Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort

Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort

w ww.telegraph.co.uk

Barack Obama is preparing to send at least 20,000 more US soldiers into Afghanistan in a "surge" similar to the deployment that contributed to security improvements in Iraq.

The President-Elect's intention to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan has been bolstered by Robert Gates agreement to stay on as Defence Secretary.

Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge... It would also aim to boost co-operation with Iran and Pakistan...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this perhaps what should have been the focus immediately post 9/11?

This significant new policy is apparently being planned for Spring 2009:

The Pentagon chief, who has been in the position for two years, added that he wanted to send another three brigades of combat ground forces and an aviation brigade, beginning as early as next spring.

A Pentagon official said the plans are likely to be drawn up before Mr Obama takes office on Jan 20. Most will be sent to the poppy-growing South, where the need for more Western forces is greatest, and where 8,000 British troops are currently fighting.

A spokesman said the final number was likely to be "well north of 20,000", and indicated that countries such as Britain already fighting in the south would not face strong US demands to provide more troops.

If you think the numbers involved are large, read on:

Some analysts believe Washington ultimately will need more than 100,000 troops to stabilise Afghanistan before the Afghan army is ready to take over security.

"I suspect that to succeed in Afghanistan, we're eventually going to have to swing a sizeable fraction of what we now have in Iraq into Afghanistan," said Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"The scale of the shift will be large, and the time needed to pull it off will be long," he said.

Perhaps a gradual withdrawal from Iraq is not going to provide relief for the hard-pressed troops after all.

How will the American public react if war is also going to be a distinguishing mark of the next presidency?

And will this new focus change world opinion on what the US is about when it comes to foreign policy?






w ww.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Just a quick bump. This got somewhat buried in the light of events in Mumbai.

The fact is the policies laid out here will affect world events for many years to come. I for one find them rather disconcerting, as I'd been hoping the new incumbent was going to use his skills far more in the area of diplomacy than in an intensification of war.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Just a quick bump. This got somewhat buried in the light of events in Mumbai.

The fact is the policies laid out here will affect world events for many years to come. I for one find them rather disconcerting, as I'd been hoping the new incumbent was going to use his skills far more in the area of diplomacy than in an intensification of war.

The key word here is "hoping." I don't understand why the hopers have the rationale they do. You don't flash a wad of cash on a dangerous street and hope no one will mug you. Do Obama sheeple really not know there's something called the military industrial complex? Geeesh!

Remember Russia's Vietnam experience in Afghanistan. It could be America's next Vietnam as well. I've been reading reports where many of our allies in Afghanistan want out. If this happens America will be the only one left and could be viewed as an occupation force rather than a force who is trying to help. This could make things ugly for us.

reply to post by Moonsouljah



Hi there. I hear what you're saying about the MI complex, but I'm no Obama sheeple (singular ). I don't even live in the US. I'm just an inhabitant of this planet who believes diplomacy has been dropped in recent years in favour of the bullet (-and look at the mess it's got us into).

Obama being an intelligent and articulate communicator, was, I hoped, a prime candidate to wing the changes in the geopolitical sphere. (Jaw, jaw & not war, war - and all that.)

Is it really just 'more of the same'?

Even if not, I'll still keep hoping some future leader has the stature to follow sanity rather than military $s...




[edit on 3/12/08 by pause4thought]

Just where are those 20,000 supposed to come from?

reply to post by asmeone2


I think they're supposed to come from the Iraq pull-out. (I foresee some rather unhappy soldiers...)

Not too sure how they'd go about working this kind of force up, though! -

Some analysts believe Washington ultimately will need more than 100,000 troops to stabilise Afghanistan before the Afghan army is ready to take over security.

Originally posted by jam321
It could be America's next Vietnam as well.

El Salvador was America's "next Vietnam".

Wait, it might have been Bosnia.

Or was it Kosovo???

Doesn't matter what the US becomes involved with, it's always "the next Vietnam".

Scary thoughts. I fear ultimately this will lead to a draft.

reply to post by pause4thought


Yeah, I hear ya. I "hope" he turns some things around but my skepticism prevails thus far. We have 4 years to sit back and watch though. I just fear him to be the mother of all dupes. Like if your best friend slept with your lover instead of some random person-the betrayal would be so much worse.

Oh would you look at that?

So its business as usual at the White House huh? Damn, I'd never have expected that. What about all that "change"? Where's my "change"?

I guess you guys have been manipulated once again.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Scary thoughts. I fear ultimately this will lead to a draft.

A Miller Genuine Draft or draft lager of some sort? Alright! Where do I sign?
Wait, I have to go to some camp for it? Eh, free beers free beer.

Vote for CHANGE!

So, pull the troops from one un-ending war, and put them into the other. Wasn't Obama's intentions to pull our troops out of the Middle East? In any case, a surge may help in the short term, but I don't really see the long-term fix here. What I do see, is that Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be so dependent on the U.S. forces, that we'll need to enlist more troops yet just to keep the current numbers there. The Bush administration has created so much turmoil in the Middle East, that if we did pull out, the whole region would erupt.

reply to post by dodgygeeza

I swear it's all the fluoride in the water or something like that. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
The bulk of Americans are like cows- just chewing and farting and their skulls are so thick you can hit 'em in the head with shovels.-just keep eatin' and fartin' and eatin'...

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
reply to post by dodgygeeza

 

I swear it's all the fluoride in the water or something like that. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
The bulk of Americans are like cows- just chewing and farting and their skulls are so thick you can hit 'em in the head with shovels.-just keep eatin' and fartin' and eatin'...

You owe me a new keyboard. High velocity tea & keyboards don't mix

Oh no!! Not another surge. I thought that was something that only warmongering Bush would do. Come on Obama supporters!! Explaing why this is so great.

What's funny is that Obama sheeple just bought into the vague rhetoric. I'll bet there was never ANY one promise Obama made about actually stopping these wars. I never saw anything in all the MSM outlets during the campaign that said it'd be over by the end of his term. Nothing, just the obfuscating language of hope.

So really he'll never break any promise he made about ending the war(s)--he never made any.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Moonsouljah]

Originally posted by dodgygeeza


You owe me a new keyboard. High velocity tea & keyboards don't mix

Sorry- can't help ya- bad economy. Wish I could bail you out but I'm not the Fed.