Obama's War Surge

[marf]

I recently listened to an entire days radio from 1939 on archive.org and America was in a heated debate about whether to join the war. I found myself thinking. Are they going to go? America was an isolationist nation. It almost sounded like Roosevelt was the only one that wanted to go. Its amazing to hear the dialogue before they knew the outcome.

http://www.archive.org/details/CompleteBroadcastDay

[joshuatxuk]

 

it's sad that 1 entire year after George W leaves office, most people even people on the left accept the Bush doctrine of foriegn policy as the right thing to do. Remember the question Sarah Palin was stumped on? The bush doctrine means being able to invade countries that are not a direct threat to us, but ones that can become a threat in the future (based on information mostly hidden from us that our leaders know intuitively). It also means invading countries because they harbor terrorists, not because the country is an immediate threat. The entire premise for this war is absurd, but still a lot of the way it was setup goes unquestioned.

 

Thanks for reading my post! Yeah, that's the frightening thing. Conspiracy aside about Cheney and corporate motivations, the Bush Admin invaded Iraq to open a permanent front/American post smack in the middle of the Muslim war. Unlike the more rural nation of Afghanistan, Iraq is conveniently modern and located between Israel and Iran, contains the major Sunni/Shiite population split, borders the Persian Gulf, and adjoins a plethora of major Arab states. They couldn't sell that, so they duped even fairly intelligent people with exaggerated claims of WMD and Al-Queda links. Al-Queda and other insurgent groups are there now, but only because we invaded. That was the point.

 

Save for outright pacifists, majority of Americans and Europe supported combat action in Afghanistan. Most governments support action against militant Islam. But in order to change entire nations and eliminate threats to our status as a superpower, we'd have to have a military of millions of conscripts and revert to colonialism. Otherwise, patiently and slowly influence the world with extensive means of soft power and economic means over decades...which will be hard to start doing with a major deficit during a recession.

 

That's my last rant.

[Guest Al Hounos]

yeah, i'm 'just accepting the bush doctrine'.

 

 

just tell me, and goddamn it don't mention anything about bush or WMDs or defense corporations or Vietnam:

 

What do you think will happen if we leave Afghanistan right now?

[SR4]

i would assume the two most likely outcomes:

 

either Karzai ends up becoming a iron fisted dictator to keep the country together, civil war ensues

 

or Karzai is deposed by yet another radical government and does the same thing.

 

 

but unless Americans plan on being there for the next millennium, the same thing is going to happen regardless.

 

 

i never understood the "if we leave all will go to shit"

 

no shit, afghanistan will end up just as repressed as they were in the 80s and 90s, cept they have even less to do with.

 

the afghani people aren't in anyway benefiting from this occupation, its not a democracy as much as a sham kleptocrat pseudo-monarch that doesn't even have any say in the most important domestic or foreign affairs.

 

of course the situation is going to shit, but its going to shit either way, it was pretty shitty before we got there, why would we expect either outcome to prove their country?

[karmakramer]

 

so you're changing this group of people mid argument to a different group? I'm just honestly confused man,

 

Let me fully explain again, now that I have more time and can fully explain everything...

 

So my line of thinking is, currently the region is unstable. So currently if we left the region the Taliban would most likely regain control of Afghanistan. Seeing as our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (torture ect..) have only enticed more Middle Eastern aggression towards Western worlds, leaving now would only lead to even more radicals (more than before 2001). You are right when you say we should be talking about more of a domestic war (and had we originally pursued Al Qaida and gotten Bin Laden, there would be NO war *), but because of the actions that have already been made, the war is becoming far more of a cultural war, one where un-educated Afghans will easily be persuaded in helping rebuild Al Qaida or other radical movements. This is why there is a need to build a government and infrastructure so future Afghan generations will not fall into these radical religious movements.

