Advisers Call for Afghanistan Troop Buildup

Advisers Call for Afghanistan Troop Buildup

www.thenewamerican.com

Voice of America (VOA) News reported on July 29 that Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) — a member of the strategic assessment team working with General Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. military commander in Afghanistan — has advised that the U.S. government and its allies need to be more realistic about what is needed to win the Afghan war, and that may include more troops.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The above isn't the really interesting part, "they" have been calling for more troops for a while, now. What's interesting is who "they" might just be:

The other heavy hitter in attendance was Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who, as noted previously, formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The CSIS has been described by some as "a CFR front group" because of the connections of some of its more prominent members to the CFR. The center was founded in 1964 by Admiral Arleigh Burke and Ambassador David Manker Abshire, a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and, until his appointment as ambassador to NATO, the Trilateral Commission. CSIS officials who are also CFR members include:


* Current president and CEO, John Hamre, who was a former Deputy Secretary of Defense;

* The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, former Senator Sam Nunn;

* The following members of the CSIS board of trustees: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, and Brent Scowcroft;

* Its Transnational Threats Director, Arnaud de Borchgrave;

* "Notable current and past members": Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Ronald Reagan administration Fred Iklé and former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

So apparently, the CFR is now deciding when and by how much the US needs to increase its military strength. Why should these people be allowed to even make recommendations in that area? The CFR needs to be deposed.


TA


www.thenewamerican.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

I hope they do send more troops over there. We need to destroy the Taliban and the Muslim Extremists at any cost. They are just like Hitler. There is no containing them or appeasing them, they must be beaten down and eradicated like cleaning up a rat infested building.

reply to post by grapesofraft


While I respect your opinion, I tend to believe that the threat of terrorism is just a scare tactic to garner the sanction of the American People to push us further into a surveillance society. And when I see recommendations of this type being proposed by the CFR, it just makes me more suspicious.

I think there are ulterior motives, including the above mentioned, in play here, and the threat of terrorism is just an excuse to further the agendas behind those motives.


TA

Here is some info on CSIS and the CFR:

CSIS convenes 700-800 meetings, seminars, and conference each year in Washington and throughout the world. These are strategic psycho-political operations meant to influence powerful individuals at home and abroad. CSIS generates thousands of media appearances, articles, and background contacts annually. These are tactical psycho-political operations meant to influence mass public opinion.4

When the CSIS informs and shapes selected policy decisions in government and the private sector they do so to further the interests of Council on Foreign Relations members, and members of CFR branch organizations in other nations, not the American people.

Founded in 1962 and located in Washington, D.C., CSIS is a private, tax-exempt institution. Its research is non-partisan and non-proprietary. On January 1, 1999, Sam Nunn will take over for CFR member Anne Armstrong as chairman of its Board of Trustees, and CFR member Robert Zoellick will assume the presidency as CFR member David M. Abshire moves on as CSIS chancellor.5

Center for Strategic and International Studies list of "Who Leads CSIS" contains 63 people, 35 are Council on Foreign Relations members . Of the Center's staff of 80 research specialists at least 20 are Council on Foreign Relations members.

Contributions from more than 300 corporations, foundations, and individuals constitute 85% of the revenues required to meet the Center's budget, which in 1997 was $17 million. The remaining funds come from endowment income, government contracts, and publication sales. 6

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a public policy research institution dedicated to analysis and policy impact. CSIS is the only institution of its kind that maintains resident experts on all the world's major geographical regions. It also covers key functional areas, such as international finance, U.S. domestic and economic policy, and U.S. foreign policy and national security issues. 7
source

Doesn't sound like a very trustworthy source for recommendations on military strategy to me.


TA

And apparently, this same group (CSIS) is involved in the promotion of the "climate change" scare.

For the past year a diverse group of experts, under the direction and leadership of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), met regularly to start a new conversation to consider the potential future foreign policy and national security implications of climate change.
source

Add this to their promotion of the 'terror' scare, and what these people appear to be is a corporate/CFR controlled think tank whose objective is to give credibility to the various scare tactics our government is using against us.


