17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

[Gerry Clinchy]

Given that throughout his campaign Obama made a big point of his plans to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to try to salvage deteriorating conditions, I suspect that few "liberals" are surprised by this action. As with Hew, I hope the effort is successful. Afghanistan has a tendency to "eat" armies and issues remain with attacks from Pakistan.

I do recall that during the debates Obama criticized Bush for not committing more assets to Af'stan, because A'stan was key to Al-Quaeda and OBL. Simultaneously, however, he also tried to make a case for the fact that the surge that worked in Iraq would not work as well in A'stan. Yet, he also indicated that A'stan needed a larger commitment. Right there he was advocating two opposite positions

Since the troop surge in Iraq is having success, he couldn't very well take the troops from Iraq and move them to A'stan. So, he had to bring additional troops into A'stan.

To the end he never quite could bring himself to acknowledge that he had misjudged on how effective the surge in Iraq would be. He almost seemed to imply that the results were not "real".

While I don't disagree that this is a needed action (McCain advocated it in the debates as well), it is more distressing to see that O seems to be getting on-the-job training; that he had little grasp how the view would be once he was at the helm. My sense is that his campaign words were either uninformed or purposely misleading ... either of which earn my trust in his competency and/or honesty.

[backpasture]

obomo is sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. where is code stink? where is the media? where are all the libs that would be up in arms if it was bush?

Actually, many liberals ARE up in arms about this. You have to change the channel from Fox News to hear that, though.

it is funny that i have not seen one story in the mainstream media about this. same old story. the double standard is total crap!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean like the stories from the MSM leading up to Iraq telling us it was a bad idea? Oh, that's right, they bought the Bush Admin's fabricated 'WMD' story hook line and sinker.

thought he promised to remove the troops asap. now the election is over we can really see his true thoughts! sickening

IF you had been paying attention, you would know that Obama promised to remove the troops from Iraq, not Afghanistan. He also repeatedly stated while campaigning that he would focus on Afghanistan, where the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 were based. The fact that he is adding more troops should come as a surprise to no one.

What I love now is that liberals are pointing to the success of the surge in Iraq

Really? I haven't seen a lot of liberals pointing to 'the success of the surge'.

If we were honest about this war

...then we wouldn't have gotten into it in the first place.

Otherwise let's get the hell out of there

Finally something we can agree on.

[backpasture]

I do recall that during the debates Obama criticized Bush for not committing more assets to Af'stan, because A'stan was key to Al-Quaeda and OBL. Simultaneously, however, he also tried to make a case for the fact that the surge that worked in Iraq would not work as well in A'stan. He indicated that A'stan needed a larger commitment to A'stan. Right there he was advocating two opposite positions

There are many differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tactics that work in one place won't work in the other. So, he wasn't advocating two opposite positions, he was advocating different solutions to different problems.

Right now our mission in Iraq seems to be to restore stability (which we disrupted when we invaded). In Afghanistan, though, there has never really been stability, and there isn't likely to be any in the future. It's becoming clear that the mission in Afghanistan should not be to create stability, but rather quite the opposite -- to disrupt/decimate the Taleban backed Al Qaeda groups that are operating in the border regions of that country. And, to get Osama Bin Laden (remember him?).

The 'Pottery Barn' rule that applies in Iraq doesn't apply in Afghanistan -- it was broken when we got there.

[backpasture]

He almost seemed to imply that the results were not "real".

If by 'real' you mean 'sustainable', then no, they are not real. We can maintain the 'success' of the surge only by keeping the troops there indefinitely. The surge has not create any lasting stability. Once we leave (in a year, or a decade), the place is going to go to hell.

[Franco]

What I love now is that liberals are pointing to the success of the surge in Iraq.

The success Obomo nor the major networks would NOT acknowledge during his campaign.

[badbullgator]

If by 'real' you mean 'sustainable', then no, they are not real. We can maintain the 'success' of the surge only by keeping the troops there indefinitely. The surge has not create any lasting stability. Once we leave (in a year, or a decade), the place is going to go to hell.

So says the military expert otherwise know as BP

[K.Bullock]

Given that throughout his campaign Obama made a big point of his plans to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to try to salvage deteriorating conditions, I suspect that few "liberals" are surprised by this action. As with Hew, I hope the effort is successful. Afghanistan has a tendency to "eat" armies and issues remain with attacks from Pakistan.

Issues that have been agitated with the recent dealings between Pakistan and the Taliban. Talk about a no confidence vote for support from the U.S.

[Gerry Clinchy]

There are many differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tactics that work in one place won't work in the other. So, he wasn't advocating two opposite positions, he was advocating different solutions to different problems.

The increased number of troops in Iraq also involved using different tactics with the troops.

I can understand that different tactics could be needed in different situational circumstances. O advocated heavier commitment and change of tactics in A'stan ... in that regard the same was true of the increase in troop numbers in Iraq. In both cases, it required additional troops to implement the new tactics.

Will the progress in Iraq be sustainable? I don't think anyone has the answer to that yet.

[IowaBayDog]

Will the progress in Iraq be sustainable? I don't think anyone has the answer to that yet.

My former roommate in the USMC and close friend who is now a U.S. Border Patrol Agent just returned from 8 months in Iraq teaching them to protect their borders. His assessment was that there outlook was pretty bleak as far as ever being able to defend themselves.

And I know you're thinking, we can't protect our borders why are we teaching them. The BP Agents ain't the problem in the U.S., I can assure you that. His assessment was that his job stateside is just as if not more dangerous than being in Iraq though, so we certainly have made progress over there.

As far as troops in Afghanistan, that's one of the few campaign promises Obama has followed through on so its hard to criticize that one.

[backpasture]

My former roommate in the USMC and close friend who is now a U.S. Border Patrol Agent just returned from 8 months in Iraq teaching them to protect their borders. His assessment was that there outlook was pretty bleak as far as ever being able to defend themselves.

...

As far as troops in Afghanistan, that's one of the few campaign promises Obama has followed through on so its hard to criticize that one.

DAMN! IowaBayDogs and I actually have a common perspective on a couple of things.

Well said.