|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
New York: New Delhi, which thinks there is no 'good Taliban' or 'bad Taliban', is likely to be disappointed by US president Barack Obama's rethink on strategy in Afghanistan.
The US is sharpening focus on fighting al Qaeda above all other goals, while downgrading emphasis on the Taliban.
White House officials acknowledged that Obama is prepared to accept Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and will determine how many more soldiers to send there, based on ensuring the war is now tightly focused on squashing al Qaeda.
It is a narrower objective that could require less than the 40,000 new soldiers sought by general Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan. Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power", the senior official said. However, the US will fight only to keep the Taliban from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al Qaeda, the official said.
The US appears to be bowing to the reality that the Taliban is "too ingrained" in Afghanistan's culture to be entirely defeated. Although Obama's decision on troop levels and other elements of a new blueprint on Afghanistan is two weeks away, it appears increasingly that the US is prepared to accept a Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan.
More
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
| Obama has never served in the military. His behavior as the Commander in Chief has made that clear... just like Bill CLintoon made it clear he never served by his decision making. It is a foregone conclusion that Obama will bend his knee to our enemy in Afghanistan. His waffling on General McChrystal's request to either staff up or get out has more than adequately telegraphed what his decision will be. It will be a logical progression from that to embracing the Taliban as "not the enemy."
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
It is a foregone conclusion that Obama will bend his knee to our enemy in Afghanistan...
I have not seen many people express such vitriol for the guy.
What do you think about McChrystal's strategy of not using air attack in civilians areas. Don't pursue the Taliban into civilian areas? There have been two reports on this over the past two weeks on 60 minutes. I understand why he doesn't want to this, but now he is asking Obama form more troops?
In the last report a Marine said we could kill thousands of Taliban, but if we kill two civilians we still lose. I understand where he was coming from.
What do your think about the new McChrystal strategy? Did you see the 60 Minutes interviews?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (10/14/2009)
It is a foregone conclusion that Obama will bend his knee to our enemy in Afghanistan... I have not seen many people express such vitriol for the guy. What do you think about McChrystal's strategy of not using air attack in civilians areas. Don't pursue the Taliban into civilian areas? There have been two reports on this over the past two weeks on 60 minutes. I understand why he doesn't want to this, but now he is asking Obama form more troops? In the last report a Marine said we could kill thousands of Taliban, but if we kill two civilians we still lose. I understand where he was coming from. What do your think about the new McChrystal strategy? Did you see the 60 Minutes interviews? Did not see the interviews but I do know the text versions are posted elsewhere (and I haven't read them either). I think McChrystal has been forced into that policy by a media attack dog just DROOLING for our troops to make a misstep. Abu Grahib was already cleaned up by the time the media got a hold of it and turned it into the circus it had become: A good friend of ours was stationed at the Post-trauma-to-prisoners Abu Grahib and he had rotated out before the media got hold of it. Guantanamo was another circus-in-the-wings: They tried and they tried but they just COULD NOT get their news circus going until they fell upon the waterboarding. McChrystal is intelligent enough to know he has to fight two battles: One with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the other a PR battle because the media claims a "right to know." Again, if it was my country, I would charge the military with their task, give them all the equipment they need to accomplish it, and get the heck out of the way and let them do it. I would also "embed" the media clowns in a tent at the rear (or in the staging area) and let them have whatever newsbites they can glean from the twice or thrice daily briefings. You don't send troops in and, then, hamstring them.
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
You don't send troops in and, then, hamstring them.
I guess that is what Mchrystal would be doing. But that is all the more reason to pull the heck out of there.
In the interviews he didn't seem concerned with the media. He wanted to win the war. The only way to do that is with the "hearts and minds" of the people. Like the Marine said - kill 1000 Taliban but also kill 2 civilians - we still lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (10/15/2009)
You don't send troops in and, then, hamstring them. I guess that is what Mchrystal would be doing. But that is all the more reason to pull the heck out of there. That would be problematic for the military. First, the Taliban already knows they beat back the Russians. Now if they also percieve they beat back the U.S., they will return to their version of Sha'aria Law with a vengance and a vehemence. There will be no stopping the profound stripping of human rights in that country.Also, our military will suffer another humiliating withdrawal in a long string of humiliating withdrawals that started with Viet Nam... and fed by the media bringing the war into our living rooms when we really don't want it there and they're not really reporting what is actually happening: Only the sensational gets through to us.
tLIB (10/15/2009)
In the interviews he didn't seem concerned with the media. He wanted to win the war. The only way to do that is with the "hearts and minds" of the people. Like the Marine said - kill 1000 Taliban but also kill 2 civilians - we still lose.That's not accurate to a lot of afghani citizens. But, again, those who love us and need us there don't make it through to you and me. "Cat stuck in tree" stuff doesn't sell newspapers. The media has to have a bias and that bias prevents "other" news from coming through to us.As for McChrystal's regard for the media, I'm sure he didn't care much for them or about them. He's a warrior with a specific job to do that doesn't include telling reporters about it.
