President Obama increases U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

President Obama increases U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 30,000

prima donna
12-02-2009, 12:38 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghan-war-plan-ni_n_375661.html

munZe konZa
12-02-2009, 12:54 AM
what is he president of ?
I really don't seet this guy as president but then neither was Bush and Clinton

prima donna
12-02-2009, 12:57 AM
what is he president of ?
Oh, I don't know, this small country often referred to as the United States of America.

Perhaps you've heard of it ?

Garson007
12-02-2009, 01:00 AM
Jolly good story that, ol' chap.

Byrd
12-02-2009, 01:01 AM
Yes, sending 30,000 more troops will win you the war.

prima donna
12-02-2009, 01:06 AM
This increase will bring the total number of troops to 101,000 by the summer of 2010.

R.Federer
12-02-2009, 01:10 AM
I'll stop the war, I'll close down Guantanomo, I'll overturn don't-ask-don't-tell .... he is now zero for three. Turning out to be just one of the rest of them? Not you too Obama!

Aloimeh
12-02-2009, 01:12 AM
R.I.P. America

America is going down the tubes. Our economy is in ruins and amplifying the Afghan war will do nothing but lead to more deaths (Afghan and American) and increased waste of funds.

Mjau!
12-02-2009, 01:13 AM
Norwegians :rolleyes:

prima donna
12-02-2009, 01:17 AM
I happen to think that President Obama's decision is a prudent one.

Aloimeh
12-02-2009, 01:18 AM
I happen to think that President Obama's decision is a prudent one.

Just as long as it is not your own blood being shed, right?

prima donna
12-02-2009, 01:24 AM
Just as long as it is not your own blood being shed, right?
Conscription came to an end in the 70s, therefore all duties carried out by U.S. troops are of a voluntary nature.

Byrd
12-02-2009, 01:28 AM
I happen to think that President Obama's decision is a prudent one.

It isn't prudent, far from it, just another piece in the puzzle.

El Legenda
12-02-2009, 01:30 AM
I'll stop the war, I'll close down Guantanomo, I'll overturn don't-ask-don't-tell .... he is now zero for three. Turning out to be just one of the rest of them? Not you too Obama!

umm stopping the war cant happen without sending more troops to Afganistan, pulling all the troops will not stop the war it will start a whole new war with Taliban taking over Afganistan, sending more troops is the only opition to stop the war, Bush and the GOP rushed Afganistan just to get to Saddam, Obama is now left with cleaning up that mess and doing this right.

Gitmo is in the process of closing, cant just close it over night

don't-ask-don't-tell is not the #1 priority right now...the plate is full with more important things that will effect a every american, not just 3% to 5%...health care, cap and trade, 2 wars, new transportation bill, he has 3 years + another term, he'll get to it.

prima donna
12-02-2009, 01:33 AM
Very enlightening...
Isn't it...

Yes, sending 30,000 troops will win you the war.
Do tell us what a rigorous task it was to unearth such boundless wisdom from your repository of knowledge.

Chip_s_m
12-02-2009, 01:44 AM
I have no problems trying a surge. It worked in Iraq. If implemented properly with the necessary tweaks for Afghanistan then there's no reason to think that it won't work again. If it doesn't significantly improve the situation then we get out (or use the nukes).

Byrd
12-02-2009, 01:47 AM
Do tell us what a rigorous task it was to unearth such boundless wisdom from your repository of knowledge.


Say what you want, but him sending in 30,000 troops is a clear message that he wants to finish off this war as soon as possible, and taking out the financial implications of this, the target isn't even realistic, it just distracts from the major issues in the good ole U.S.A, in which Obama is clearly inept at.

~*BGT*~
12-02-2009, 03:46 AM
I'll stop the war, I'll close down Guantanomo, I'll overturn don't-ask-don't-tell .... he is now zero for three. Turning out to be just one of the rest of them? Not you too Obama!

That can't all be done in 10 months.

Stensland
12-02-2009, 12:06 PM
as long as afghans fuck like rabbits the war is pretty much a dead end. it's like the war of attrition by nasser. i have no idea how to deal with the afghan youth bulge. carpet-bomb the country with anti-baby-pills maybe? sterilise afghan women?

if soviet russia can't cope with it, the western world won't be able to either. afghans just multiply...and multiply...and multiply...

pd, what time frame do you think we're talking about here? when do you expect the troops to leave afghanistan?

and do you think america will be on its own there some time soon?

Bilbo
12-02-2009, 12:11 PM
umm stopping the war cant happen without sending more troops to Afganistan, pulling all the troops will not stop the war it will start a whole new war with Taliban taking over Afganistan, sending more troops is the only opition to stop the war, Bush and the GOP rushed Afganistan just to get to Saddam, Obama is now left with cleaning up that mess and doing this right.

the taliban will overtake Afghanistan anyway as soon as the U.S. troops are out. i don't get what their goal is. do they think they can destroy the taliban once and forever?

Commander Data
12-02-2009, 12:19 PM
I heard that the only reason America is in Afghanistan is because huge Gas Pipelines run thru there.

Don't know if it is true though.

Bilbo
12-02-2009, 12:20 PM
I heard that the only reason America is in Afghanistan is because huge Gas Pipelines run thru there.

