Obama considering scaled-down Afghan war

[SIMPLYB1980]

‘McChrystal Light’ plan would send fewer troops than sought by commander
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33538233/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

"WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than preferred by his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. officials said.

Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's most ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light."

Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday."


A U.S. Army vehicle fires on Taliban positions on a mountainside outside a base held by the Army's 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, in the Pech River Valley of Afghanistan's Kunar province on Wednesday.

[tekisui]

1. What a bullshit title! Adding more troops is now scaled down?

Nice try.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. Blame M$NBC.

:think: :hi:

[lwcon]

8. I just posted this on the spin:

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/every-1s-winner.html

We're in a topsy turvy world, aren't we?

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. More info for those who care about what the WH

is planning.

"Counterinsurgency strategy

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the troop numbers under the narrowed scenario probably would be lower than McChrystal's preference, at least at the outset. The officials did not divulge exact numbers.

The stripped-down version of McChrystal's plan still would adopt the commander's overall goals for a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at turning the corner against the Taliban next spring.

But that pared-down approach would reflect a shift in thinking about what parts of the war mission are most important and the intense political domestic debate over Afghan policy."

[tekisui]

5. Great. Turning a corner. I've heard that before. When was that...?

Oh yeah:

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. Even more from the article.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed back hard against a faction of administration officials, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who contend that much of the U.S. national security objective in Afghanistan could be accomplished by concentrating on strikes at al-Qaida along the Pakistan border.

That approach would hunt terrorists with techniques such as missile-loaded pilotless drones, and could require little or no additional U.S. manpower.

Gates has bridged both sides, officials said. Long wary of a large U.S. presence that could too easily look like an occupation army, he has suggested recently that he could support a carefully designed expansion."

[tekisui]

12. Do you have those pictures of soldiers on your wall?

You are like a teen age fan of war.

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. I have several of my cousins. They do a good job

and I am proud of what they do. I thought you put me on ignore?

[tekisui]

25. I took you off to respond to this tripe.

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. LoL! So you're stalking me.

[tekisui]

27. You are such an idiot.

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. Right back at ya!

:hug:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. How Orwellian!

Ramped Up = Scaled Down

I get it.

[tekisui]

6. Only a mindless idiot wouldn't see through it. It is painfully obvious.

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. LoL! Well takes one spin mister to point out another.

[Junkdrawer]

9. And a Photoshop opportunity to boot...

[SIMPLYB1980]

11. OK that's funny!

:rofl:

[MadHound]

13. A scaled down escalation of a war is still an escalation.

Amazing how the powers that be are trying to sell this war to the public. End this illegal, immoral war now and bring the troops home. That would be truly scaling it down.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. They aren't selling anything.

They are going to do it no matter what anyone posts on the internet.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Yes, they are selling. Unpopular, expensive wars are eventually....

starved of fuel.

In this case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if another "terror" event were needed to prop this thing up.

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. So what are you going to do to stop it?

I don't think you have what it takes to stop it. Now you are talking like Obama would go LIHOP/MIHOP on us. :popcorn:

[Junkdrawer]

18. Synthetic terror attacks do not come from civil servants...

"Inside Job" is just as simple-minded as "Attacks planned from caves"

[SIMPLYB1980]

20. Ah a Truther...

Same thing a a Birther.

[Junkdrawer]

21. "Question the Official 9/11 Story" = "Obama's Birth Certificate is Phony"

I bow before your superior logic...

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. Yes. nt

[MadHound]

19. They aren't selling it? Geez dude, wake up and smell the propaganda

That's all their doing is selling the Afghanistan war, I mean really, a scaled down escalation? Don't you get it? Meanwhile, even though Obama has said he is bring troops home from the Iraq theater, he isn't ending that war either, since at least 50,000 troops are going to be remaining there indefinitely to "train Iraqi's" and "fight terrorism".

Amazing how some people are willing to accept illegal, immoral wars just so long as it is a Democrat who is in charge of the show.

[indjouro]

23. Change?

This honestly wasn't the change I was looking for. Our continued presence in that area increases the violence. Pakistan has become the second home for these kinds of behaviors and both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the corruption it has in the government, really do nothing. Civilians look upon it as an occupation and we have seen how well that works in Iraq.

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Then you didn't pay attention.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_96.php

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

[indjouro]

28. The region feels much differently

about what our goals are and what we have accomplished. Have you been paying attention to the news lately and the increased attacks in Pakistan? Or the increased deaths of our military in Afghanistan? Or Israel's threat to use their nuclear weapons on Iran, for that matter? The areas of this issue are much more complex then sending more troops into harms way to lose their lives or plague them with post traumatic stress disorder. Greg Mortenson has been an incredible example of how building schools impacts villages and their loyalities. And if we are hoping to curb terrorism, or militanism, the worse thing to do is give off the impression that we are occupying a country. Research shows that those in harsh economic, social and cultural climates, particularly under a perceived or real occupation, are more likely to cling to religious beliefs than shun them. I believe it was the University of Chicago that did this research, but it is much like the inmate that goes to prison and suddenly finds God. We need to look at the issue not from a purely military stand-point but from an anthropological and socio-economic standpoint as well. This is a completely different culture and it needs to be dealt with on its terms, not ours, which is a huge mistake if we want to ensure any kind of democracy in the area. We need to look at the corruption that is inside the governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan and help fix that. The area is known for its corruption and military force is not going to change that, it will, however incite more anger and help breed more terrorists.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Yeah I missed all of that and haven't thought about any of that.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

31. He was wrong then, and hasn't shown that he has learned yet.

[SIMPLYB1980]

32. So when you leaving and joining the greens or libertarians?

:nopity: :shrug:

[tekisui]

34. When you going to post something worth a shit?

You and you hard-on for war are an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. You are weak and ineffective at articulating anything other than tired talking points. I am not going anywhere. This party belongs to the true Liberals. The war-mongering Dems will lose this battle.

You and the rest of the wargasm conservadems can get stuffed. It is the mind-set of idiots like you that will lead to defeat of the Democrats in the upcoming elections. When it regroups it will be a truer Liberal party.

When are you leaving to join neo-cons. You are no different than a right-wing war-mongering troll.

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. Maybe when you do.

[earth mom]

33. Endless Wars-that's what Obama's talking about. nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

36. Not endless, as no war is, but it is going to continue.

Get use to it or do something about it. Looks to me like Obama has already made his decision.

[bigtree]

37. no such thing

. . . no matter how much they apportion the troops they'll still try and prosecute their flawed strategy. From reports it appears that they still intend to use forces to poke and prod at the resisting provinces in the south while setting up the same type of garrison-type bases in the major enclaves that Bush employed in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq as his occupation there was faltering. This is mostly a stall from an eventual declaration of 'success' or 'victory' whenever the generals and the politicians decide they've had enough of their 'pollyanish misadventure', as Matthew Hoh describes the mission in his resignation letter. All of the military forces' efforts behind their green-zoned lines of protection in Afghanistan are threatened and doomed to collapse without our constant occupation and military cowing of any and all who resist their imposed control and authority over the citizens there.

What the president is inviting with his continuing U.S.-led military aggression and control in Afghanistan is just MORE war, with casualties on all sides destined to escalate along with the increase of forces and ambitions.