US trrop surge and Taliban

[Rainbow Moonlight]

sier to get them in the cities than skulking around the countryside. What do you think?

[Auzgurl]

Is this about the 30,000 extra troops Obama is sending to Afghanistan?

[Rainbow Moonlight]

Hmm it seems to have only got half my post. Thanks auzgirl. yeah, kinda. Was saying my husband suggested they should just leave, shoudl have done so ages ago, and then once taliban is reestablished in government and easy to find in cities etc instead of countryside go get them then. Just wondered if anyone agreed with him. What do you think fo the surge anyway auzgirl?

[Auzgurl]

Rainbow, thanks for your question but matters of war are not something I know a lot about..

I only know I greatley admire those who fight for freedom and that the senselessness of war is heartbreaking for both soldier and civilian .

Im going to try again later..and hopefully do a better reply than this one.

[Auzgurl]

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as he vowed to "seize the initiative" to end an unpopular war and start a pullout in July 2011.

Unveiling a fast-track war strategy, Obama pledged for the first time that US forces would start coming home in 19 months, as he groped for way out of a conflict that many fear is turning into a Vietnam-style quagmire.

"Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards," Obama said, gambling that more forces could defeat Al-Qaeda, crush a resurgent Taliban and pave the way for a withdrawal.

His much-anticipated announcement at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, marked his biggest test yet as president and the best opportunity to redefine the conflict.

But he stopped short of setting a deadline to complete a mission launched by his predecessor George W. Bush more than eight years ago following the September 11 attacks.

"As commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interests to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan," Obama said, putting a 30 billion dollar price tag on the surge.

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," he added, seeking to reassure Americans the plan does not mean a war without end, and rejecting the comparison with Vietnam as a "false reading of history."

The United States now has 71,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus another 42,000 from other allied nations.

The first US Marines could be in place by Christmas, four months after General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned the war could be lost without more manpower.

"The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the president?s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security," McChrystal said Tuesday.

Obama also ramped up pressure on NATO allies in Europe for more troops, saying their nations too are threatened by Afghan-based terrorism.

Following an exhaustive strategy review, Obama also rolled out new political approaches to Afghanistan and Pakistan and vowed to chase down Al-Qaeda wherever it emerged.

He warned the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, that the days of a US "blank check" were over, demanding a drive against corruption.

The same "cancer" of extremism that had torn at Afghanistan was also hurting Pakistan, Obama added, crediting Islamabad with an unprecedented effort to combat home-grown extremism.

"We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan," Obama said.

Obama said attacks against the United States are "being plotted as I speak," and warned he would go after Osama bin Laden militants operating in Somalia, Yemen or further afield if necessary.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the new "surge of forces," saying it would help "reverse the momentum of the Taliban."

Others disagreed. "I do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest," said Democratic Senator Russell Feingold.

In Kabul, the Afghan government was "satisfied" with the new strategy, said senior foreign ministry adviser Daud Muradyan.

"We particularly welcome the reassurance of the United States' long-term commitment to Afghanistan," he added.

And US ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who was reportedly opposed to the US military build-up, said the decision provides "clarity and focus" to the mission.

"My team and I will energetically implement this strategy in closest possible partnership" with the Afghan people, their government, the NATO-run force in Afghanistan, UN mission and others, Eikenberry said.

In Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was confident members of the transatlantic alliance would make a "substantial" increase in their commitments.

NATO foreign ministers meet in Brussels on Friday to discuss Afghanistan, where more than 40 countries have troops. Related article: US media supports

In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on Britain's allies to back Obama's strategy.

Britain, which has the second largest contingent of foreign troops in Afghanistan, confirmed on Monday it was to send 500 more soldiers, boosting its forces to more than 10,000.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the new strategy courageous and urged "all countries which want to help the Afghan people to support it."

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Ob ... 73987.html

[Aussie]

Yeah, good Auzgurl........what do you reckon?

For me, this 30,000 surge is a puzzle. Obama says the US will be out of there in 18 months, he tells the whole World about it, and I reckon it is entirely possible the Taliban also heard about that..........................duh?

Weather wise, it is heading into Winter, and almost everything shuts down, including War.

I dunno.

[JW.Frogen]

The thing that gets me about Obama is he always plays these rhetorical games.

He claimed the needed troop increases were turned down under Bush making the problem worse (Rumsfeld denies this and the White House said, not under Rumsfeld but in 2008, which means Obama’s current Defense Secretary, Gates, who worked for Bush then, turned them down), however, if we are to take Obama’s word for this then one must ask why did it take Obama ten months to decide to increase troop levels when he says it was clear they were needed since 2008?

Another problem I have with him is setting a time table for withdrawal, war does not work that way, and it will only convince the enemy they just have to hang on for 18 months. Obama did this while in typical Obama double speak then saying that may not be a firm date, it can be revaluated. OK, so why set a public date at all? (The military can be given private bench marks but don’t announce them to the enemy.)

Why? Because Obama was seen by the Left of his party as the man who would end Iraq and Afghanistan quickly, even if that meant defeat, and he has to appease that part of the party with at least a rhetorical promise that in the same speech he goes on to say is not really a promise at all.

Finally, the military told Obama if he wants to continue with nation building they needed 40,000 more troops. There is an argument I have made and Biden makes that perhaps it is better to quit nation building and go for a more ruthless yet minimal war, arming any group against the Taliban, hunting them with predator drones and special forces, keeping them pinned down in a brutal war but at low cost to us. Obama chose the more noble cause that Bush started, nation building. Fine, perhaps worth a try for 18 more months but then give the military the amount of troops they requested.

Indeed, I would use the Lincoln method, if a general asks for 40,000 you give them 50,000, so they have no excuses.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Karzai says he’d ‘choose the Taliban’ over US
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/karz ... e-taliban/

Afghan President Hamid Karzai says would side with the Taliban if he had to do it all over again.

In late October, Gen. David H. Petraeus, US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and other top officials were trying to convince Karzai to back down on an order banning all foreign private security contractors from Afghanistan. The Afghan president decided he had heard enough, according to a new report in The Washington Post.

"If I had to choose sides today, I'd choose the Taliban," Karzai seethed.

The "main enemies" of Afghanistan are the Taliban, the United States and the international community, according to Karzai.