30,000 Troops to Afghanistan

[eagleseven]

Obama to offer troop increase, timetable for Afghan | Politics | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will say on Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to speed the battle against the Taliban and plans to bring some soldiers home in 19 months.

The accelerated timetable Obama will unveil in a high-stakes speech surprised some Pentagon planners who expected a 12- to 18-month period for deploying forces to bolster the 68,000 U.S. troops already in the war zone.

"The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest pace possible -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers," Obama will say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.

It is official. Your thoughts?

 

[Andrew2382]

I think his top general whom he picked told Obama he wanted 60,000 and a bare minimum of 40,000...do what does Obama do?

GO FUCK YOURSELF

HERE'S 30,000.

He wants to get the job done and set a time frame of depature yet doesn't give his forces what they adequately need to do the job effiecently

 

[garyd]

And you were expecting an Obama administrtion that is increasingly disassociating itself from this reality to do much else precisely why?

 

[rightwinger]

I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.

We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out

 

[WillowTree]

I'd like to see a more clearly defined objectives, milestones and exit strategy.

We need to also apply milestones to the Afghans....if they are not met, we pull out

yeah right. Have we left Iraq?

 

[garyd]

We're leaving in 18 months no matter what isn't enough of an exit strategy for you?

 

[uscitizen]

Many people seemed to love troop surges not long ago.

 

[eagleseven]

I hope it works. I don't know if it will...but I hope it does. For the sake of our men over there.

 

[saveliberty]

We're leaving in 18 months no matter what isn't enough of an exit strategy for you?

Obama said troop withdrawls start in July 2011. There is no end date, except he said ten years is too long.

 

[Maple]

Obama to offer troop increase, timetable for Afghan | Politics | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will say on Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to speed the battle against the Taliban and plans to bring some soldiers home in 19 months.

The accelerated timetable Obama will unveil in a high-stakes speech surprised some Pentagon planners who expected a 12- to 18-month period for deploying forces to bolster the 68,000 U.S. troops already in the war zone.

"The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest pace possible -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers," Obama will say, according to excerpts of his speech released by the White House.

It is official. Your thoughts?

I thought it was a good teleprompter read, but I don't think it's a good idea to advertise that we are leaving in 18 months. That fact alone would not cause any of the sane Afghani's to join the cause and support the defense of their country, not will it instill confidence in our allies, and if I were a member of the Taliban I would just sit back and relax wait until the U.S leaves and go in then.

 

[Sunni Man]

Afghanistain was lost a long time ago.

We are just trying to save face.

Unlike Vietnam where we quickly exited.

This will be a slow cut and run.

And with a straight face, Victory will be declaired

 

[garyd]

Afghanistan may not yet be lost. That is unfortunately not up to us. It is up to the local government and the various parties that helped us kick the Taliban out in the first place.

 

[DavidS]

McCrystal asked for 40,000, Obama gave him 30,000. I have faith in our top generals to get the job done.

 

[California Girl]

Afghanistan may not yet be lost. That is unfortunately not up to us. It is up to the local government and the various parties that helped us kick the Taliban out in the first place.

Afghanistan is far from lost. At least that's what the guys who are actually doing the job say. And I'm inclined to take their word for it over that of any internet poster who just loves to see their own country fail.

I was hoping a 'Winston Churchill' moment, what I heard was another Obama whine. He really is not the right man for this particular job.

 

[DavidS]

It's rather frustrating to listen to the right-wingers whine, bitch and moan about Obama's speech.

 

[garyd]

Tell me something good about. He had a chance to knock it out of the park and gave us a fielder's choice.

 

[DavidS]

Tell me something good about. He had a chance to knock it out of the park and gave us a fielder's choice.

Knock what out of the park? He's talking about sending 30,000 men and women off to die if something goes wrong. He's asking their spouses, mothers and fathers to be ok with their sons and daughters, husbands and wives not coming home. He's also asking the taxpayers to foot billions of dollars more of our money for this surge and you want some kind of motivational speech? Get real!

 

[JW Frogen]

Of course Afghanistan it is winnable, indeed it is necessary we do not loose, by which I mean keeping the Taliban from controlling the country or being totally safe to export terror in large parts of the country.

This can be done two ways. A massive surge, clear and hold and attempt to build the democracy from Kabul outward, slowly giving Afghans the benefits of that and hoping the inter ethnic animosity (which is centuries old) will succumb to the lure of a better life, a long war with large cost but achievable with long term will power .

Or

Stop nation building, give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.

So the choice is between idealism or ruthless realism.

Surrender is not an option.

As for the term "exit strategy", wars know no such term; warriors or nations who want to survive know only one exit strategy, victory.

 

[Claudette]

Gotta agree with Maple. Bad idea to set any kind of timetable. The terrorists will just hunker down and disappear until our boys leave and then carry on as usual.

 

[uscitizen]

It's rather frustrating to listen to the right-wingers whine, bitch and moan about Obama's speech.

Why frustrating? It is what they do and to be expected. Kinda like a rock being hard, it is all it know how to be.