The Afghan Surge

[TheEgoist]

What is your opinion on the proposed (And now it seems nearly approved) surge of troops into Afghanistan?

I don't think any amount of troops on the ground, fighting silly battles with cave dwelling guerrillas is going to do much except cause more American lives to be ended for the sake of a more peaceful war. Either get out or go on the absolute offensive.

[Castle]

I think it could be helpful, but does not solve the real issue. We aren't being beaten by the Taliban in A-stan, we're being beaten by Washington, DC. My opinion is that we must either go on a total offensive, with limited disregard for borders, or completely reevaluate the parameters of the mission. Probably both now that I think of it. What is the value of "nation building" in A-stan, other than its "what we do" to show that we aren't conquerors? We gave the previous local government an opportunity for a peaceful resolution, they declined. My experience from being there is that we should have reduced any government structure a smoking ruin, eliminated every government official responsible for refusing to stop supporting the training camps, and stamped out those training camps. After that we should have pulled back and given notice to whatever government seized power next that non-support of terrorist training facilities was a condition required for their survival, and pulled out to defend our own borders and look for other state sponsors of terrorism. Let private aid agencies rebuild, if they feel its such an imperative, with their own funds they either earned or solicited from volunteers. Let them pay for their own security as well. That isn't the military's job.

[Maximus]

Other than wasting American lives, I can see no purpose in being there. Should have just flatened everything standing with B-52 strikes and called it a day.

[Castle]

Well, there is a certain amount of utility to having some people on the ground to go after difficult or hardened targets, do recon, gather intellignce, and snatch the occasional HVT for interrogation. Certainly not the massive investment of manpower we've currently mobilized.

[2046]

http://www.freep.com/article/20091124/NEWS...-to-Afghanistan

The president said he would announce his decision on how many additional soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan after Thanksgiving; White House sources suggested an announcement either next Tuesday or Wednesday.

[...]

McClatchy Newspapers reported that Obama’s meeting Monday night with his national security team finalized a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...kop0tgD9C5VAQG0

WASHINGTON — The White House braced for a tough sell of President Barack Obama's long-awaited announcement "within days" of his decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanistan.

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the 8-year-old conflict.

I'm sure we'll hear non stop protesting from all the "liberals" and "progressives" who all hated Bush's evil criminal wars, or will they magically become good Democrat wars?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

No... they are protesting Afghanistan. But this is also hypocritical because they used to insist that Iraq was a distraction from the "real" war. Now that it is center stage, they don't want it. So their old argument turns out to be disingenuous. Which is polite for "a fucking lie."