Don't know if it is true though.

true

zeleni
12-02-2009, 12:24 PM
Conscription came to an end in the 70s, therefore all duties carried out by U.S. troops are of a voluntary nature.

Shifting from conscription to mercenary army isn't good sign for USA, imho.

Bilbo
12-02-2009, 01:00 PM
obama should lay down his nobel peace prize imo

JolánGagó
12-02-2009, 01:20 PM
Afghanistan is a dead end a zillion times worse than Vietnam. The only solution would be carpet-bombing the whole country into stardust but, alas, it isn't feasible.

prima donna
12-02-2009, 01:21 PM
as long as afghans fuck like rabbits the war is pretty much a dead end. it's like the war of attrition by nasser. i have no idea how to deal with the afghan youth bulge. carpet-bomb the country with anti-baby-pills maybe? sterilise afghan women?

if soviet russia can't cope with it, the western world won't be able to either. afghans just multiply...and multiply...and multiply...

pd, what time frame do you think we're talking about here? when do you expect the troops to leave afghanistan?

and do you think america will be on its own there some time soon?
Withdrawal will be contingent upon the conditions on the ground, and given that I haven't the ability to foresee the future, I would rather not prognosticate. Although it should be made clear that nation building is not the objective, therefore variables such as a 10% literacy rate, average age of 17 years, and life expectancy of 44 years while significant, do not undermine the goal to purge from the region Taliban influence and rule.

What's more, in order for Afghan forces to be trained and the region itself stabilized, reinforcements from our allies are imperative. Stabilization, not democratization is the objective.

Indeed, so long as the region is no longer being used by the Taliban to recruit and train terrorists, Afghans are free to live under Sharia law or any other such anachronistic system of law preferred by a centralized government.

Action Jackson
12-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Afghanistan is a dead end zillion times worst than Vietnam. The only solution would be carpet-bombing the whole country into stardust but, alas, it isn't feasible.

There is only so much you can do, turning rubble into dust.

scoobs
12-02-2009, 01:43 PM
How does one win an unwinnable war?

The only options here are to try and undermine the Taliban by encouraging the Afghans themselves to reject them - which means providing a better alternative. Freedom, economic improvement, a stake in the future of their country, and security provided by Afghans themselves ultimately.

The Taliban cannot be totally defeated militarily any more than the Viet Cong could. The more reasonable elements of the Taliban have to be re-integrated, and the security forces have to oppose the rest and provide security for the country, while improvements are made to the quality of life of ordinary Afghans so that they reject the extremism on offer by the Taliban.

Then we can come home.

The whole situation is a dire mess and have been for years, but walking away is hardly a smart move either. If we did that, Karzai's regime, corrupt and unpalatable as it is, would be washed away in months and replaced by another Taliban dictatorship that would allow the country to become a hotbed of extremism again, with the capability of projecting that violent extremism internationally. And it's not inconceivable that the resulting turmoil could see the government of Pakistan fall, and then you're in a serious mess because that's a nuclear state.

I don't like the idea of sending more troops to the area but it seems like a necessary first step. They key thing here though is to have a clear, achievable exit strategy in mind that is being worked towards, and the resources necessary to achieve it. I think the timescales being proposed are very ambitious though and will probably slip.

Jimnik
12-02-2009, 01:49 PM
I wonder if western powers will ever find an effective way of instilling stability in foreign nations.

R.Federer
12-02-2009, 02:07 PM
That can't all be done in 10 months.

He pledged to have troops withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Okay, I will hold out till April 2010 to see ... but somehow, it is my impression that the withdrawal will not be done by then.
I am also hopeful that he comes through with the repeal on DADT. On the campaign he was quite adamant he would repeal. By this year, it has been a bit more guarded. Before the speech to the GLA, Gates made it sound like it could be held off for a while.
Gitmo, well I am hopeful that something concrete is said about that-- timetable, for instance.

Bibberz
12-02-2009, 02:18 PM
Withdrawal will be contingent upon the conditions on the ground, and given that I haven't the ability to foresee the future, I would rather not prognosticate. Although it should be made clear that nation building is not the objective, therefore variables such as a 10% literacy rate, average age of 17 years, and life expectancy of 44 years while significant, do not undermine the goal to purge from the region Taliban influence and rule.

What's more, in order for Afghan forces to be trained and the region itself stabilized, reinforcements from our allies are imperative. Stabilization, not democratization is the objective.

Indeed, so long as the region is no longer being used by the Taliban to recruit and train terrorists, Afghans are free to live under Sharia law or any other such anachronistic system of law preferred by a centralized government.

This. A thousand times this. Great post.

How does one win an unwinnable war?

The only options here are to try and undermine the Taliban by encouraging the Afghans themselves to reject them - which means providing a better alternative. Freedom, economic improvement, a stake in the future of their country, and security provided by Afghans themselves ultimately.

The Taliban cannot be totally defeated militarily any more than the Viet Cong could. The more reasonable elements of the Taliban have to be re-integrated, and the security forces have to oppose the rest and provide security for the country, while improvements are made to the quality of life of ordinary Afghans so that they reject the extremism on offer by the Taliban.

Then we can come home.

This sounds too much like nation-building to me, which strikes me as an unrealistic objective.