What should Obama do in Afghanistan?

[GabonX]

Not what will he do, but what should he do? I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this BEFORE their favorite pundit tells them what to think about the decision that he does make.

Frankly I believe that there are two correct choices. One is to deploy an additional 30,000-40,000 troops and win the war with overwhelming force. The other is to withdrawal entirely with the knowledge that we may have to fight again another day in another (or possibly the same) place. The only thing that's for sure is that the longer he takes to make up his mind, the worse the situation will be.

Word on the street is that he is prepared to send an additional 10,000 troops and no more. This kind of half measure is intended as a compromise. It will appease no one and will anger everyone while keeping our troops at frivolous risk.

God I hope that this isn't the case...

[GabonX]

Also, if you're going to vote, try to briefly explain your position..

[thegreekdog]

I think he should pull out completely. That seems to be what the general public wants.

[bedub1]

I think all troops should come home, secure our country against invasion from our neighbors. We also need to stop ALL global "help" do other countries...and keep all the cash for ourselves to help ourselves. "How can you fix the speck in your brothers eye when you've got a plank in your own eye".

[pimpdave]

Yeah, just pull out completely, and then bomb the shit out of them anytime they try to get "cute". Apply serious political and economic pressure on Pakistan to let us operate from there, we can use support from India and China as well.

Terrorism is a serious problem, but if we were able to keep Saddam from effectively making WMD or ever invading another country again with tomahawk missiles and regular CAPs, we should be able to blow up any training camps in Afghanistan with no big problem. We've taken on too much, and it's foolish to let it bankrupt us completely.

Instead, we should focus on Pakistan, and helping them remain stable, both for the terrorism thing, but also their historic tensions with India.

[jonesthecurl]

I agree with Gabon. I must be wrong somewhere.

[pimpdave]

I agree with Gabon. I must be wrong somewhere.

I agree with him too.

It's like JFK suddenly deciding to send only 6 bombers instead of the 16 necessary for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Either go all in, or not at all.

Also, apologies if I've got the number of bombers incorrect, but it was something like that, and I don't feel like looking it up right now.

[Juan_Bottom]

Instead, we should focus on Pakistan, and helping them remain stable, both for the terrorism thing, but also their historic tensions with India.

The Pakistani government and the US are friendly. But the Pakistani people do not like their government. What would happen should the government be replaced? The US would be ousted! Pakistan relations are very very tricky. I should think that the best thing to do would be to find a politically neutral way to support Pakistan. America does use unauthorized strikes across the border when we are attacked from there, but maybe the surge could help to protect Pakistani villagers? That would be a top-notch neutral way to support Pakistan.
The US and India get along well enough though.


The Reps are really running with this one aren't they? It's only been a couple of days and they are already pressuring the pres about this.

I don't fully grasp why we need a 40,000 troop surge. We just got a new battle plan for the country. And so far, it's been working(or has it?). So why the surge? And where are they needed exactly? Anyone help me out with this? Is this political?

The only thing that's for sure is that the longer he takes to make up his mind, the worse the situation will be.

I think that is mostly a scare tactic or a play on the truth. Obviously there is no instant fix. But it's not like the militants are outside Charleston or anything. Their numbers are not yet impossibly swelling.

[HapSmo19]

If I were president,...I'd deploy an additional 100,000 and git er done!

[jefjef]

Simple. Stop being nice about it.

Our Military is for killing. Not policing. Turn them lose. Treat it as the war it is.

Sweep the entire country after carpet bombing it. Everything short of nukes.

100 planes - 500 tanks - 50,000 Infantry should do it.

30 days should finish it.

[Attila the Fun!]

Withdrawal, pure and simple. Our mission was to go in and knock out al Qaeda, and most experts agree that we've succeeded. Now mission creep has set in and we're going after the Taliban. The Taliban are bastards, no doubt about it, but they've never posed a threat to the US. If we leave Afghanistan now, some people think the Taliban may reconstitute themselves, albeit in a more limited way...maybe stronger in certain areas outside of Kabul. Meanwhile, Kabul will be ruled by the puppet Karzai and his warlord VP. I'll admit it, that sucks too. But let's remember that we put Karzai there in the first place. I don't see how sticking another leg in is gonna get us out of this quicksand.

When we found Afghanistan, it was a war-torn country with a small group of Qaeda members. If we leave, it will be a war-torn country sans al Qaeda. That's, sadly, the best we can hope for.

To keep al Qaeda from returning, we'd have to keep up drone attacks in Pakistan. That sucks too, but it gives us all the benefits of the current occupation without any of the pitfalls.

