Bad timing for Obama on any troop buildup in Afghanistan

[tekisui]

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Washington

The commanding American general in Afghanistan is expected to follow up soon on his review of the war there by asking for additional troops and other resources – a request that could hardly come at a worse time for President Obama.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is likely to seek from two to four additional brigades – or as many as 20,000 more US soldiers beyond the 65,000 already in Afghanistan – as part of a “revised strategy” to better protect the Afghan population and accelerate the training of Afghan security forces, sources at the Pentagon and elsewhere say.

But such a request will come amid signs of faltering domestic support for the Afghanistan effort and as Mr. Obama, facing a worrisome overall erosion of public confidence, hopes to focus attention on his drive for healthcare reform.

Growing doubts about the US commitment in Afghanistan and noisy opposition to the war may be the last things the White House needs, but increasingly that looks to be what the administration is going to get.

• The antiwar movement, deflated by a quieter Iraq and the programmed withdrawal of US forces there, plans to ramp up public opposition to the Afghanistan war this fall.

•Frustration with the course of the war is bubbling in Congress, with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin – notably the first senator to call four years ago for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – announcing he favors setting a “flexible timetable” for drawing down US forces in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan never faced the degree of public opposition that the war in Iraq did, in part because of the direct link between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Afghanistan.

In addition, the level of war opposition in the US often correlates with casualties and violence levels, some defense analysts note, but Iraq war casualties – both for US troops and Iraqi civilians – always eclipsed those in Afghanistan. With more troops being sent to Afghanistan and with the relegation of US troops in Iraq to large bases, however, that picture has flipped. Last month, US casualties in Afghanistan reached the highest level of the war there.

more: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/01/bad-timing-for-obama-on-any-troop-buildup-in-afghanistan/

[spanone]

1. warbegone

[cleveramerican]

2. Its already gone on longer than WW1 and WW2 combined !!

This was stunning to me when I read it in the paper today

The only country with less visible governmental presence is Somalia.

[elocs]

3. It will be, "we just need this many thousand more", then again and again.

Haven't we been there and done that? Are these people really so stupid?

[timeforpeace]

4. Finally the media is focusing on this again. Lower poll numbers is fueling this IMO. The media is

less afraid to criticise Obama about this now. If it gets him to withdraw, that's great.

[theoldman]

5. I have read a book "The Gamble".

It illustrates that we can turn the Afghanistan war around with a lot more troops used as counterinsurgency. The bad news is that it takes 10 to 20 years.

[NNN0LHI]

7. We "won" the west too. But remember what we had to do to accomplish that

We basically had to slaughter or incarcerate every last American Indian and repopulate the place with people more to our liking.

Thats what it would take in Afghanistan to "win" there.

Don

[madmax]

6. Why is it always the US

why don't all the wealthy Arab countries sit the fuck down and figure out what should be done and then hire some mercs like Blackwater to get their shit together.

The US is financing mercs now and our guys are getting the shaft.

[necso]

8. Let's be clear:

The previous administration all but abandoned this "war", because it didn't give them enough gratification -- and because it was only a sideshow to them, a prelude to militarism elsewhere, a first step (one essentially forced upon them) in their grand "plans".

And the previous administration tried to fight two "wars" without a draft and on the cheap, while lowering taxes, and without being honest even to themselves (much less the people) about what was involved.

This was extremely reckless and irresponsible (not that this matters anymore -- you need but "turn on" the media to realize that being similarly irresponsible is acceptable these days (hell, it's even well paid... for some), as long as it suits our overlords' purposes).

And it does us no good to downplay the severity of the mess we're in -- or to let up on hammering the people responsible. (However, turning on each other, becoming divided or apathetic, etc., only plays into the hands of the crazies: the republicans best hope is to decrease Democratic support, so that their crank-base, together with the delusional, the deluded, the fearful, the disillusioned, etc, can sweep the republicans back into power.)

We're in a tight spot.

[tekisui]

10. We need to get out. The best way to untangle ourselves

from a messy situation is to leave. Bush messed it up, escalating and expanding his mess is not a winning strategy.

[notesdev]

9. Given that his mandate is to pull out

I don't know WTF he is thinking putting more troops there.

Can ANYBODY articulate a clear, achievable goal there, one that is worth sending soldiers to die for?