POLL: Afghanistan War - How will Obama handle it?

[schdaddy]

If the Afghan government is too corrupt to work with, President Obama could well justify a decision to reduce or narrow?or not expand?the US war effort there.

White House Signals Afghan Exit Strategy?


What will be President Obama's decision regarding Afghanistan?
Its the most important issue right now.

Unfortunately, the timing is terrible with the U.S. government obviously very entrenched into the healhcare debate.

I don't care how you view the governments role in healthcare reform - this is problematic.

Healthcare Reform has taken much mental resources from our government and, regardless of party, there is not much to spare.

Can the executive branch rationally & thoroughly think this one through? Again, healthcare has required much effort and the Afghan War is a quagmire. Action needs to be taken.

What will that action be?



Myself:
I would like to see Obama acknowledge the fact that this war is unwinnable. Once acknowledged follow through with the logical course of action - withdrawal.

I believe Obama will provide a lesser amount than needed, let the war continue its slide for a while, then withdrawal stating the war is unwinnable.

 

[nageov3t]

I think he'll add a lesser amount of soldiers, claiming it as a victory on the anti-war front because it's less than the generals requested, while also maintaining a position that he's actively involved in wanting to see the war through to a successful conclusion, but ultimately, it will be too few troops and will be wasting blood and treasure for negligible gains.

 

[miketheidiot]

add a pole for what we would like to go along with the 'what we expect' poll edit: thanks OP

i think it will be a slight increase, probably about 1/3 to 1/2 of the request, either that or full commitment. Obama can't afford to not do it, both politically domestically, and in terms of global policy.



also in favor of massive buildup, and in favor of a very thorough investigation of the election

 

[FoBoT]

he has a lot of time to decide, winter is coming so more troops won't be effective until spring anyway, he should take some time on this
and his critics should recognize that there is time for this decision and lay off it , for now

 

[5150Joker]

The general's plan is an excellent one and I hope Obama heeds his call for additional resources and troops. This is a long term problem that has been lingering for nearly 30 years and needs to be properly addressed this time around.

 

[Sacrilege]

I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

lol

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

Let me expand with some more erudite wisdom, a history of troop levels in Iraq.

Prior to the invasion Shinseki told Congress it would take 400,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq. He got fired. The invasion was done with something like 130,000, and the US then slogged around in Iraq for years with no end in sight. A change in plan was needed, and a "surge" was done, adding 50,000(?) more soldiers. Finally results started coming in.

In hindsight, Shinseki's number seems needed to have pacified Iraq in a reasonable time. And by reasonable time, I mean shorter than the period it took to defeat Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II.

Just adding 40,000 more to Afghanistan might be enough to pacify the country in a few more years, but 75,000 may do it in half the time. Which option would be cheaper, and safer for the soldiers?

With the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan, the US is admitting it had insufficient soldiers there as well. The general's suggestion might be a low ball number, because he knows he can't get more, and he is willing to give it his best shot with a less than ideal number of reinforcements. Already, left wing administration officials are painting his number as "high", his "opinion", "one option", etc., and trying to reduce any troop increase even further.

 

[schdaddy]

Didn't take long for the name-calling to start.

I'm shocked, thus far, regarding the support for the BUILDUP.

IMHO, it doesn't matter if you sent 200,000 troops, spent 30% of GDP on the war, and sent Rambo - this war is destined for failure! It can NOT be won. Plain and simple.

Each day in Afghanistan is just putting the U.S. deeper into a hole & making the nation and world less safe.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

Read the general's plan you douche. I support everything he calls for which is the opposite of what the arm chair pussy was advocating in the other post.

----------------------------------------------------------
Starting the name calling and then upping it a notch is not tolerated,

1+1 = 2 weeks off

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

Read the general's plan you douche. I support everything he calls for which is the opposite of what the arm chair pussy was advocating in the other post.

Why do I even bother.... You will probably resort to even more name calling in your response to this post. Why even post in these forums?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

Let me expand with some more erudite wisdom, a history of troop levels in Iraq.

