Quantcast
Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options - AP

Forums - General Discussion - Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options - AP

Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.

Do we really want any Stable government in there though? 

I'm not sure if your aware....

but Karazi rigged the elections so he would be reelected.

He may be setting himself up as dictator.  Obama understandably doesn't want to send a bunch of extra troops to help out and train an army that may be led by the next dictator of Afghanistan.  Such a move would only end up badly for us long term.  Removing one dictator to install another?  What would Afghanistan see as our legacy to them? 

Not to mention Karazi is pretty incompetant.  The minute we left Afghanistan would probably fall apart like a house of cards.

Karazi is a crook, incompetant leader and likely a would be dictator.

Obama doesn't need to put more troops in.  He has to threaten to pull them out.

So that Karazi will straighten up.

Karzai isn't even a good puppet dictator. He acts as if he's entitled to NATO protection, ignoring the demands of the western allies that keep his kingdom of Kabul secure.

Nation building just isn't feasible in this situation, let alone desireable. Without a reliable leader to hand power over to, the Afghanistan war can't be won. And the longer NATO is forced to prop up the obviously corrupt Karzai, the more credibility it loses with the people in the region. I don't think Karzai even can straighten up, so the question is if a more suitable candidate can be found to replace him and whether it can be done without further destabilizing the country.

I'm starting to wonder if Afghanistan even can be ruled without a regime as brutal as the Taliban.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network

Saw a great news show on PBS a few weeks ago about Afghanistan - and the political corruption, the way the Taliban pays off officials, offers a type of welfare to citizens, even rebuilds roads, utilities and the like.

As Kasz stated earlier, the gov't is unstable and the elections were rigged. For Obama to send thousands more troops into the region would be foolish.

He inherited this war from Dub. I also agree with Monty and say pull them out if Karzai doesn't stamp out most of the corruption in the gov't. However, I think the situation is far too gone for that to happen.



Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.

Do we really want any Stable government in there though? 

I'm not sure if your aware....

but Karazi rigged the elections so he would be reelected.

He may be setting himself up as dictator.  Obama understandably doesn't want to send a bunch of extra troops to help out and train an army that may be led by the next dictator of Afghanistan.  Such a move would only end up badly for us long term.  Removing one dictator to install another?  What would Afghanistan see as our legacy to them? 

Not to mention Karazi is pretty incompetant.  The minute we left Afghanistan would probably fall apart like a house of cards.

Karazi is a crook, incompetant leader and likely a would be dictator.

Obama doesn't need to put more troops in.  He has to threaten to pull them out.

So that Karazi will straighten up.

But the compromise is threatening to pull troops out in a way. Even though you send a few thousand more in, only half of your troops will ever actually be active, effectively reducing the amount that are serving. It is pulling them out, more or less. It's like pulling them out of the war, but not letting them leave the battlefield. It is at the very least a stepping stone to reduce the number of troops, and then eventually leave.

As for the government, I know Karazi has rigged elections and is an incompetent buffoon, I think resolving that is what I meant by installing a stable government.

Well it's half activly fighting, half holding and training.

The main "threat" of leaving is to make Karazi feel unsafe.

As long as we'd have troops training, he'd have areas he'd be safe no matter what happened... and if we're training he may get enough troops to where he does feel safe.

By stalling, Obama comes off as aloof, Karazi doesn't know what's going to happen.  Republicans are hammering him for not doing anything... some even call for withdrawl.   While liberals on the other aisle also call for withdrawl... while American News networks talk about how without Karazi backign down, we may as well pull out.

Basically, this is an info ploy.  It makes him scared... Obama shows he won't put in more troops and may even stop funding... and may even pull out.  In which case Karazi and his Warlords are doomed.

 

You know what Kasz, you're right. I agree, withdrawal is the best action.

I still think Obama should take action. With Afghanistan, Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when campaigning and it is making him look bad.



it doesn't look like he is going too bad with his promises, for someone who has only been in office for 1 year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



madskillz said:
Saw a great news show on PBS a few weeks ago about Afghanistan - and the political corruption, the way the Taliban pays off officials, offers a type of welfare to citizens, even rebuilds roads, utilities and the like.

As Kasz stated earlier, the gov't is unstable and the elections were rigged. For Obama to send thousands more troops into the region would be foolish.

He inherited this war from Dub. I also agree with Monty and say pull them out if Karzai doesn't stamp out most of the corruption in the gov't. However, I think the situation is far too gone for that to happen.

He inherited this war from Bush... but he also supported this war.

Had he been president at the time he too would of invaded... can't give him a pass for that.



Around the Network
I_Heart_Nintendo said:
it doesn't look like he is going too bad with his promises, for someone who has only been in office for 1 year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Cool link, but here are the Afghan-specific promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/afghanistan/

A couple of those 'in the works' promises are in danger of being broken, though for perfectly understandable reasons, IMO.

 

As for who bears responsibility for this war, I don't blame Bush for invading Afghanistan. It is an understandable and just war. I blame Bush for starting the unjust invasion of Iraq, which diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan and, more importantly, undermined the West's reputation in the region.

