16
   

This is so wrong

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 07:11 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Burble.


Sorry, I don't get the gist.

Verb burble
Flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 07:14 am
That there is an unpopular government in Afghanistan is nobody's fault but ours (or, rather, of the Shrub's administration). The Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were so eager to invade Iraq, that they simply put the warlords back in charge, and Karzai and his cronies are just a figurehead administration for a bare bones American administration the only purpose of which was to keep the country "pacified" while the Neo-cons pursued their real agenda in Iraq.

The only thing the Taliban ever did that was popular with the Afghan people was to get rid of the warlords. I personally feel we have a debt to the Afghan people to fix the situation, since we screwed it in the first place. This is definitely "do-able" in that the Taliban only has support (and a limited support at that) in tribal areas in the east bordering Pakistan. But we will make no headway as long as the deep corruption of the Afghan puppet government continues, because that will continue to give the Taliban propaganda leverage. The recent attacks on schools because they attempted to educate girls is an example of just how out of touch with the country the Taliban are, and just how easily we could marginalize them permanently, if we can give the Afghans a credible, effective government. Karzai don't cut it . . .
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 07:38 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The only thing the Taliban ever did that was popular with the Afghan people was to get rid of the warlords. I personally feel we have a debt to the Afghan people to fix the situation, since we screwed it in the first place.


That's my take, too.

I think it was more valid to go into Afghanistan than Iraq in the first place -- I supported that from the beginning. I think it was bungled rather spectacularly though, and we need to un-bungle as much as we can before withdrawing.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:30 am
Well yes the Taliban are not acceptable to the vast majority of Afghan peoples and the tribes will fight to the death against the Taliban, however, the peoples of Afghanistan will unite against ANY foreign "invader" just as they did against the USSR The combination of multiple tribal governments and a just plain horrendous topography and centuries of self-rule autonomy (I think) leads to a NO-WIN proposition for any and all "outsiders".
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:33 am
@dyslexia,
What is your problem, Dys? That they're increasing forces in Afghanistan instead of bringing the troups home, or that they're sending only 17,000?

If you're disappointed because they are relocating troups from Iraq to Afghanistan instead of bringing them home -- that's what Obama always said he would do. Sure, he emphasized the "withdraw from Iraq" part, inviting his listeners to think he would bring them home. But if you listened to what Obama actually said, as opposed to what he was giving the appearance of saying, it was always clear that he was planning a major redeployment. Considering that he was in an election campaign, his message was clear enough.

If, on the other hand, you're disappointed that he's only 17,000, I'm with you. I am not a military strategist, but I suspect this number is missing a zero at its end.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:42 am
@dyslexia,
We could save some money by transporting a lot of the U.S. military equipment to Afghanistan instead of shipping it home from Iraq along with our troops. Before we leave, we could destroy their poppy fields that finance the Taliban. That way, the Afghan fighters could take on the Taliban, and even al Qeada, and beat the **** out of them. The only fighting help the Afghans need from us is air cover and drones that they don't have.

BBB
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:47 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
"Destroying the poppy fields" is a bit complicated. This was a good article, July 2007:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/09/070709fa_fact_anderson?currentPage=1
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 10:09 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
If, on the other hand, you're disappointed that he's only 17,000, I'm with you. I am not a military strategist, but I suspect this number is missing a zero at its end.


The entire original occupation force for Iraq was about 170,000. There is no need for a force that size in Afghanistan. As it stands, 17,000 should be sufficient. The English, Canadians and Dutch are facing the worst of the renewed Taliban insurgency in Helman and Kandahar provinces in the southeast. They are dealing with it effectively enough, but lack the resources to chase them back into the Waziristan tribal regions, which straddles the border with Pakistan. The biggest problem with the continuing Taliban presence is that it is supported from, and at necessity can be based in Pakistan. Not only has Pakistan never been a faithful ally of ours, but in 2002 they supported the Taliban-Al Qaeda base in Waziristan, and ISI (Pakistani security services) supported and even lead operations against NATO.

This deployment should do the trick--but only if it is accompanied by genuinely cleaning up the Afghan government. It is no Vietnam, but it could become one if we continue to do nothing about the "narcocracy" which currently runs the country.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:05 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The entire original occupation force for Iraq was about 170,000. There is no need for a force that size in Afghanistan.

Why not?

Afghanistan's population is comparable to Iraq's; it's even a little larger. Afghanistan covers a greater area than Iraq. So why shouldn't it take a comparable force to control it and stabilize a reasonably decent political system across the country?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:17 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The entire original occupation force for Iraq was about 170,000. There is no need for a force that size in Afghanistan.

Why not?

