More Confusion on Afgahnistan

[Roger Perry]

Considering the fact that you replied twice to a thread with this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435650569454583.html) article attached, I assumed you read it. What was I thinking? Check paragraph 2.

Also, check out this article from another recent thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th

Yes, I did read both articles, the one that RK quoted and the one you just put up.

General McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan.

But you apparantly missed the part where others are more skeptical.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan, are said to be leaning in favor of a troop increase while Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not signaled his preference. Others are more skeptical, including National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Vice President Joe Biden who wants Obama to consider dialing down U.S. forces in favor of a counterterrorism campaign along the Pakistan border where many al-Qaida operatives are believed to be hiding.

Whatever President Obama will decide to do will be criticized no matter what he does. As I have said before, this war is another Viet Nam (Started by the Bush administration) and there is no winning it. Look at all the years we have had troops stationed in North Korea. Afghanistan and Iraq will be the same.


President Barack Obama's top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that he outlined just two months into his presidency - to sideline al-Qaida - but changing circumstances require a reassessment of how to get there.
A "snap decision" on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.
Whatever the president decides, the military will salute, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.
The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.
Obama invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. And Obama will meet twice this week with his national security team.
Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/19953

[road kill]

Yes, I did read both articles, the one that RK quoted and the one you just put up.

General McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan.

But you apparantly missed the part where others are more skeptical.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan, are said to be leaning in favor of a troop increase while Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not signaled his preference. Others are more skeptical, including National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Vice President Joe Biden who wants Obama to consider dialing down U.S. forces in favor of a counterterrorism campaign along the Pakistan border where many al-Qaida operatives are believed to be hiding.

Whatever President Obama will decide to do will be criticized no matter what he does. As I have said before, this war is another Viet Nam (Started by the Bush administration) and there is no winning it. Look at all the years we have had troops stationed in North Korea. Afghanistan and Iraq will be the same.


President Barack Obama's top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that he outlined just two months into his presidency - to sideline al-Qaida - but changing circumstances require a reassessment of how to get there.
A "snap decision" on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.
Whatever the president decides, the military will salute, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.
The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.
Obama invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. And Obama will meet twice this week with his national security team.
Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/19953

Really?

"Gates blames past lack of troops for Taliban edge:"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL512222.htm

[Pete]

Whatever President Obama will decide to do will be criticized no matter what he does. As I have said before, this war is another Viet Nam (Started by the Bush administration) and there is no winning it. Look at all the years we have had troops stationed in North Korea. Afghanistan and Iraq will be the same

I would agree with yuo there,,, except I dont know if President Obama has time to deal with it.

Besides his rigid TV appearances and his rigorous schedule booking sporting events,,He's lucky to have time to order pizza from chicago.


And I think I have the top 4 spots on POTUS,,,for a moment anywhay,,,,lets see what happens when I click back



Pete

[ducknwork]

Yes, I did read both articles, the one that RK quoted and the one you just put up.

General McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops sent to Afghanistan.

But you apparantly missed the part where others are more skeptical.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan, are said to be leaning in favor of a troop increase while Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not signaled his preference. Others are more skeptical, including National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Vice President Joe Biden who wants Obama to consider dialing down U.S. forces in favor of a counterterrorism campaign along the Pakistan border where many al-Qaida operatives are believed to be hiding.

Whatever President Obama will decide to do will be criticized no matter what he does. As I have said before, this war is another Viet Nam (Started by the Bush administration) and there is no winning it. Look at all the years we have had troops stationed in North Korea. Afghanistan and Iraq will be the same.


President Barack Obama's top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that he outlined just two months into his presidency - to sideline al-Qaida - but changing circumstances require a reassessment of how to get there.
A "snap decision" on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.
Whatever the president decides, the military will salute, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.
The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.
Obama invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. And Obama will meet twice this week with his national security team.
Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/19953

My point was this: You said that McCrystal wanted more troops to continue doing the same thing. Those two articles clearly show that he has a different game plan than what we have been doing. You know that - you have made it a point more than once on here to announce that McC says the war hasn't been done right for the last 8 years...
________
NEW MEXICO DISPENSARY

[dnf777]

Was anyone else "shock and awed" when the number was floated in the media of $800,000 per troop, per year cost of the war in Afghanistan??

I guess that adds another slant to the discussion--Can we afford to be in A-Stan?? I'm sure the [former] Soviets are watching with interest what we do.

Another development in this topic was Gen. McC's talk in Europe. I was impressed by this guy, at least on his 60min segment, but am having some second thoughts. Surely, a general should know better than to make public policy arguments like that? Giving advice is one thing, which Gates made clear is welcome, but I think he crossed a line in his format. Again, we need a clear mission goal before we can determine more/less troop requirements, and its elected officials' job to decide the mission, not the military's. Now I hear he has leaked troop level info to the Washington Post? More to come, I'd imagine.

I have also since learned that he was involved in the bogus Jessica Lynch "rescue" mission, or military PR media event, I should say......as well as indirectly involved with the cover up of the fratricide of Pat Tillman.

I'm not getting a warm, fuzzy feeling about where all this is going.

[ducknwork]

Was anyone else "shock and awed" when the number was floated in the media of $800,000 per troop, per year cost of the war in Afghanistan??

Do you have a source for that? I find that very difficult to believe it can even be remotely possible.
________
LovelyWendie

[Gerry Clinchy]

I am a bit wary of media information being brought forth at this particular moment when it would serve to discredit McC.

The media has sometimes been good at unearthing stuff they should (Nixon), and other times not so good at details.

I'd like to see how how the details of this media information play out before deciding on the character of McC. If we're willing to believe that O was not influenced by Ayres, Rev. Wright and Chicago politics ... then maybe McC deserves at least the same leeway for being "involved" until we hear more detail on what constituted his "involvement".

[dnf777]

I am a bit wary of media information being brought forth at this particular moment when it would serve to discredit McC.

The media has sometimes been good at unearthing stuff they should (Nixon), and other times not so good at details.

I'd like to see how how the details of this media information play out before deciding on the character of McC. If we're willing to believe that O was not influenced by Ayres, Rev. Wright and Chicago politics ... then maybe McC deserves at least the same leeway for being "involved" until we hear more detail on what constituted his "involvement".

Absolutely Gerry. I'm wary of media info that bolster's someone's image as well, but we should wait and see what plays out before rushing to judgement. Given his prior assignments, I'm not sure we'll ever know all the details! I'm just getting this "here we go again" feeling of agendas being pushed at excessive speed. (that's not for or against any particular person or position, just a general statement)

JSOPS regards,
dave

[dnf777]

Do you have a source for that? I find that very difficult to believe it can even be remotely possible.

Not off hand, that's why I said "floated by the media". I HOPE it's NOT true, but if it is, certainly requires some noodling. I've been trying to track down some verification on that, as it made my head spin too. Sorry if it seemed like I was presenting that as fact.

[Roger Perry]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will not walk away from the flagging war in Afghanistan, the White House declared Monday amid intense administration debate over choices that could help define his presidency in his first year as commander in chief.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33180582..._central_asia/