Obama's Surge

Remove all ads!

What did everyone think of Obama's speech/decision last night? While I did not find the speech particularly inspiring or ground-breaking in terms of listing additional reasons for sending additional troops to Afghanistan, I do have to admit that I really would like to see the complete dismantling of al Queda. That said, I am still on the fence as to whether or not that is possible. Even if the US receives additional support form the UN as Obama suggested, I'm not sure which side the population of Afghanistan is on. If the populace is not in favor of continued US/UN presence there, I don't think any amount of troops will help.

 

I was hoping this thread was on Obama's secret stash of the late soda Surge, from the 90's. But alas.

 

This should have been done instead of invading Iraq.

 

I see the situation as this.

We are after al Queda and anyone connected with them, to stop them from performing acts of genocide against the West. They have holed up in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We go dig them out, put a stop to it. Get the job done before we pull out.

Obama's speech suggested UN support, which should be given, as it's not just our problem, but the Free-World's problem as well. We already committed ourselves. Let's finish it before we have to revisit the same problems over and over. We're in Afghanistan for the right reasons, unlike W's reasoning for going into Iraq. Let's get it right this time. If it takes more troops to do the job, let's get the personnel over there to do it.

 

Genocide? I just had to call you on that. When have or do you think Al Qaida have done or will commit genocide. You need quite a lot of people and power to pull off that crime and although I am sure there are plenty of Al Qaida people who would love to kill all westerners I think most are more realistic and just want to hurt us, change or politics and in their wettest dreams convert us.

 

They don't see all Christians as one? Or better yet, all non-believers as one? They don't want our downfall?

OK, let's change that too acts of terrorism, like bringing down the Towers, just for your sake.

 

Genocide means the killing or attempted killing of an entire group/race/culture of people, all of them like the holocaust or Armenian genocide. I do not think that is what we need to worry about first and foremost when it comes to Al Qaida, plenty of real threats they pose but using the word genocide is a bit over the top. Toppling the towers was not even close to being genocide.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I think al Queda does want to commit genocide. Or if the destruction of every non-believer falls under a different label, call it whatever you want,whatever floats your boat. I am still entitled to my opinion on the matter however.

My towers comment was referring to terrorism, not genocide. Too make you happy.

 

Many Democrats are unhappy with the surge, and this is what annoys me about them. It took Bush 5 years to realize the folly of Rumsfeld's strategy, and once he finally replaced him with Gates, the situation improved greatly, especially with the surge. The whole time, the Democrats whined about how "we took our eye off the ball" (their phrase, not mine), and we should have focused on Afghanistan. Obama ran on exactly that premise, that the war in Afghanistan was necessary and that Bush/Cheney blew it. Well, now here we are. And it's time to put up or shut up. Nevertheless, this is exactly what they promised they would do and obviously the soldiers there need more help and support. If you are going to ask them to fight the war, give them what they need, or start bringing them back home.

 

Oh, clearly the status quo was unacceptable. I think that point is inarguable. Whatever was decided, keep doing what we've been doing was the worst option, and probably one that was never really considered.

 

I wasn't referring to your post, Aldeth. I was referring to those Democratic talking heads I've been hearing today, who are saying that this is just "more Bush." I don't think those comments are really constructive, nor is cristicism like that going to get us anywhere.

 

This gave me chills. I think I actually heard the "The battle hymn of the republic" in the background. +16

 

I have to side with Joacqin on this one, Blades -- while they would like nothing better than to kill all of us, they simply don't have the resources to even come close to doing that. Mass murder, sure. Terrorism, no problem. But they have yet to manage anything like an "act of genocide against the West" -- that would imply that they have come close to committing genocide against an western group, and they haven't come anywhere nearto achieving that.

Sadly, I think that even with 1,000,000 new troops, western forces will fail in Afghanistan because as long as we proceed in a civilized fashion against a basically uncivilized enemy, we cannot root them out of their turf. Our only accomplishable goal is to contain them so they can't threaten anyone else. But we cannot root them out of a place where they have such deep roots. Not with the namby-pamby methods we use.

 

Speaking of UN commitment, the news here say Italy has offered up to 1000 additional soldiers as part of the NATO presence there. Now if Obama could only get the Chinese on board, I think the numbers issues would be pretty much resolved .

LKD, the US doesn't need to kill every last Taliban or sympathizer, and I'm not sure it should do it even if it could. It simply needs to neutralize the threat they pose, especially to itself... and imo the larger part of doing that is not something the military can do anyway - you'd need anything from development and aid to espionage and financial controls.

 

Omg, that stuff was crack! You know, it may explain a few things if the White House had a secret stash of it...

I think we can all agree the ultimate intent is likely genocide (i.e. the complete destruction of Western culture, by one way or another), even if everyone realizes it's not really feasible at the moment. I really doubt they just want to humble us and teach us a lesson about big heads, you know.

Chandos, I just want to say, I think this is one of the best posts you've ever written. Very well put.

Unfortunately, those comments are just politics as usual. The Dems have held the anti-war footing for much longer than Bush&Co was in power, even if only in words. Some of them probably find it a little hard to give up now.

 

But even 1000 more troops helps. I don't think anyone (in any of the NATO member states) expects a proportional commitment of troops from everyone. The US will carry the brunt of the war. We don't even need other NATO nations to go into the mountainous regions to root out al Queda members. Even if all those 1000 troops do is secure an area of a city, that 1000 US troops that don't have to do that.

Any additional help from NATO allies should be welcomed.

 

All I know is that if you are in for a penny, you should go in for a pound and do the job right. However, I despair of success* in Afghanistan. The best thing we can do is make it possible for those who want to escape the hellhole to do so and live in a country where human rights are respected.

*by success I mean democracy without corruption, with a soupcon of human rights for minorities and women**

**The 51% minority!

 

If that is the metric by which you measure success, I'd say most of the western world falls short.

 

The Casino owners would love for you to stop by from time to time. They like contributors.

 

Most? Try all! I defy you to find a single government in the world that doesn't have a trace of corruption somewhere or another.

I don't like the announcement of a deadline, though. I don't have a problem with having one, so much as announcing it. That means the enemy can see a light at the end of the tunnel. That will help their moral immensly, and may gain them allies after the withdrawl begins. Psychologically, it's probably not a good move.