Afghanistan's population is comparable to Iraq's; it's even a little larger. Afghanistan covers a greater area than Iraq. So why shouldn't it take a comparable force to control it and stabilize a reasonably decent political system across the country?
a permanent occupying force police state?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:35 pm
@dyslexia,
Hey, whatever you consider "a reasonably decent political system".
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:44 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
The Taliban was hated and feared by the majority of Afghans ...


The Bush administration was feared and hated by a majority of Americans. That's enough for NATO to swoop in and dump them, Merry.

Quote:
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a global movement, allied with the Taliban. I don't recall that the Viet Cong ever perpetrated acts of terrorism on US soil.


I think it important to keep the facts straight. Bush had no problem with the Taliban and in fact allowed that they could maintain their hold if they gave up Bin Laden.

Why do you figure, Merry, that the Taliban should have given up a terrorist when the USA shelters so many terrorists themselves?

The Taliban were actually allied with the USA.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:58 pm
@Thomas,
You were suggesting that a deployment of 170,000 troops would be reasonable. NATO already has more than 55,000 troops from NATO nations and a dozen other contributing nations' forces. The Afghan National Army numbers between 35,000 and 40,000 troops, with another 25,000 in the national police force. (Those figures are as of January, 2009, International Security Assistance Force press releases under the authority of the United Nations.) That places about 80,000 troops in the field, in a nation which is largely peaceful. The Taliban insurgency is largely confined to Helmand and Kandahar provinces, where just fewer than 20,000 English, Canadian and Dutch troops currently operate. Another approximately 18,000 troops operate from the area of Bagram, providing security and patrol forces for the entire southeast region other than southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Taliban, on the other hand, has shown no ability to put a significant force in the field, and relies now almost exclusively on improvised explosive devices and terrorizing the inhabitants of areas in which the NATO forces patrol near the Pakistani border. At the height of Taliban power, in 2001, they commanded at most 20,000 regular troops, almost all of them committed to keeping the "Northern Alliance" forces bottled up. The rest of their inflated troop estimates constituted local tribal militias, which they could never have hoped to eliminate, and could only hope to influence. The Northern Alliance forces moved south and west toward Kabul, thanks to NATO air power no longer threatened by the heavy armored equipment (largely self-propelled artillery) which had allowed the Taliban to take power in the first place. As the Northern Alliance troops advanced, local "militias" quickly switched allegiance--the Afghans have shown a finely discriminating sense of upon which side their bread is buttered. Today, with almost all of their tribal support neutralized by self-interest, the Taliban at most commands a few thousand fighters. The threat they pose as a military force is negligible. Their strongest card is propaganda. Flooding Afghanistan with troops, especially if it leads to an increase in incidents in which civilians are killed and injured, would not only not hinder Taliban propaganda, it might help it. Militarily speaking, throwing troops at a problem is the equivalent of a political situation in which problem solving is attempted by throwing money at a problem. If you don't have a concrete goal for your troops, you are wasting your time and resources. Short of invading Pakistan (really not a bad idea, if it weren't for those pesky nukes they have), there is little that a large body of troops could accomplish, and much unintended harm which might be done.

Iraq was a nation with a large army, which compared to the Taliban was relatively well-equipped. Huge amounts of arms, ammunition and explosives were available to any Iraqis who wished to act as insurgents. These conditions do not apply to Afghanistan. In Iraq, in early days at least, 170,000 troops were probably too few. In Afghanistan, they would be a military white elephant. The only way to eventually marginalize the Taliban is to provide sufficient security for the Afghan people to set up and run their own government, complete with national army and police, and without the drug and warlord culture. Right now, sending 17,000 (or 30,000 as some sources suggest) more troops might help to provide more security. But ultimately, this is no longer a military operation, it is a political one. The only reasonable long-term goal for NATO and US troops is to provide the security necessary for Afghans to erect a relatively honest and popular government. You don't need a quarter of a million troops for that (which is what you'd get if you added your proposed 170,000 to the 80,000 already there).
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 01:58 pm
@JTT,
Gaddlemighty, JTT, you sure know how to muddy the waters, don'tcha?

Quote:
The Bush administration was feared and hated by a majority of Americans. That's enough for NATO to swoop in and dump them, Merry.


Are you making a serious comparison between the hapless, clueless and conscienceless Bush dministration and the malignancy that was (and is) the Taliban? Whatever Bush and Chaney & Co. might have wished for, the USA never became a police state. And, as for NATO interfering in the affairs of a democratically oriented member state, the Bush/Cheney rule could last for only a meximum of eight years anyway, barring a coup attempt (in which case, I think, most Americans would have welcomed NATO intervention). How in the world does the rule of the Taliban equate with any US administration you might wish to name?