The best vid on the subject I've seen today:
Obama's War on VBS.TV

[muy_thaiguy]

Well, the troop surge in Iraq actually seemed to have done good there when it was getting really bloody. So I'd assume that sending 30,000 to 40,000 more troops would probably help. And since most people agree that it was correct to head to Afghanistan, I'd think that there would be less opposition to doing it, unless of course the politicians in Washington and others deicde to flip-flop, again.

[GabonX]

The only thing that's for sure is that the longer he takes to make up his mind, the worse the situation will be.

I think that is mostly a scare tactic or a play on the truth. Obviously there is no instant fix. But it's not like the militants are outside Charleston or anything. Their numbers are not yet impossibly swelling.

The issue as I see it is that we have American soldiers being killed for no good reason. Right now there is no prospect of victory unless we send the additional troops.

The sooner our commander in chief makes up his mind the better.

[Woodruff]

Withdrawal, pure and simple. Our mission was to go in and knock out al Qaeda, and most experts agree that we've succeeded. Now mission creep has set in and we're going after the Taliban. The Taliban are bastards, no doubt about it, but they've never posed a threat to the US.

You mean other than the fact that they're directly culpable in the 9/11 attacks, right?

When we found Afghanistan, it was a war-torn country with a small group of Qaeda members. If we leave, it will be a war-torn country sans al Qaeda. That's, sadly, the best we can hope for.

Why is it that you believe Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan?

As pimpdave said, either all or nothing. If you're going to do it half-assed, don't bother. But I believe we need to clean our mess up, frankly. We broke it (ok, so it was already pretty cracked), so let's fix it.

[bedub1]

I think the terrorists we are chasing are running from us, country by country....It's like the Canadians want some criminal...and he's in Canada...then flees to the US...then to Mexico...then to /me pulls up a map Guatemala and Honduras and Nicaragua and Costa Rica and then A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama...

[GabonX]

I find it amazing that nobody is even considering that bin Laden could be in Iran (we know he has children living there!).

Iran borders Afghanistan. I've talked to army colonels who have told me that this isn't even discussed as a possibility..that the thought hadn't occurred to them because bin Laden is Sunni and Iran is Shia .

Iran has supported and continues to support Sunni groups. Hamas is Sunni and Iran strongly backs them, so why would Iran discriminate against bin Laden because of his Sunni affiliation?

[Woodruff]

I find it amazing that nobody is even considering that bin Laden could be in Iran (we know he has children living there!).

Certainly he COULD be, but there's no evidence (that I've seen) that really suggests it.

[Army of GOD]

What if Obama was actually bin Laden?

That'd be ironic

[bedub1]

What if Obama was actually bin Laden?

That'd be ironic

He just shaved....he's like a super hero. put some glasses on him and a funny suit....

[Symmetry]

I find it amazing that nobody is even considering that bin Laden could be in Iran (we know he has children living there!).

Iran borders Afghanistan. I've talked to army colonels who have told me that this isn't even discussed as a possibility..that the thought hadn't occurred to them because bin Laden is Sunni and Iran is Shia .

Iran has supported and continues to support Sunni groups. Hamas is Sunni and Iran strongly backs them, so why would Iran discriminate against bin Laden because of his Sunni affiliation?

Because Bin Laden is associated with Al-Qaeda. When the organisation was set up it's primary targets were Islamic countries who embraced western ideas. Iran being a big target.

Still, a nice attempt to equate Iran, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. I particularly liked the way you converted the fact that "army colonels" told you that no one takes the idea seriously into amazement that nobody was considering it.

[Symmetry]

ironic

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[GabonX]

I find it amazing that nobody is even considering that bin Laden could be in Iran (we know he has children living there!).

Iran borders Afghanistan. I've talked to army colonels who have told me that this isn't even discussed as a possibility..that the thought hadn't occurred to them because bin Laden is Sunni and Iran is Shia .

Iran has supported and continues to support Sunni groups. Hamas is Sunni and Iran strongly backs them, so why would Iran discriminate against bin Laden because of his Sunni affiliation?

Because Bin Laden is associated with Al-Qaeda. When the organisation was set up it's primary targets were Islamic countries who embraced western ideas. Iran being a big target.

Still, a nice attempt to equate Iran, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. I particularly liked the way you converted the fact that "army colonels" told you that no one takes the idea seriously into amazement that nobody was considering it.

Saudi Arabia was a major target, Iran was not.

Are Iran and Hamas really so disimilar from al-qaeda? How much do you know about Hamas and why would these entities be any better than Al Qaeda?

Frankly I'm surprised that I would need to "equate" them...

[GabonX]

Palestinians talking about Hamas

[GabonX]

Hamas children's television show

[GabonX]

Hamas, in their own words...