 

This is where the geographical element comes into play. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has very little infrastructure and is right on the border of nuclear Pakistan. As Al Qaida gets aide from the Taliban and builds up forces and WEALTH, its possible (again this is just my logic, there is probably evidence to back this up, but I would love to see you provide evidence against this) that either the Taliban or Al Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. If it looks like things are getting to that point, trying to invade and stop Al Qaida and the Taliban would require even more money and troops... and the war would probably last well beyond the expected 3 years.

 

So that is why we can't just pull out. Yes similar lines of reasoning have been applied to different wars and those wars have failed... but Al Qaida was never in Iraq and nor were the Taliban. The violence in Iraq were insurgents and the Sunni's (Saddam's supporters)... the main issue there was when we took over the government we removed all the Sunni's from power and replaced them with Shia's... this brought on the civil war in Iraq, which is why the whole fucking thing took so long.

 

* This is why the Bush Administration backed off Bin Laden, cause had we gotten him, there would have been ZERO justification for Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

[SR4]

 

so you're changing this group of people mid argument to a different group? I'm just honestly confused man,

 

Let me fully explain again, now that I have more time and can fully explain everything...

 

So my line of thinking is, currently the region is unstable. So currently if we left the region the Taliban would most likely regain control of Afghanistan. Seeing as our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (torture ect..) have only enticed more Middle Eastern aggression towards Western worlds, leaving now would only lead to even more radicals (more than before 2001). You are right when you say we should be talking about more of a domestic war (and had we originally pursued Al Qaida and gotten Bin Laden, there would be NO war *), but because of the actions that have already been made, the war is becoming far more of a cultural war, one where un-educated Afghans will easily be persuaded in helping rebuild Al Qaida or other radical movements. This is why there is a need to build a government and infrastructure so future Afghan generations will not fall into these radical religious movements.

 

This is where the geographical element comes into play. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has very little infrastructure and is right on the border of nuclear Pakistan. As Al Qaida gets aide from the Taliban and builds up forces and WEALTH, its possible (again this is just my logic, there is probably evidence to back this up, but I would love to see you provide evidence against this) that either the Taliban or Al Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. If it looks like things are getting to that point, trying to invade and stop Al Qaida and the Taliban would require even more money and troops... and the war would probably last well beyond the expected 3 years.

 

So that is why we can't just pull out. Yes similar lines of reasoning have been applied to different wars and those wars have failed... but Al Qaida was never in Iraq and nor were the Taliban. The violence in Iraq were insurgents and the Sunni's (Saddam's supporters)... the main issue there was when we took over the government we removed all the Sunni's from power and replaced them with Shia's... this brought on the civil war in Iraq, which is why the whole fucking thing took so long.

 

* This is why the Bush Administration backed off Bin Laden, cause had we gotten him, there would have been ZERO justification for Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

 

 

i cannot agree with your first point. as if the afghans wouldn't harbor anti-US resentment if we kept our troops there? its horrible logic.

[karmakramer]

 

so you're changing this group of people mid argument to a different group? I'm just honestly confused man,

 

Let me fully explain again, now that I have more time and can fully explain everything...

 

So my line of thinking is, currently the region is unstable. So currently if we left the region the Taliban would most likely regain control of Afghanistan. Seeing as our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (torture ect..) have only enticed more Middle Eastern aggression towards Western worlds, leaving now would only lead to even more radicals (more than before 2001). You are right when you say we should be talking about more of a domestic war (and had we originally pursued Al Qaida and gotten Bin Laden, there would be NO war *), but because of the actions that have already been made, the war is becoming far more of a cultural war, one where un-educated Afghans will easily be persuaded in helping rebuild Al Qaida or other radical movements. This is why there is a need to build a government and infrastructure so future Afghan generations will not fall into these radical religious movements.