Quote:
Why do you figure, Merry, that the Taliban should have given up a terrorist when the USA shelters so many terrorists themselves?


You're serious, aren't you? What terrorists do we shelter that some other country has asked us to surrender? I don't know of any. We demanded the extradition of Osama binLaden because he was clearly -- and self-admittedly -- the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. It was a reasonable, legitimate request. If there was a private person residing in the United States who had boasted of blowing up a few mosques in the Middle East as a "Christian gesture" we might well consider extraditing such a person. At the very least, he/she would be placed under arrest in this country until we figured out what to do with him/her.

You arguments hold about as much water as a tin can after it's been used for target practice.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 02:36 pm
@Merry Andrew,
It wouldn't be muddy at all, Merry, if you weren't so intent on staying ignorant on these subjects.

Quote:
Merry wrote: Are you making a serious comparison between the hapless, clueless and conscienceless Bush dministration and the malignancy that was (and is) the Taliban? Whatever Bush and Chaney & Co. might have wished for, the USA never became a police state.


No, actually, that was you, Merry. You seem to be of the opinion that it is up to the western world to decide just what governments should be. Now, you might be able to make such a case if you weren't defending such an immoral and hypocritical position. The USA created the Taliban, nurtured the Taliban with ample funding and even had the Taliban over to the USA to discuss business.

And you can't see anything wrong with this scenario. Come on, Merry.


Quote:
You're serious, aren't you? What terrorists do we shelter that some other country has asked us to surrender?


Read the following, especially the part in bold [my emphasis]. If you need more, please feel free to ask.

What have you done today to excuse the terrorist activities of your government?

Quote:


Backyard terrorism
The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it

George Monbiot

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.



Quote:
Speech of double standard on terrorism in the United States

By Ernesto Vera Mellado


During 1976, the Caribbean island of Barbados started to form part of the long list of tragic accidents ,unjustified and inadmissible. These terrorist actions have been used by the North American administrations to destroy the revolution in Cuba.

October the 6th , 26 years ago , the chosen scene for terrorism was Barbados when terrorists planted two bombs in a Cuban plane with a registration 1201 type DC 8 with 73 people on board.

The plane was coming back from Venezuela and most of the passengers were the members of the young team of fence , who have been awarded all gold metals in dispute in the Central America and the Caribbean games held in that opportunity at the land of Bolivar.

Besides the Cuban fence team and the crew , the flight 455 of Cubana line was carrying five Koreans and a group of 11 people from Guyana, six of them were studying in Cuba.

The first bomb exploded at 18 thousands feet height , eight minutes after its landing and the shaking it caused was followed by fire and a violent descent.

The second load blew 10 minutes later, when pilots tried to return the craft to the Barbados airport , Seawell, as a final resource of survival.

As the last resource, Captain Wilfredo Pérez, "Felo" launched the plane to the sea, avoiding the craft to fall against the beach facilities and thus stopping a bigger tragedy. All died.

On land, the executers of this sabotage were nervous, their constant visits to the North American embassy, their indiscretions while they were moving by taxi and the constant search of phone contacts with their hire men denounced their guiltiness.

Once they were captured , the Venezuelan mercenaries Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo turned out to be the maximum responsible of the plot: Joe Leo , diplomat officer of the North American embassy of the United States in Barbados and the terrorist of Cuban origin Orlando Bosch Avila and Luis Posada Carriles. All of them widely known as CIA agents.

The guilty ones received the protection of Federal Institutions of the United States and of the extreme anti Cuban wing of Miami and today the majority of them freely walks along the city of Miami.

The greatest responsible



The annexing appetite of the United States with respect to Cuba dates back two centuries ago as it is clearly expressed when they stated that the island due to its geographical position must be within the domain of the American Union.

But it an clear challenge to the imperial pretensions , the archipelago decided in 1959 to work for its own destiny, bearing strong "shakes" and "storms"

Since the triumph of the revolution on January the first there was no peace, Cuba turned itself a victim of terrorist state.

The United States quickly decided to protect known murderers and thieves that escaped from justice. None of the responsible for torture and blood deeds in Cuba were sent back , nor the millions of USD that were stolen to the public treasure.

Documents from March 17 of 1960, the referred programs of Uncovered Actions against the Greatest of Antilles and declassified by the North American government proved the interest of Dwight D. Eisenhower, retaken again by Kennedy of " encouraging, support and guide as possible the actions within and outside Cuba "

It was John F. Kennedy who ordered and then faced the defeat of the invasion of the Playa Girón, (Bay of Pigs) that would justify the occupation of that country by troops of the United States.