Prior to the invasion Shinseki told Congress it would take 400,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq. He got fired. The invasion was done with something like 130,000, and the US then slogged around in Iraq for years with no end in sight. A change in plan was needed, and a "surge" was done, adding 50,000(?) more soldiers. Finally results started coming in.

In hindsight, Shinseki's number seems needed to have pacified Iraq in a reasonable time. And by reasonable time, I mean shorter than the period it took to defeat Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II.

Just adding 40,000 more to Afghanistan might be enough to pacify the country in a few more years, but 75,000 may do it in half the time. Which option would be cheaper, and safer for the soldiers?

With the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan, the US is admitting it had insufficient soldiers there as well. The general's suggestion might be a low ball number, because he knows he can't get more, and he is willing to give it his best shot with a less than ideal number of reinforcements. Already, left wing administration officials are painting his number as "high", his "opinion", "one option", etc., and trying to reduce any troop increase even further.

yep, armchair general

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: schdaddy
Didn't take long for the name-calling to start.

I'm shocked, thus far, regarding the support for the BUILDUP.

IMHO, it doesn't matter if you sent 200,000 troops, spent 30% of GDP on the war, and sent Rambo - this war is destined for failure! It can NOT be won. Plain and simple.

Each day in Afghanistan is just putting the U.S. deeper into a hole & making the nation and world less safe.

I have to agree with schdaddy here. Afghanistan is a nation of tribes, and not conducive to nation building. And the terrain is NOT surge friendly. We'd just be putting more soldiers there for target practice. Finally, the Karzai govt is so corrupt it doesn't have the respect of its own people, and it can't control the Taliban. So what the fvck are we doing there trying to nation build?

My call is to pull most troops out, but leave a killer force made up multiple special forces units with the sole purpose to hunt down and kill al-Qaeda and other militants. That's it -- that's the only involvement that makes sense any more. The one downside is our leaving will piss Pakistan off, which will force them to choose between the fair-weather U.S. or cutting a deal with militants in their own country. But fvck them too -- they played us for money, weapons, and aid for years under Bush while only half-assedly helping us with hunting al-Qaeda on their border. Time to figure it out on your own boys...

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

I stopped reading there. moron.

-----------------------------------------
Selective quoting makes you look bad and allows your personal attack to stand out

1 Week

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I would love to see a massive buildup of man and machines, take the gloves off when fighting, and finish the thing once and for all, but I doubt Obama would ever do that. I'm talking 75,000 more soldiers and enough Hellfire equipped drones to blot out the sun.

Anything seen as an American failure will just embolden radical Islamists all over the world. And piss of moderate Muslims when we let Afghanistan become an anarchist morass yet again.

That's pure stupidity and not what the general is advocating but I suppose being an arm chair pussy on the net makes you more knowledgeable.

Why do you hate America and want it to fail in Afghanistan? You sound like the pussy.

Let me expand with some more erudite wisdom, a history of troop levels in Iraq.

Prior to the invasion Shinseki told Congress it would take 400,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq. He got fired. The invasion was done with something like 130,000, and the US then slogged around in Iraq for years with no end in sight. A change in plan was needed, and a "surge" was done, adding 50,000(?) more soldiers. Finally results started coming in.

In hindsight, Shinseki's number seems needed to have pacified Iraq in a reasonable time. And by reasonable time, I mean shorter than the period it took to defeat Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II.

Just adding 40,000 more to Afghanistan might be enough to pacify the country in a few more years, but 75,000 may do it in half the time. Which option would be cheaper, and safer for the soldiers?

With the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan, the US is admitting it had insufficient soldiers there as well. The general's suggestion might be a low ball number, because he knows he can't get more, and he is willing to give it his best shot with a less than ideal number of reinforcements. Already, left wing administration officials are painting his number as "high", his "opinion", "one option", etc., and trying to reduce any troop increase even further.

yep, armchair general

Let me guess your plan:

1. Withdraw from Afghanistan
2. A period of national mourning and self reflection
3. An Obama world apology tour. Maybe he can get the International Racquetball championships for Chicago while he's at it.

 

[b0mbrman]

There's one point worth making if we're going to use troop levels as a proxy for how serious a President is about the war in Afghanistan.