 

This is where the geographical element comes into play. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has very little infrastructure and is right on the border of nuclear Pakistan. As Al Qaida gets aide from the Taliban and builds up forces and WEALTH, its possible (again this is just my logic, there is probably evidence to back this up, but I would love to see you provide evidence against this) that either the Taliban or Al Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. If it looks like things are getting to that point, trying to invade and stop Al Qaida and the Taliban would require even more money and troops... and the war would probably last well beyond the expected 3 years.

 

So that is why we can't just pull out. Yes similar lines of reasoning have been applied to different wars and those wars have failed... but Al Qaida was never in Iraq and nor were the Taliban. The violence in Iraq were insurgents and the Sunni's (Saddam's supporters)... the main issue there was when we took over the government we removed all the Sunni's from power and replaced them with Shia's... this brought on the civil war in Iraq, which is why the whole fucking thing took so long.

 

* This is why the Bush Administration backed off Bin Laden, cause had we gotten him, there would have been ZERO justification for Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

 

 

i cannot agree with your first point. as if the afghans wouldn't harbor anti-US resentment if we kept our troops there? its horrible logic.

 

The damage has been done... these next 3 years and the increase in troops is to hand the power over to the people. Its to aide Afghans with training, infrastructure, and education. I think if we can accomplish this successfully and really start a true democracy in the region, their anti-US resentment will be suppressed.

[SR4]

and no money ,at least, nothing worth while is going towards anything resembling anything other than a purely military infrastructure in Afghanistan.

 

you figure we have spent 40 billion dollars over there...the figures are still being dawdled with to prevent criticism, but i have a feeling that about a quarter of our money goes to backdoor payoffs, which leaves enough for bases.

 

 

can someone link me to an article describing the building of a new school, new grocer, farming programs?

[karmakramer]

and no money ,at least, nothing worth while is going towards anything resembling anything other than a purely military infrastructure in Afghanistan.

 

you figure we have spent 40 billion dollars over there...the figures are still being dawdled with to prevent criticism, but i have a feeling that about a quarter of our money goes to backdoor payoffs, which leaves enough for bases.

 

 

can someone link me to an article describing the building of a new school, new grocer, farming programs?

 

Heres an organization specifically focused on rebuilding their education system...

 

http://www.rebuildafghanistan.org/

[lumpenprol]

Just as an anecdotal aside, a good friend of mine is married to an Afghani woman, and after we kicked out the taliban he went over there with his wife to help with the rebuilding effort. They ended up both leaving after a year due to how poorly planned and fucked up everything was.

[SR4]

alright...stop right there.

 

 

youll notice its a nonprofit org.....it has nothing to do with the 40 billion dollars we as taxpayers sent over to Afghanistan, not solely for the military, but for the "reconstruction of Afghanistan"....where is that money?

 

look, im all for nonprofits trying to help out, but in all reality how much do you think that group has raised?

 

 

on their "completed projects" area they have helped maybe 3 schools already in existence with "pen-pal" programs, and the one they helped build only houses 250 women. thats a start, but im not arguing over non=profit orgs...im talking about the US government pledging economic and infrastructural support 40 billion and rising....show me where that helped to build anything other than military bases.

 

Just as an anecdotal aside, a good friend of mine is married to an Afghani woman, and after we kicked out the taliban he went over there with his wife to help with the rebuilding effort. They ended up both leaving after a year due to how poorly planned and fucked up everything was.

 

 

out of curiosity, who did he work with/for?

[SR4]

My link

 

 

interesting article on the breakdown of some of the new aid

 

 

"While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-size sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.

 

In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."

 

a meat market? id like to see that actually completed rather than speculated on.

 

also, note the comparison between military and defense contractor appropriations versus civilian and urban planning....you think this is going to revolutionize and democratize, educate the majority of the Afghan populace? maybe over four centuries they will have enough schools to educate a tenth of their population...until then, im staying damn skeptical.

[karmakramer]

alright...stop right there.

 

 

youll notice its a nonprofit org.....it has nothing to do with the 40 billion dollars we as taxpayers sent over to Afghanistan, not solely for the military, but for the "reconstruction of Afghanistan"....where is that money?