As a preamble of this war action , a sensible increase of terrorist actions occurred with sabotages by the counter revolutionary internal side to threaten the people and ease the success of the operation.

Kennedy and his hawks from the pentagon did not resign to their defeat of the Bay of Pigs and quickly made another plan to beat the bad experience of Girón and "recover democracy in Cuba" It was the greatest subversive program ever planned and developed by North America against a foreign nation: the Mongoose Operation.

This was a great operation coordinated by the National Council of the National Security of the United States and involved the pentagon , the State Department and the CIA and lastly the Information Agency to Develop 33 tasks that included economic, political, military and intelligence actions as well as psychological and biological actions.

The CIA station JM Wave at the South of Florida with a year budget of 100 millions of USD and 50 case officers who received support for their work in more than 4 thousands collaborators , would be the Center for Planning of the Mongoose Plan.

To coordinate the operation a structure named Widen Special Group leaded by Robert Kennedy , General Attorney of the United States and brother of the president, was created.

With false pretexts of defending the world from the communist threat , between November 1961 and January 1963 more than 6 thousands terrorist acts, 600 of them were dismounted by the recently created Security Body of the Cuban state.

The sabotage scale against civilian targets, planned and financed from North American territory as well as diverse aggressions that reached the total figure of: 119 violations to the air space by pirate planes , 76 of them coming from the naval Base of Guantánamo, predicting a new military adventure of the USA.

Facing such dark purposes against the island, Cuba started defensive measures and accepted the Soviet purpose of installing in its territory medium ranged rockets by means of the so called operation Anadir.

That is why it would be impossible to analyze the causes of the 1962 October crisis without taking into consideration the Mongoose operation, the historian military Cuban Tomas Diez Acosta ascertained.

As everybody supposes , a brief review to the later history means to go again over the same deeds, Cuba has been the main target of terrorist aggressions carried out by the extreme wing of anti Cubans who have been supported by Washington during the last 43 years.

During the 70 decade , the criminal sabotage to a Cubana plane in Barbados took place, bombs attempts increased at diplomat sites of the island abroad as well as kidnapping and murderers of its diplomat body different offshore offices , mainly in Latin America and the United States and interests of other countries commercially linked with Cuba.

In the 80´s due to the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan to try to reorganize some terrorist organizations in Miami to gain a democratic face, the present "Cuban American National Foundation"

Taking advantages of the unlimited support by the North American administrations, this counter revolutionary mob reached a political control of the Florida zone and formed an important lobby in the Congress of the country. Since then the planting of explosives in the hotels of the Cuban capital and several attempts, occurred..

An important role within the implementing of Torricelli and Helms Burton laws that deepened the blockade, an economic war lasting more than 40 years aiming to surrender by hungriness and sickness to a country. That is also terrorism.

Bad and Good Terrorism?

Sheltered by Washington and now by the Cuban American National Foundation those who have acted against Cuba have never been judged there. Examples are countless, but let's take the example of the Barbados crime.

For Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles this was not the first experience , nor the last one. Just from 1974 , they started to work together and until 1976, they placed bombs at the Cuban and Argentine embassies, Peru and Mexico and against the Panamanian embassy in Caracas.

They did these line of events as well in the Friendship Institute Cuba Venezuela in Caracas , also in the Institute of Brazilian Studies , at the Bolivian embassy at Ecuador and in the Soviet Commercial Office in Mexico.

In 1975 they attempted against the life of the Cuban ambassador in Argentine and a year later they participated in the kidnapping and murder of two Cuban officers in Buenos Aires, among other terrorist actions.

Orlando Bosch only spent certain time in a comfortable jail of the U. S.A. when in 1968 he was arrested right at the moment of taking off towards Cuba with a plane in which he carried 18 bombs and was accused of exporting weapons without license.

After going through a minor charge in Caracas, Bosch freely walks today in the United States and in a published book he stated , referring to the Barbados crime , that anyone aiming to conquer awards for the revolution , has to run the risk of suffering anger from the fighters of freedom.

We did it and so what? , he cynically admitted in an interview to a journal

By his side , Posada Carriles evaded the sanction imposed to him due to the downing of the plane in 1989 to appear lately in South America involved in the Iran Gate scandal and in the terrorist attempts to the Havana hotels. Now he expects to escape in Panama, where he must be judged by the homicide charge against the leader of the Cuban revolution.

However, five Cuban prisoners unfairly accused of espionage and to try to frustrate terrorist actions against their homeland, those terrorist actions have took the lives to three thousands 478 compatriots and mutilations and inabilities to other two thousand 100.

