Man, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Moscow has correctly assessed that the announced Obama troop buildup in Afghanistan has no relevance to the stated aim of combatting the ‘Taliban’, but rather with a new attempt by the Pentagon strategists to encircle both Russia and China on Eurasia in order to retain US global military dominance. It is not waiting for a new policy from Washington. Rather Russia is acting to secure its perimeter in Central Asia through a series of calculated geopolitical moves reminiscent of the famous Great Game of more than a Century ago. The stakes in this geopolitical power game could not be higher—the issue of world war or peace in the coming decade.

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen are asking Obama to double US troop presence in Afghanistan. Both Gates and Mullen said that while they're thinking about the war in Afghanistan in terms of a 3-5 year time frame, their immediate goals are ‘unclear.’ That’s highly revealing. It is clear from the deliberate pattern over months, despite vehement protest from Pakistan’s government, of US bombing attacks on villages inside Pakistan, allegedly to hit Taliban targets, that the US intends to widen the conflict to Pakistan as well. What could be the possible aim?

    Militarily, adding 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan could never secure peace in that wartorn tribal region. It has been documented that many of the groups whom the US Command labels ‘Taliban’ are in fact armed bands controlled by local warlords, and not ideologically close-knit Taliban cadre in any sense. By labelling them Taliban, Washington hopes to convince its NATO allies such as Germany to send their troops to fight in an unwinnable war. Afghanistan presently has an estimated 40% unemployment and some five million living below the poverty line. It has been ravaged by more than four decades of continuous war.

    Adding a mere 30,000 more for a total of 60,000 US troops in Afghanistan where the current killing rate for US soldiers is running fifteen times above that in Iraq, is ludicrous. According to the official US Marine Corps counterinsurgency guidelines, to run a country-wide counterinsurgency strategy with the absolute minimum force levels required by US Army and Marine Corps doctrine, the US would need almost 655,000 troops, or an escalation roughly 600,000 troops higher than the force levels in the proposed Gates strategy. In fact the US strategy as it now appears seems to be a replay of the gradual escalation strategy the US pursued in Vietnam in the early 1960’s.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  2. Mr. President
    Offline

    Mr. President BOARD PRESIDENT..carry on

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,423
    Thanks Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +290
    I have an issue with the first half of the first sentence. It kind of turned the story bias right from the start.
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    You're forgetting a few things SunniMan, or intentionally leaving them out.

    This is not the Pentagons' war, it's Barack Obamas' war. He's the Commander in Chief and the military doesn't roll without his permission.

    Critics like you have been saying that the middle east can never be returned to democracy but look at what just happened in Iraq: Free Elections. Who won those elections? Moderates.

    Also, your source, Global Outreach Canada, is no better than than the Daily Kos. Plenty of Bush, America and "Evil Jew" bashing can be found within.

    But hey, what else are we to expect from you huh?

    Also, you're supposed to only post a few paragraphs and then add commentary to it. Those are the board rules. Are you too stupid to follow them? Any moron can just copy and paste.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2009
  4. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    The Russians were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years with 1.5 million troops and finally had to give up.

    Yet we are going to attempt to conquer the Afghans with 60 thousand soilders.

    To a get perspective of how idiotic this strategy is.

    Just the Pashtun tribe alone is 40 million people.

    Most of the Taliban are Pashtun.

    (The total population of Iraq is only 28 million.)

    There are also other large tribes that are friendly to the taliban.

    There is NO way we are going to win.

    We just need to declare "Victory" like we did in Vietnam and get out of Afghanistain.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  5. Mr. President
    Offline

    Mr. President BOARD PRESIDENT..carry on

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,423
    Thanks Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +290
    The amount of cooperative Afghani civilians is by far greater than the amount of insurgent or anti American forces which is why we don't need millions of soldiers. The country as a whole did not like the russians.
     
  6. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    You either are self deluded or watch too much Fox News

    The Afghan people don't like us anymore than they liked the Russians.
     
  7. mightypeon
    Offline

    mightypeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Berlin Germany (NOT MASSACHUSETS)
    Ratings:
    +83
    As example like the Roman Invasion of ancient Germania indicate, occupation can actually become more difficult if the cultural and technological differences are greater.
    This is also true for Afghanistan.

    Mind you, what the US has going for them is that no major power openly supports the Taliban in the way the US once supported them during the Soviet occupation.

    Just looking at number, I fail to see why a US success in Afghanistan should be more likely than a Soviet one.
     
  8. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    You guys said the same thing about Iraq. Look at the elections they just had.
     
  9. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    LOL!!!

    Polling stations surrounded by armed troops and gun ships flyin over head.

    Yea, this forced democracy is an outstanding success!!! :lol:
     
  10. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,600
    Thanks Received:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,010
    First off, the US aided the Mujahadeen, which included those who eventually became the Taliban as well as those who fought against the Taliban, the Northern Alliance. Second, success in the near term is preventing Afghanistan from being a safe haven for terrorists who wish to attack US interests or US allies, and in that sense, the US is already successful.

    Success in the longer term in Afghanistan cannot reasonably be looked at in isolation. The Taliban and al Qaeda only parts of a movement of radical militant Islam that began in the 1970's with the Saudi royal family signing over enormous wealth and authority to the Wahhabi clergy and the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is really a struggle within Islam in which the US, as well as most of the developed world, has allied itself with the more moderate elements in Islam that are trying to free themselves from the tyranny imposed on them by radicals such as the Taliban.

    The US's role in this struggle is to provide sufficient security for the more moderate elements within Islam to organize and develop their own ability to fight the radicals and to provide additional assistance to them as needed. This is true whether the current hot spot is in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran. This struggle, hot, warm or cold, within the Islamic world will likely go on for decades, and there is no way the US or much of the rest of the world can assure its own safety without coming to the aid of moderate elements within Islam in their struggle against the tyranny imposed on them by these radical militants.
     

Share This Page