TA

I'm not being argumentative, but where's the real news here? Troop build up in Afghanistan has been being "called for" for the past almost 8 years, no? Is the news that another voice chimed in? Or that we're doing it? Or what? I'm getting pretty sick of recycled, regurgitated, non-news "news."

I'm confused why we're even still in Afghanistan. This government has said they don't care about Laden anymore. The taliban are like the Washington Generals. So are we there to save the heroin and opium trade that the taliban decimated or what? My friends who've served said they would be stationed to protect poppy fields. I'm really confused as to what our intent is with Afghanistan.

reply to post by ~Lucidity

The point is that the CFR has its fingers in what's happening in the middle east. If that isn't news to you, good, you're well informed. However, a lot of people don't realize who is actually behind all of this, and the MSM sure as hell isn't going to inform them.


TA

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

My friends who've served said they would be stationed to protect poppy fields

That's interesting. I'm sure one of the major reasons we're still over there is to keep the drug trade going. The CIA has been the biggest drug dealers in the world for quite some time, and we can't have anyone messing with their monopoly.


TA

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

 

My friends who've served said they would be stationed to protect poppy fields

That's interesting. I'm sure one of the major reasons we're still over there is to keep the drug trade going. The CIA has been the biggest drug dealers in the world for quite some time, and we can't have anyone messing with their monopoly.


TA

Yeah man, the whole thing is just one big #ing mess. My friends who served came back completely messed up, cynical and angry. They would tell me ridiculous stories of patrolling poppy fields while violence would break out in the adjecent village. However, they were forbidden to do anything about it. In Iraq a few of my Navy friends literally spent their whole time driving in circles around oil fields. What's amazing is people have ranted about how Iraq was for the oil but you rarely if ever hear about how Afghanistan was for the drug trade. This country is so #ing stupid. But that's what happens when you spend all of your money on defense and nothing domestically.

reply to post by TheAssociate


ugh there i go again assuming that everyone should know things that have been in plain sight for decades. sorry. again, as i said i'm not being argumentative, and the more word about the CFR gets out the better. however, the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the country and the world probably saw no significance in this at all. if they even read it. (tell anyone michelle obama worked for the CFR and watch their faces. ) posting articles like this on this website for discussion, while it does get the word out a little more, still makes only a miniscule dent. i guess i'm just frustrated in general.

reply to post by grapesofraft


Good little boy! You've maintained exactly the type of belief your government wants you to! Keep drinking the kool aid because you must really like it! LMAO!

Can someone please tell me how we'll know when we've "won" in Afghanistan? There is no government or army to surrender to us. We have no way to tell whether there is any Taliban left in Afghanistan, and if so, who they are. We went in there without a clear idea of what victory would look like (other than capturing bin Laden, who has probably died of old age by now), so how do we know when it's time to go home?

Afghanistan isn't like a more modern country. It's a collection of tribes living a mostly nomadic existence, with some farms. They're living pretty much the same way they did in Biblical times. These tribes have been warring amongst themselves, forming alliances and feuds for thousands of years. We are trying to use these tribes to help us track down the "Taliban". The tribes are using us to wipe out their rival tribes. They tell us they're "Taliban", we obligingly wipe them out, and then our ally turns on us because we're invaders in their land.

Afghanistan isn't really much of a country. It's a collection of people living on some land that no one wants to steal because it is worthless. Their major exports are opium and mujihaddin, two products we could live without. England, at the time the greatest power in the world, invaded Afghanistan. They left, tails between their legs, having accomplished nothing more than getting British soldiers slaughtered. The Soviet Union tried it next. Same story. Now it's our turn.

The reason we can't win is that we're not fighting armies. We're fighting armed civilians who are also trained warriors. They know how to fight - they live their lives fighting other tribes - but they belong to no actual army.

So if we're going to send more troops, what are they going in there to accomplish? How will we know that they've succeeded? Unless we have a clear answer, I see no point in sending anyone else in there. In fact, I'd say pull out right now. I doubt very much whether it would make a bit of difference on any "war on terror". Except possibly that, by killing fewer civilians, we'd probably inspire fewer people to become mujihaddin in the first place.