Comments on: Obama’s good war goes bad Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Benny Acosta Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:31:24 +0000 The war in Afghanistan has stopped being a practical matter of securing American freedom (not that it ever was). It has turned into a political quagmire. No matter what the president does he will be criticized. And if that’s going to be the case anyway, then better to take the criticism while sparing the blood of our protectors.

His enemies will attack his actions and point out all of the reasons getting out is a bad idea. But at least there will be no more American blood being spilled just
because old men don’t know how to get along.

First America needs to take the log out of its own eye before it can see clearly enough to remove the specks from the eyes of other nations.

By: Tri Nguyen Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:53:38 +0000 Obama will never win the war in Afghanistan unless he ousts the Kazai’s government. I have a best strategic plan for the war as I have studied the Vietnam war. There are many Kazai’s officials are making huge $$$ by selling information to their enemies. The US failed in Vietnam, because many seniors of US-Backed Sai Gon government worked for the Communist North. Secret intelligence that is crucial to defeat the enemy had been leaked to the North. The US should have to learn more from Vietnam, the future failure of the Afghan war will be the same. The US built government officials who were very poor in the past have become blind by the flow of US$ and aids. Kazai and his supporters benefited from this. What can we do? The best solution to it is to get rid of Kazai. If not give him a timetable of 5 years to build a trusted government for its people or he will be killed by his enemy. Additionally, the US should conduct a survey to understand the wish of Afghan people as without the support of the local people, the failure is inevitable. The communist won the war in many countries because they spread the ideology of “people are the owner of the country” not the rich. Bring the people to the table, the US will win.

By: scheng1 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:11:43 +0000 Probably he has information that is too confidential for disclosure.
There is always the “what if” situation. What if withdrawal from Afghanistan leads to the next 9/11? What if sending more troops increase regional instability?

By: Casper Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:23:21 +0000 Obama’s whole approach to war, per se, is going bad. While the US should set an example by dismantling nuclear warheads, he goes and tells the whole world over the weekend that the US will retain the ‘stick’, instead of dangling a carrot. That’s very humble pie and Warm War behavior. If one bomb gets dropped, everybody will drop theirs. If nobody drops its bomb, nobody will want to drop their bomb. Why not simply dismantle as nobody really wants to drop a bomb and turn to using GM food as WMD ? Mark, many more people than 3000 have died in NATO attacks, the only difference, it was not in one building complex in one go, nor was a civilian aircraft used.

By: mark Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:52:54 +0000 more US/UK soldiers have died in iraq and afghanistan that civilians who died on 9/11.

invading other countries has never produced a good outcome for anyone. bring the troops home as it’s a waste of time, lives and money…

the problem of east/west relations is a bit like palestine-israel… occupying their country isn’t going to win hearts and minds…

By: Casper Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:42:34 +0000 JP’s, these are larger than life numbers, almost as large as the real close-out of World War Two, carpet bombing of slaughterhouses’ in fives in Dresden, Germany. You sound like a war veteran, so you should therefore know that crash-training = cannon fodder and body bags.

By: JP Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:52:23 +0000 They’re on the right track now; i.e. put 10-15K troops in immediately to crash-train the Afghan army and local police. And while they’re doing it, make sure the training programs highly secured, and out of harms way. Train them in hard-to-reach areas so the Taliban won’t be able to get at them.

Simultaneously, deploy a super-tough-well-manned-counter-insurgen cy-strike-force that uses ALL of the best technology and weaponry we have, and go get Bin Laden, with as much assistance of Afghanistan and Pakistan that we can get. And they have to have NATO and other organizations participate BIG TIME compared to their current commitment. This has to be a global effort and seen as such, not just a U.S. effort. Otherwise, we get all the blame when things go bad.

Also, secure small areas, and have the Army Corp. of Engineers help improve the Afghan infrastructure in those areas. This will win hearts and minds. In addition, once a rural/farming area is secured, hire expertise to destroy the poppy crops, and plant money-making alternative crops while monetarily subsidizing their loss for the short-term until they can get other crops to produce and make a profit. They may have to pay the farmers to do this kind of transition, but so what? In the long run it’ll be cheaper than losing thousands of lives and spending billions fighting a war NO ONE can win, especially when Karzai and his government is corrupt to the core.

By: Raven Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:33:49 +0000 We’re going to lose.

No, not in Helmand – that’ll remain a low intensity struggle for a couple of months… then it will turn stable.

We’re going to lose in the Sat valley in Pakistan. Not today… nor tomorrow. But certainly within the next three years.

You see, the Taliban is like quicksilver. It won’t stay put. Push it here – and it just goes somewhere else.

Western strategists have a geo-political based mindset… we think in terms of borders, terrain, geographical locations. The Taliban do not. Their strategies are based on dogma. They do not care if they establish in Helmand, or in Sat. Anywhere will do.

But we care… or we should. Strategically, I’d rather have the Taliban in Helmand than in the Sat valley (since it is already clear that we will not be able to destroy them totally).

In Helmand, NATO can fight the Taliban. But not so in the Sat valley. There we would have to rely on Pakistan to get the job done. And that raises two questions for the medium term:
a. Can they?
b. Do they want to?

So we face a predicament. If we defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, it will only result in their appearance in some other place – and almost certainly a place where we will like them even less than in Afghanistan. So we cannot afford to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But it is a bad idea to allow the Taliban to retake Afghanistan as well.

Is there an answer? No. The US and NATO will ‘surge’. The Taliban will relocate to Pakistan. Pakistan will become embroiled in an internal war of increasing intensity. And as the threat levels increase, I wonder what India and the PRC will do?

Like a fool, I breathed a sigh of relief with the fall of the USSR… no more threats of nuclear war. Thinking back now, at least the Soviet leadership didn’t glorify senseless death.

By: Sam K Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:29:33 +0000 “If we don’t get a level of legitimacy and governance (there), then all the troops in the world aren’t going to make any difference.”
I’m afraid this applies equally to both Kabul & Washington DC.

By: GalatianMan Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:26:24 +0000 Obama and the Democrats campaigned since 2004 that we should be “expanding” the war in Afghanistan. Bush refused and focused on Iraq and won Iraq. Bush focused the troops in Afghanistan along the mountains/the border of Pakistan and things have remained stable. Obama removed the troops from borders so that the army could “patrol” the cities as sitting ducks and now the Taliban is streaming in and “shazam” american forces are being killed in record numbers. This is Obama’s wars. All of them.