René Gonzalez, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Gerardo Hernández and Fernando González have proved that they never did anything to harm the interests of the North American institutions or people of that country. Is it that the North American administrations admit two definitions clearly opposed of the same word

http://www.ain.cu/patriotas2/coberturacompleta/oct1102barbados.htm



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 02:49 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
... on securing Afghanistan against the Taliban and alQaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. We have a legitimate stake there. And put a little scare into the Pakistanis while we're at it.


Shouldn't you be clearer in your accusations, Merry? Are you attempting to tie the Taliban to alQaeda, suggesting both were responsible for 9-11?

[added emphasis, below, is mine]

Quote:
We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning, Georgia?

Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity. Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag.

You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/afghanistan.terrorism19


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 02:58 pm
Quote:

The Cuban Five and US Terrorism
By Michael Parenti and Alicia Jrapko
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributors

Friday 15 December 2006

December 2006 marks five years since the Cuban Five were sentenced to prison.

In 2001, Fernando Gonz a1lez, Gerardo Hern a1ndez, Antonio Guerrero, Ram n Laba ino and Ren Gonz a1lez were unjustly convicted of engaging in "espionage conspiracy" and other charges, and sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life. In fact, they committed no act of espionage against the United States. What they were doing was monitoring Cuban-exile terrorist groups in the USA in an attempt to track and prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba.

It has been eight years since the five men were arrested. And through all that time, "anti-Castro" right-wing terrorist groups have continued to operate with impunity in this country. And the corporate media continue to hail them as "anti-Castro militants" and "freedom fighters," while leaving their nefarious deeds unreported.

Since 1959 Cuba has been subjected to threats, sanctions, invasion, sabotage, and terrorist attacks upon its soil resulting in 3,478 deaths - all organized from within the United States by terrorist groups that are financed, organized, and sheltered by the US national security state.

The US government arrested the Cuban Five for sending information to Havana about terrorist plots and actions being planned against Cuba. Needless to say, the United States government wanted these groups to remain anonymous and free to continue their campaigns of destruction.

The judge who convicted the Five actually admitted the existence of these terror groups. On December 14, 2001, when Judge Lenard sentenced Ren Gonz a1lez to 15 years in prison, she stated: "As a further special condition of supervised release, the defendant is prohibited from associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, and organized-crime figures are known to be or frequent." Acknowledging that the terrorist groups were part of the established political landscape in Florida, Judge Lenard did not seem to see a problem. The problem was Gonzalez's gathering information on them.

[read on at]

http://www.truthout.org/article/parenti-and-jrapko-the-cuban-five-and-us-terrorism

0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 04:58 pm
WASHINGTON (AFP) " Even with an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, the top US commander there predicted "a tough year" in 2009 and warned that the situation would not be quickly turned around.

General David McKiernan, who commands US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, spoke a day after President Barack Obama approved the deployment in the coming months of two additional combat brigades and support forces, about 17,000 troops in all.

"Even with these additional forces, I have to tell you, 2009 is going to be a tough year," McKiernan told reporters at the Pentagon.

"There are the baseline problems of poverty, and literacy, and violence that have occurred over the last three decades in that country, so that's not going to turn around quickly," he said.

"But we do see, with these additional forces, an opportunity to break this stalemate, at least in terms of security conditions in the south," he said.

McKiernan had requested up to 30,000 additional troops, which would nearly double the size of a US force that has grown to 38,000 troops.

The additional troops would be in place and operational by the height of the fighting season this summer and before Afghanistan's national elections August 20, he said.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:20 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Iraq was a nation with a large army, which compared to the Taliban was relatively well-equipped. Huge amounts of arms, ammunition and explosives were available to any Iraqis who wished to act as insurgents. These conditions do not apply to Afghanistan.

... fair enough.

Setanta wrote:
he only way to eventually marginalize the Taliban is to provide sufficient security for the Afghan people to set up and run their own government, complete with national army and police, and without the drug and warlord culture.

... a culture which Iraq doesn't have to deal with, and which could finance an effective-enough militia if it feels threatened by the occupation. Which it currently doesn't. The foreign forces are, for the most part, tiptoeing around the poppy plantations.

I won't argue with you whether the optimal head count is 250,000 or 150,000 troups. I won't argue if you say that what Afghanistan needs is 125,000 troops and 125,000 policemen rather than 250,000 troops. But I'm unconvinced that 97,000 (80,000 + 17,000) is enough.

I guess we'll find out.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:39 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid, re the burble, I meant I was sputtering. I see the place as having strong tribal culture of which we have not a clue, much corruption, and that we are major busybody fixeruppers with huge feet.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This is so wrong
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:05:28