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
That's not accurate to a lot of afghani citizens. But, again, those who love us and need us there don't make it through to you and me. "Cat stuck in tree" stuff doesn't sell newspapers. The media has to have a bias and that bias prevents "other" news from coming through to us
This is what the military is saying - not the media. They are concerned about the hearts and minds.
Also, our military will suffer another humiliating withdrawal in a long string of humiliating withdrawals that started with Viet Nam.
Why did the US lose? According to McChrystal we can't win by killing civilians. Do you agree with McChrystal? Should Obama listen to him?
You make good points, but I think McChrystal is right. We have been fighting this war wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (10/15/2009)
That's not accurate to a lot of afghani citizens. But, again, those who love us and need us there don't make it through to you and me. "Cat stuck in tree" stuff doesn't sell newspapers. The media has to have a bias and that bias prevents "other" news from coming through to us
This is what the military is saying - not the media. They are concerned about the hearts and minds.
Also, our military will suffer another humiliating withdrawal in a long string of humiliating withdrawals that started with Viet Nam.
Why did the US lose? According to McChrystal we can't win by killing civilians. Do you agree with McChrystal? Should Obama listen to him?
You make good points, but I think McChrystal is right. We have been fighting this war wrong.
Since McChrystal is the field commander (boots on the ground, so to speak), I have no judgement of the situation contrary to his. He's there, I'm not, his perspective wins. Yes, Obama should listen to him and other commanders in the field and not to a gaggle of bureaucrats sitting around a table 20,000 miles away (most of whom have never been to Afghanistan).
The US lost in Viet Nam because we let the media cover the war how they wanted to and did not limit their access to it. For the first time in our history, Americans were sitting comfortably in their living rooms and kitchens and witnessed war first hand with all the blood and terror and dirt.
Do you recall the Newsweek (or was it Time) photo of the Vietnamese General putting a bullet in the North Vietnamese guy's head? I do. How about the one of the naked little girl running down the street in terror as the buildings behind her erupted in flames? I remember that one too. I remember all of them.
"the folks back home" never saw that sort of thing from the Korean war, WW2 or WW1 (or any before that). To our fathers and mothers (and prior generations), "the war" was something they read about in the papers several days or weeks after it happened and the kind of photos and films we saw from Viet Nam were never, ever permitted (or available).
Today, film crews, reporters, and photographers are "embedded" with the troops so the "folks back home" are horrified at the perspective of war to which they now have access... and some of those "folks back home" are senators and representatives who think they should also be horrified and, so, as with the Viet Nam war and the Iraq war (and every war, intrusion, and police action since Viet Nam), the politicians got involved in the Warriors' jobs and clucked up the whole thing.
I heard the other day that upwards of 70% of the military is "Republican." I'll have to look for the article, but basically it said that is their preference because Republicans are most likely to get out of their way when they've got a job to do and Democrats are most likely to stick their noses in where they don't belong.
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
The US lost in Viet Nam because we let the media cover the war how they wanted to and did not limit their access to it. For the first time in our history, Americans were sitting comfortably in their living rooms and kitchens and witnessed war first hand with all the blood and terror and dirt.
The media? I think you give the media too much credit. I think the draft was unpopular for such a war. Even if the US was able to kill the Hanoi leadership, the war would have gone on. No country wants to be occupied and the Vietcong would have gone on.
The Taliban is even more incongruous. They are a hodgepodge group of fighters. You can kill a leader but the fight against the occupation will continue.
McChrystal's strategy is to prevent their numbers from growing. At least that is the way I see it.
I heard the other day that upwards of 70% of the military is "Republican." I'll have to look for the article, but basically it said that is their preference because Republicans are most likely to get out of their way when they've got a job to do and Democrats are most likely to stick their noses in where they don't belong.
I bet you are right about the Republicans.
From you statement it appears you agree with the McChrystal strategy. Don't fire in civilian areas. Don't risk killing a civilian. Although I agree that this strategy has better chance of winning, I am not sure this war can ever be won. There will always be resistance to an occupation. Just ask the Russians.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:08 PM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 482
|
|
(Best Syndication News) Americans are divided on many issues including the War in Afghanistan (see graphic below). But a new poll suggests that Afghanistan don’t want to fight the war and many are calling it “Obama’s Vietnam”. Americans are skeptical that Afghanistan can pull itself together.
Only 39 percent of Americans favor sending more troops to Afghanistan, while 59 percent are opposed to it, according to a CNN poll taken between October 16th and 18th. The poll suggests that Americans are afraid of the “Vietnam Syndrome” where we become embroiled in an unwinnable and unending war. In fact, 52 percent of those polled believe that Afghanistan has turned into another “Vietnam” while 46 percent disagree.
Afghanistan War Poll
|
|
|
|