With things looking more upbeat in Iraq right now (though still a long way from resolved), it's ironic, but the greatest casualty of the war in Iraq might actually be the war in Afghanistan.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

famousringo said:
I_Heart_Nintendo said:
it doesn't look like he is going too bad with his promises, for someone who has only been in office for 1 year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Cool link, but here are the Afghan-specific promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/afghanistan/

A couple of those 'in the works' promises are in danger of being broken, though for perfectly understandable reasons, IMO.

 

As for who bears responsibility for this war, I don't blame Bush for invading Afghanistan. It is an understandable and just war. I blame Bush for starting the unjust invasion of Iraq, which diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan and, more importantly, undermined the West's reputation in the region.

With things looking more upbeat in Iraq right now (though still a long way from resolved), it's ironic, but the greatest casualty of the war in Iraq might actually be the war in Afghanistan.

Iraq made it so that the person incharge of Afghanistan is tied to the main criminal warlords?



Kasz216 said:
famousringo said:
I_Heart_Nintendo said:
it doesn't look like he is going too bad with his promises, for someone who has only been in office for 1 year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Cool link, but here are the Afghan-specific promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/afghanistan/

A couple of those 'in the works' promises are in danger of being broken, though for perfectly understandable reasons, IMO.

 

As for who bears responsibility for this war, I don't blame Bush for invading Afghanistan. It is an understandable and just war. I blame Bush for starting the unjust invasion of Iraq, which diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan and, more importantly, undermined the West's reputation in the region.

With things looking more upbeat in Iraq right now (though still a long way from resolved), it's ironic, but the greatest casualty of the war in Iraq might actually be the war in Afghanistan.

Iraq made it so that the person incharge of Afghanistan is tied to the main criminal warlords?

Sure. Since NATO wouldn't commit the forces necessary to secure more than Kabul, negotiation with the warlords was necessary to exert any kind of control whatsoever outside of the capital. Karzai's ability to negotiate with the warlords was one of the key reasons he got NATO backing in the first place. A serious commitment of military and financial resources — like, say, the 250,000 soldier Iraq invasion force — could have secured far more territory, locked up the border with Pakistan, and launched economic development projects to undermine the warlords and the Taliban.

But none of that happened. Instead the small coalition forces ran around in circles picking off Taliban while civilian casualties and bad PR from Iraq drew more and more sympathizers across the Pakistani border. Not having the resources to secure anything, they just moved into an area, killed whatever Taliban forces didn't escape them, and moved on to the next area, allowing the Taliban to move back in behind them.

All the myriad problems in Afghanistan — warlords, drugs, education, economic development, womens rights, the porous Pakistani border, etc. — have gone unaddressed until now because the problems in Iraq took precedence. The cost of Iraq has been roughly three times the cost of Afghanistan in terms of dollars and soldiers. It's hard not to wonder what might have been accomplished in Afghanistan if the resources committed to it had been quadrupled.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

famousringo said:
Kasz216 said:
famousringo said:
I_Heart_Nintendo said:
it doesn't look like he is going too bad with his promises, for someone who has only been in office for 1 year.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Cool link, but here are the Afghan-specific promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/afghanistan/

A couple of those 'in the works' promises are in danger of being broken, though for perfectly understandable reasons, IMO.

 

As for who bears responsibility for this war, I don't blame Bush for invading Afghanistan. It is an understandable and just war. I blame Bush for starting the unjust invasion of Iraq, which diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan and, more importantly, undermined the West's reputation in the region.

With things looking more upbeat in Iraq right now (though still a long way from resolved), it's ironic, but the greatest casualty of the war in Iraq might actually be the war in Afghanistan.

Iraq made it so that the person incharge of Afghanistan is tied to the main criminal warlords?

Sure. Since NATO wouldn't commit the forces necessary to secure more than Kabul, negotiation with the warlords was necessary to exert any kind of control whatsoever outside of the capital. Karzai's ability to negotiate with the warlords was one of the key reasons he got NATO backing in the first place. A serious commitment of military and financial resources — like, say, the 250,000 soldier Iraq invasion force — could have secured far more territory, locked up the border with Pakistan, and launched economic development projects to undermine the warlords and the Taliban.

But none of that happened. Instead the small coalition forces ran around in circles picking off Taliban while civilian casualties and bad PR from Iraq drew more and more sympathizers across the Pakistani border. Not having the resources to secure anything, they just moved into an area, killed whatever Taliban forces didn't escape them, and moved on to the next area, allowing the Taliban to move back in behind them.

All the myriad problems in Afghanistan — warlords, drugs, education, economic development, womens rights, the porous Pakistani border, etc. — have gone unaddressed until now because the problems in Iraq took precedence. The cost of Iraq has been roughly three times the cost of Afghanistan in terms of dollars and soldiers. It's hard not to wonder what might have been accomplished in Afghanistan if the resources committed to it had been quadrupled.

We dealt with the warlods WAY before we went into Iraq. 

Quadruple the resources would of just meant a more stable Afghanistan for Karazi to rule like a dictator.



Eh, it's good for him to be skeptical. It doesn't make him look good not having a counter-proposal, but obviously a more solid plan is needed

 

Problem is, we're inevitably going to have to admit defeat, i think. Either invest a *lot* more troops to put in short-term peace, then build that gas pipeline to help bring in natural gas revenues, or just admit that we can't control all the territory.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.