I "fear" the u.s. will back out of afghan to

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

this certainly isn't a direct comment of intentions of that, but it's an obvious step back from the campaign promises of putting more of an effort into afghan. Those of us who recall carter and clinton, it's certain on par for the weak American foreign policies of those administrations, and to me, only 3 weeks into an administration, such talk shows lack of commitment, disregard for the experience and advice from the military, signs of another pull out, after the Iraq pullout, ect...

I certainly don't see this administration taking further steps in the war on terror as needed elsewhere, more pressure on pakistan, more activity and ops in pakistan, much less iran.

we'll see.

 

 

"PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.

 

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

 

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

 

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tankâ€, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?†and did not receive a convincing answer.

 

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.â€

 

Obama promised an extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama’s “Vietnam quagmireâ€.

 

If the surge goes ahead the military intend to limit the mission to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and leave democracy building and reconstruction to Nato allies and civilians from the State Department and other agencies.

 

The United States has been pushing Britain to send several thousand more troops but there is just as much disagreement and confusion among British defence chiefs over the long-term aim. Gordon Brown is set to receive a full briefing this week.

 

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief who will step down this summer, has insisted that troops need a rest and believes he can send only one battlegroup, senior defence sources said.

 

General Sir David Richards, his successor, believes that the two extra battlegroups the Americans have asked for is the minimum the UK should send, the sources said."

[fieldgeneral 10]

I believe that we will take a step back figuratively to determine where and what we should do. We've spent so much much and time on useless things in Iraq that could have been spent in Afghanistan finding Bin Laden. I really hope that we do take that step to evaluate what needs to be done and not worry about any personal wants that anyone may have.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I believe that we will take a step back figuratively to determine where and what we should do. We've spent so much much and time on useless things in Iraq that could have been spent in Afghanistan finding Bin Laden. I really hope that we do take that step to evaluate what needs to be done and not worry about any personal wants that anyone may have.

 

Typical political speech that says lets not rush in, guess what though, the military's "been in afghan for 8 years", they know exactly what it is that needs to be done, getting the go ahead is another story..

If there's any personal wants to it it's the wants of an inexperienced president who amounts to a boy playing man's game not listening to the military. The military has said for years, finish in iraq, shift troops to afghan and put emphasis there, this was a strategy that the president supposedly agreed to, he campaigned on it, obama's "evaluation" isn't warranted.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Typical political speech that says lets not rush in, guess what though, the military's "been in afghan for 8 years", they know exactly what it is that needs to be done, getting the go ahead is another story..

If there's any personal wants to it it's the wants of an inexperienced president who amounts to a boy playing man's game not listening to the military. The military has said for years, finish in iraq, shift troops to afghan and put emphasis there, this was a strategy that the president supposedly agreed to, he campaigned on it, obama's "evaluation" isn't warranted.

 

Typical.....so you would tell George Washington that his first defeat coming at the hands of the French prior to the French and Indian War to rush in again. He was lucky to have not been captured or killed.

 

You don't know what the military knows or doesn't know. If you did, you would be there now. Sure they have been there for 8 years. Maybe if we hadn't spent so much time and resources in Iraq, the job would have been finished and George would have gotten the credit. He had a personal task to take care of first. Thanks Mr. Bush.

 

A boy playing a man's game. Your ridiculous. We had a boy in office playing the last 8 years. He wanted to mop up for daddy anyway.

 

Because the President wants to evaluate where we stand and meet with those in the know, not Buzzsaw, doesn't make him going back on his word or a boy. It makes him intelligent and strategic. He did agree to put the emphasis on Afganistan, and it will happen, a lot sooner than Bush did. Well, he never did, so any time would be sooner.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Typical.....so you would tell George Washington that his first defeat coming at the hands of the French prior to the French and Indian War to rush in again. He was lucky to have not been captured or killed.

 

You don't know what the military knows or doesn't know. If you did, you would be there now. Sure they have been there for 8 years. Maybe if we hadn't spent so much time and resources in Iraq, the job would have been finished and George would have gotten the credit. He had a personal task to take care of first. Thanks Mr. Bush.

 

A boy playing a man's game. Your ridiculous. We had a boy in office playing the last 8 years. He wanted to mop up for daddy anyway.

 

Because the President wants to evaluate where we stand and meet with those in the know, not Buzzsaw, doesn't make him going back on his word or a boy. It makes him intelligent and strategic. He did agree to put the emphasis on Afganistan, and it will happen, a lot sooner than Bush did. Well, he never did, so any time would be sooner.

 

It's been common knowledge the military has requested 30,000 more troops, that's been a while now.

You or anyone else can get a lot more info than you obviously know at basic defense department sites such as

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/

 

 

You're simply not grasping the point anyhow, the military "does know what they want and need to do", it's obvious you're out of your league in military matters yourself. The president is saying lets wait and consider it, the military " has considered it", for years.

 

They aren't simply going to up and be finished fighting terrorism even with an aggressive approach anymore than the police are going to up and say "we've stopped crime, we don't have to actively fight it anymore." It's a threat to America that's obviously going to be around as long as America is America.

You're 100% correct, this president is a boy playing a man's game in matters of foreign policy, he's a short time senator from Il with 0 amount of experience and few people if any on your side thought that that mattered during the campaign.

He's going up against people the likes russia's putin, who cut his teeth during the cold war and has decades of experience and presently seems to be pushing to close 1 of America's biggest supply routes in northern Afghan, and many other experienced world leaders, you're in complete ignorance if you think obama is anything but in this matter.

 

You're the typical unappreciative (likely never served a day) liberal who dares to undermine the efforts Bush and of the u.s. military, particularly in Afghan to by suggesting they've never put an emphasis on success there. A very ignorant 1 at that. . .

[Pirate1 10]

I know I'm not as educated on this stuff as I probably should be, but my question is at this point. How thin are we spread right now? And is there any reason to delay sending more troops into afghanistan because of that?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I know I'm not as educated on this stuff as I probably should be, but my question is at this point. How thin are we spread right now? And is there any reason to delay sending more troops into afghanistan because of that?

 

They've been spread thin for certain, but as they reduce troops in iraq, particularly combat troops, they'll have the troops for a surge in afghan, but it would certainly be a while as such a build up logistically, especially the equipment takes time, the big reason they shouldn't be hesitating on something that's been known for some time.

[Pirate1 10]

So, if they decided to go right now, roughly how long do you think it would take to actually start the surge?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

So, if they decided to go right now, roughly how long do you think it would take to actually start the surge?

 

The thing about it is they don't just up and tell units they're going, they prepare for rotations a year I advance on some aspects, so units that are expected to go have been preparing, sometimes plans change though. Exactly when they intend to have the troops there I honestly don't know, but if intend to have those extra troops before an offensive they really only have a window of a few months for it because the summers are short there.

[Pirate1 10]

Thanks buzzsaw, appreciate the info.