On January 1, 2009, there were about 32,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. This number had been fairly consistently around 30,000 in Bush's second term, around 35,000 in early 2006, and expanded by about a brigade each at the beginning of 2007 and 2008.

It wasn't until February 17 of this year that tens of thousands of additional troops were authorized by the President, based on recommendations from Gen McKiernan from 2008.

As of last month, there were about 64,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 4,000 more (mostly trainers) are scheduled to come this month, bringing the total to 68,000.

Because I like graphs: troopsAf.GIF

 

[TruePaige]

Ever been to New York? LA? Washington DC? Not enough parking space.

Now if we made Afghanistan into a glass parking lot and had shuttle service, we could alleviate this issue.

 

[Elias824]

Gotta build up to build down.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Ever been to New York? LA? Washington DC? Not enough parking space.

Now if we made Afghanistan into a glass parking lot and had shuttle service, we could alleviate this issue.

A glass parking lot? I would imagine that would make it difficult to park.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Ever been to New York? LA? Washington DC? Not enough parking space.

Now if we made Afghanistan into a glass parking lot and had shuttle service, we could alleviate this issue.

A glass parking lot? I would imagine that would make it difficult to park.

Nah, solar roadways are the way of the future, this is just a natural progression.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009...type-funding-from-dot/

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Ever been to New York? LA? Washington DC? Not enough parking space.

Now if we made Afghanistan into a glass parking lot and had shuttle service, we could alleviate this issue.

A glass parking lot? I would imagine that would make it difficult to park.

Nah, solar roadways are the way of the future, this is just a natural progression.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009...type-funding-from-dot/

i can only imagine what it would cost to build a highway out of that

 

[Sacrilege]

Telegraph Link

The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.

More trouble in paradise. Obama has to choose between listening to his generals or the left wing which wants to withdraw.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Go All In or All Out... anything in between would be a crime against our soldiers and the people of the region.

 

[heyheybooboo]

1) Note to Hamid Karzai: Shape up, you self-serving bastard.
If we are going to prop you up, feel free to reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, educate your people and pretend you are fighting corruption in your gov't;

2) Note #2 to Hamid Karzai: We are leaving. You need a plan.
Effective December 31, 2012, the United States will no longer conduct military, nation-building and police activities. Feel free to work with the UN or any other NATO forces that choose to remain;

3) Note to Pakistan: Thank you for your renewed efforts in combating the Taliban. Now, let's step it up a few notches.
We will always honor your sovereignty (Nod-Nod. Wink-Wink.) and will work with you in any fashion to establish order in North & South Waziristan, and any other points along your border with Afghanistan;

4) Note #2 to Pakistan / CC to India: Stop fucking around. We mean it.
Save your pissing contests for, let's say, 2016;

5) Note to Gen. Stanley McChrystal: It ain't all about you, Bud. Do your job and STFU.
Bring Osama & Mullah Omar to justice. It's what you do. Train the Afghan Army. Support Pakistan (See #3). Gates rotated you in and he can rotate you out;

6) Note to Gen. David Petraeus / CC to McChrystal: What the Hell happened to the chain of command?
We see what you did. Go Rouge on someone else's dime. For the good of the United States and the men and women of our armed forces we have to break this endless cycle of deployments;

7) Note #2 to Gen. David Petraeus / CC to McChrystal: What happened to 'out of box' thinking?
Sorry. The Powell Doctrine went out the window 8 years ago. Yes. We. Fucked. Up. (Big. Time.) You have 130k troop strength across the full-spectrum of operations 1,200 miles (Baghdad to Kandahar) away. Get us the Hell out of Iraq and selectively utilize and redeploy the minimum number of specialists necessary for #5 (and #2); and

8) Note #3 to Gen. David Petraeus / CC to McChrystal / CC to America: Drop the Cowboy/Bumper Sticker Mentality.
We cannot 'defeat' an ideology with military muscle and technology. Cultural and Societal transformation does not take place at the end of a Hellfire missile. The exact opposite is the result: See the Lernaean Hydra.