Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I like it." Me too X. I'm pleased and frankly relieved to know that President Obama isn't ready to just rush in without considering all the options. According to one article I read the top military advisers in Washington say that there is no real need for an exact timetable on his decision anyway. I'm kind of wondering why some people along with certain media outlets (FOX News) act as though they have more authority on the subject that Obama does.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 >>Sadly it looks as though Pres Obama is indecisive. Not what I really want to see in a leader.<< I think it is comforting to know that after eight years we have a president that is willing to take his time and weigh all of his options before sending more people into harm's way. Colin Powell was asked a couple weeks back what his advice to Obama would be on this and he said "to take his time". Obama inherited a mess. He is now trying to find the best way to clean it up with fewest lives lost. That is not being indecisive, that is being smart, and yes, presidential.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder 40,000, 34,000, why quibble? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.afghanistan/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Escalating the conflict in Afghanistan is the worst possible decision President Obama could make. I wonder if they're just scared that if they don't keep all those reservists fighting overseas they'll just be more people to add to the unemployment figures?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I wonder if they're just scared that if they don't keep all those reservists fighting overseas they'll just be more people to add to the unemployment figures?" You can't be serious. Ad I disagree. This isn't the worst possible decision. It's what should have been done from the start with Bush.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster If Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan he should be forced to give his Nobel Peace prize back.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Ad I disagree. This isn't the worst possible decision. It's what should have been done from the start with Bush. >> No. We never should have gone into the nation-building phase in Afghanistan. In order to end a war, you have to have some relationship with the adversary so you can negotiate a peace. We have no relationship with the Taliban. We don't even talk to them. It's completely unrealistic to say that you are just going to kill them all -- not to mention completely immoral to have that as your strategy. Additionally, the Taliban's number one supporter is Iran, another country that we have no relations with. How do we stop the Iran from flooding Afghanistan with IEDs and weapons when we don't even talk to Iran as a matter of policy? Escalation also flies in the face of every counter-insurgency strategy ever fought. The mere presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan fuels the insurgent fever. The more of us that they see, the more they want us to be gone and are willing to fight. That's the way nearly every counter-insurgency has played out since the beginning of time. Escalation of troops nearly always leads to increased violence.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Escalation of troops nearly always leads to increased violence.*** To play Devil's Advocate, what about the Iraq surge? Did that not work? Is that not something that might work in Afghanistan too? (again, this is my devil's advocate position, I don't necessarily even agree with it myself)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << To play Devil's Advocate, what about the Iraq surge? Did that not work? Is that not something that might work in Afghanistan too? >> I think a lot of people wrongly characterize the Iraq conflict as a counter-insurgency. However, this doesn't describe the full picture of what was going on there after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled. Foreign fighters from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Arabian Peninsula were instigating a large amount of violence. There was also civil in-fighting between Sunni and Shia groups that ultimately involved the U.S., but was not necessarily directed against U.S. occupation. The indigenous groups in Iraq are also not friendly with the major state actors (Iran and Syria) that would have liked to cause more trouble in Iraq. That is not the case in Afghanistan. The difference in Iraq -- the indigenous groups decided that the outside fighters were more dangerous than the U.S. and gave up their differences to align with the U.S. Another difference is that we engaged in talks with the Sunni and Shia clerics to work out political solutions. The political solutions, coincidentally, took place almost simultaneously with the so-called "surge." The added troops did little to change the fundamental political landscape in Iraq that was always a problem. In Afghanistan, most of the insurgents are indigenous to the population. While the Taliban is located in Pakistan, it is not comprised of non-Afghans. Additionally, we have no relations with the Taliban or any of the major groups that are supporting their effort. We have no ability to work out political solutions with the adversary. The problem with war is that your end state has to align with some political objective. Usually this involves some agreement between you and your adversary to a resolution that achieves those political goals. I think we have a political end state in Afghanistan, but it is hard to see how it is achieved when we have no formal mechanism to negotiate with the adversary or any of its allies.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 If Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan he should be forced to give his Nobel Peace prize back.<< Considering that IMO, he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in order to influence his decision on Afghanistan, the fact that he is increasing troops makes me smile because its a big finger flip to the Nobel Prize committee
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Right because the Nobel Prize committee is deserving of being told to f*** off for trying to promote peace.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Right because the Nobel Prize committee is deserving of being told to f*** off for trying to promote peace.<< No, not for promoting peace, but for attempting to influence our foreign policy with the bogus prize as 90% of Americans will admit President Obama has done nothing yet, worthy of the prize.
Originally Posted By Mr X You don't think that re-engaging with Russia in less than one year after Bush practically arranged for Cold War II is not worthy of the prize? I'm not sure it is, but it is certainly more than "nothing", and at least worthy of consideration. I think that's part of what the Nobel folks thought, anyway.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I think that's part of what the Nobel folks thought, anyway.<< Not worthy enough to get the prize IMO. I am not criticizing him for what he has done, I just feel the Nobel Prize committee, knowing that President Obama had to make a decision on Afghanistan, decided to attempt to influence global policy by giving him the prize, in hopes that a Nobel Peace Prize winner would be reluctant to increase troops in an armed conflict.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But I will say this, I respect President Obama for IMO, making this decision based on what he feels is the right thing to do, not based on how much his stock will go up by increasing troops or how the Nobel Prize committee will react if he does indeed increase the number of troops. He may have been a little too slow for my liking, but I have to respect him for being his own man, and not taking this decision lightly.