 

look, im all for nonprofits trying to help out, but in all reality how much do you think that group has raised?

 

 

on their "completed projects" area they have helped maybe 3 schools already in existence with "pen-pal" programs, and the one they helped build only houses 250 women. thats a start, but im not arguing over non=profit orgs...im talking about the US government pledging economic and infrastructural support 40 billion and rising....show me where that helped to build anything other than military bases.

 

Fine here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545705106832957.html

 

edit: lol nvm

[karmakramer]

Taken from another forum:

 

 

"I heard an interview with James Dubik, a retired lieutenant general, on the topic of why the surge worked in Iraq.

 

To paraphrase,

Inherent in numbers is the potential of combat power.

His key point was that the success of the surge in Iraq was that the "potential of combat power" through the surge in concert with a change in how the Iraqi security forces were trained allowed the Iraqi forces to rapidly increase their confidence and leadership abilities which in turn, translated that potential of combat power into actual combat power.

 

Again, what we need to realize is that the primary goal of a military surge isn't necessarily combat related; a big part of that is the potential of combat power which can be leveraged to get those on the fence to side with us, boost the strategies for training that are available (i.e. deploy US forces alongside Afghan forces), and to help increase the confidence of the Afghans already on our side that we're committed to success."

[awepittance]

just jumping back in here (but will go back later and address what you've said. real quick though, how did the surge work in Iraq?

[karmakramer]

just jumping back in here (but will go back later and address what you've said. real quick though, how did the surge work in Iraq?

 

Violence dropped

[awepittance]

Journalist Patrick Cockburn has stated that the reduction in violence was a direct result of ethnic cleansing by the Shia-led Iraqi government and Shia militias against Sunnis.[88] He has stated that "the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appear permanent; Sunnis who try to get their houses back face assassination."[88] UCLA professor of geography John Agnew released a study in mid-September 2008 stating that violence has declined in Baghdad "because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said that "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left."[89]

[karmakramer]

"reached a climax as the surge was beginning..."

 

I think this just proves my point that it isn't necessarily the actual combat the extra troops provide but just the shear amount... the visible size. To conclude the announcement of a huge surge had no effect on future involvement in the region seems a little one dimensional. Don't you think these insurgents and terrorist groups monitor the actual policy and current news over here... when its announced that a crap load of new fire power is headed their way, surely they must be maybe rethinking current strategies.

[karmakramer]

Is the discussion on this over?

[Guest Rambo]

you know during those election thingies when Obama was given a lot of money and some other people who wanted to be president weren't given a lot of money oh forget it. last post

[joshuatxuk]

Is the discussion on this over?

 

Yeah, unless people want to talk about the 7,000 NATO troops being deployed.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/asia/05diplo.html

[awepittance]

On the vital question of whether Obama is committed to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July, 2011 -- or whether that's just an aspirational target subject to being moved -- the statements from key administration officials aren't merely in tension with one another, but are exact opposites:

 

Agence France-Press, yesterday:

"President Barack Obama's administration said that a July 2011 target date to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan was not set in stone. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and the top uniformed US military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, sought to sell the new approach under fire from Obama's hawkish Republican foes.

During hours of questioning by two key committees, they made clear that his target date of starting a US troop withdrawal in 19 months' time -- a step some anti-escalation lawmakers, especially Democrats, had cheered -- could slip.

"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," said Clinton, who added the goal was "to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan."

Gates said the extra troops Obama had ordered to Afghanistan would be in place in July 2010, that a December 2010 review of the war effort would shape the pace of the withdrawal, and that the target date could change."

 

CBS News, Wednesday:

"I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in -- there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel."

 

What could possibly explain a contradiction this extreme with regard to a question so central to the policy Obama just announced? How can you have the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of State testifying in front of the Senate that the July, 2011 date is "not set in stone," that they "have not locked oursleves into leaving," and that "the target date could change," while the President is saying exactly the opposite: that "it IS locked in – there is no flexibility" and "it's etched in stone"?

 

Is it remotely possible that the months of extremely careful, cerebral, thoughtful deliberations produced complete ambiguity on this central point, or is it that Obama's plan is designed to be sufficiently ambiguous so that nobody knows what it actually entails and everyone can therefore be told that it means what they want it to mean? And which is worse?

 

 

 

Obama is the master at triangulation, whatever you want to see or hear out of his speeches will become his position for you.

his supporters, using blind faith will say 'oh well Obama's got to please the republican lawmakers and not give them a firm pull out date otherwise they wont help fund the war, but he really will pull out then'

[awepittance]

yeah, i'm 'just accepting the bush doctrine'.

 

 

just tell me, and goddamn it don't mention anything about bush or WMDs or defense corporations or Vietnam:

 

What do you think will happen if we leave Afghanistan right now?

 

i can't say, but i definitely don't base what will happen on the words of fear mongering politicians who have ulterior motives to stay there.

[awepittance]

 

so you're changing this group of people mid argument to a different group? I'm just honestly confused man,

 

Let me fully explain again, now that I have more time and can fully explain everything...

 

So my line of thinking is, currently the region is unstable. So currently if we left the region the Taliban would most likely regain control of Afghanistan. Seeing as our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (torture ect..) have only enticed more Middle Eastern aggression towards Western worlds, leaving now would only lead to even more radicals (more than before 2001). You are right when you say we should be talking about more of a domestic war (and had we originally pursued Al Qaida and gotten Bin Laden, there would be NO war *), but because of the actions that have already been made, the war is becoming far more of a cultural war, one where un-educated Afghans will easily be persuaded in helping rebuild Al Qaida or other radical movements. This is why there is a need to build a government and infrastructure so future Afghan generations will not fall into these radical religious movements.

 

This is where the geographical element comes into play. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has very little infrastructure and is right on the border of nuclear Pakistan. As Al Qaida gets aide from the Taliban and builds up forces and WEALTH, its possible (again this is just my logic, there is probably evidence to back this up, but I would love to see you provide evidence against this) that either the Taliban or Al Qaida could acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. If it looks like things are getting to that point, trying to invade and stop Al Qaida and the Taliban would require even more money and troops... and the war would probably last well beyond the expected 3 years.

 

So that is why we can't just pull out. Yes similar lines of reasoning have been applied to different wars and those wars have failed... but Al Qaida was never in Iraq and nor were the Taliban. The violence in Iraq were insurgents and the Sunni's (Saddam's supporters)... the main issue there was when we took over the government we removed all the Sunni's from power and replaced them with Shia's... this brought on the civil war in Iraq, which is why the whole fucking thing took so long.

 

* This is why the Bush Administration backed off Bin Laden, cause had we gotten him, there would have been ZERO justification for Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

 

now it just seems like you've gone back to do some fact checking of your own and retooled your own argument to have it make more sense, but still overall does not make sense and is based on fear. I would address these points more directly if they were substantially different than what you already said before in your earlier revision (the one where you conflated 'terrorism' as the Taliban, al queda and any insurgent who fights us)

[awepittance]

Its to aide Afghans with training, infrastructure, and education. I think if we can accomplish this successfully and really start a true democracy in the region, their anti-US resentment will be suppressed.

 

you mean the Afghan police that the populace despises far more than the Taliban? What makes you believe with open arms this concept that we want a 'true democracy' in the region?

I can't help but feel every time you say something like this that you buy into a lot of what our leaders tell you want to believe without thinking.

There is absolutely no way i believe at this point to suppress or help remedy Afghan resentment towards America with more military intervention there. It makes absolutely no sense to me. The only way this premise makes sense is if you believe hook line and sinker the rationale for why the 'war on terror' is being waged.