U.S. strategy in Afghanistan under fire


World | 206560 hits | Oct 02 3:13 pm | Posted by: Hyack
6 Comment

WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama summoned his top commander in Afghanistan for private talks aboard Air Force One on Friday amid new signals White House officials are deeply divided over a request to send up to 40,000 more troops to fight the eight-yea

Comments

  1. by ridenrain
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:57 pm
    Uh.. Wasn't this the war he was saying we needed to win?

  2. by ridenrain
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:33 pm


    Whole lot of waffling going on here.

  3. by avatar Scape
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:50 pm
    The mission now includes Pakistan because of 9/11? That's flimsy logic considering the attackers were Saudi.

    Among the biggest questions being asked in the White House is whether the Afghan government can be a reliable partner in economic development and improved governance � especially in the wake of ongoing corruption and the still-disputed August presidential election.


    That's a no-brainer. NO, most emphatic No. It will take decades before that happens and if that is the bar they are needing to meet to make this work then the gig is up.

    They have put a huge amount of troops in since 2001

    I think the only exit strategy is economic recovery and it looks like that is in question. They may keep more troops there for a while but they know it will not work and are looking to draw down without losing face. Doesn't matter if they rip the band-aid off now or tug at it slowly, the fact is it is coming off.

  4. by ridenrain
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:51 pm
    That 3AM phone call the Hildabeast warned us about is still ringing..

  5. by avatar Scape
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:58 pm
    Say what you want but they can only tap that well of more troops for so long. The last 8 years has been very hard on operational readiness. Send more in when they will end up combat ineffective due to supply and staffing issues is asking for trouble. NATO is a big enough paper tiger there doesn't need to be more of that.

  6. by avatar dog77_1999
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:41 pm
    "Scape" said
    The mission now includes Pakistan because of 9/11? That's flimsy logic considering the attackers were Saudi.

    Among the biggest questions being asked in the White House is whether the Afghan government can be a reliable partner in economic development and improved governance � especially in the wake of ongoing corruption and the still-disputed August presidential election.


    That's a no-brainer. NO, most emphatic No. It will take decades before that happens and if that is the bar they are needing to meet to make this work then the gig is up.

    They have put a huge amount of troops in since 2001

    I think the only exit strategy is economic recovery and it looks like that is in question. They may keep more troops there for a while but they know it will not work and are looking to draw down without losing face. Doesn't matter if they rip the band-aid off now or tug at it slowly, the fact is it is coming off.


    Consider the population of the country, we haven't been putting the neccessary amount of troops needed. I believe counter insurgency strategy says you need enough boots on the ground which is equivelent to 5% of the total population. This icudes the local military as well.So basically you need 1.5 million troops to do the job right. Ieaq has shown that to be true.



view comments in forum
You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile