Obama Discusses Troop Levels for Afghanistan

[I'mNotDedalus]

Hours after winning a Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama assembled his war council in the White House basement to discuss the 8-year-old Afghanistan conflict that military commanders are pressing him to escalate.

The president and his top national security advisers huddled in the Situation Room to hear top military officials make their case for tens of thousands of additional troops to target al-Qaida. The session marked the first time Obama has questioned his inner circle specifically about troop levels needed to right a war that has languished in progress and popularity.

A decision, though, was not in the offing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...op0tgD9B7P7003

[AnglRdr]

The British couldn't do it in however long they were there; the Russians couldn't do it in a decade...

I appreciate that Obama and those around him seem really to want to find a way to make Afghanistan work. I just don't know if it is possible for the rest of the world to make Afghanistan look the way it did in, say, 1977.

[DesertRat]

Afghanistan is not Iraq, and as AnglRdr notes, some serious expectation management is in order.

Afghanistan will never be "civilized" (intentional use of a loaded word, specifically referencing Western ideal of "civilization".) It will never be an agrarian democracy or a stable ally in the region. At very best, Afghanistan will remain the contested territory of multiple competing warlords, with opium production as the staple of its economy.

That being said... with the right strategy, it is possible neutralize the Taliban, thus denying Al Qaeda's freedom of action within the country. That should be our ultimate objective--a geographic patchwork of tribal territories whose warlords, while not especially fond of the West, are much less fond of the Taliban & AQ and refuse to allow them to operate in their territory. With the right strategy, it can be done.

IMO, General McChrystal offers us exactly that strategy, and it is vital to our national interest to see it implemented. The debates about the wisdom of the Iraq war may rage forever, but what cannot be debated is that a) on the negative side, Iraq was a black hole, funneling away manpower and resources desperately needed to stabilize Afghanistan, and b) on the positive side, Iraq allowed us to field test a counterinsurgency doctrine that will, with some adaptation, likely prove successful in Afghanistan. It is extremely unfortunate that the general war-weariness which resulted from the Iraq war is hampering the President's efforts (and will?) to implement the winning strategy in Afghanistan--a strategy that should have been implemented years ago...

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

Afghanistan will never be "civilized" (intentional use of a loaded word, specifically referencing Western ideal of "civilization".) It will never be an agrarian democracy or a stable ally in the region. At very best, Afghanistan will remain the contested territory of multiple competing warlords, with opium production as the staple of its economy.

That being said... with the right strategy, it is possible neutralize the Taliban, thus denying Al Qaeda's freedom of action within the country. That should be our ultimate objective--a geographic patchwork of tribal territories whose warlords, while not especially fond of the West, are much less fond of the Taliban & AQ and refuse to allow them to operate in their territory. With the right strategy, it can be done.

I'm not sure even this is really realistic. It may be possible to neuralize the Taliban in particular, but there are plenty of other religious extremists waiting to take their place that go under different names, and possibly with variously differing beliefs (but that would be just as likely to shelter AQ due to their 'common enemies').

Ideally, as much of the population as possible should be lifted from the crippling poverty under which they live - that would deprive extremists of recruits and help turn the average people against them if the West was offering a tangibly better life style while the other side was only offering destruction and oppression.

How to do that? You'd have to ask someone other than me.

- Il-Mari

[Flyer22]

There is a simple way to win, but it would be politically problematic (to say the least) and I don't know if we have enough bombs in inventory to make it work.

Carpet the whole Afghanistan/Pakistan border area with neutron bombs.

[DesertRat]

Well, duh! Why didn't I think of that before? Genocide = teh awesome!

[I'mNotDedalus]

The Obama administration is considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support.

Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict that may define his presidency. Fierce infighting continues between his own generals and advisers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6869503.ece

[I'mNotDedalus]

I think the region is about to explode (more than usual). Just this past week, the Taliban has really upped its efforts, and it looks like Pakistan is about to launch a major military assault on South Waziristan.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Flyer22

There is a simple way to win, but it would be politically problematic (to say the least) and I don't know if we have enough bombs in inventory to make it work.

Carpet the whole Afghanistan/Pakistan border area with neutron bombs.

Originally Posted by DesertRat

Well, duh! Why didn't I think of that before? Genocide = teh awesome!

I don't think that would even work out *physically*, let alone over the moral objections of anyone who has even the least semblance of sanity...

To begin with, I don't believe we have any neutron bombs! At most, we might have a couple test models in laboratory condition, not suitable for actual field use as a weapon.

But, more subtly, even if we could do this, unless we cordoned off the borders of the entire country, people would move into the area from neighboring countries just as soon as the radiation levels fell enough to make it habitable. (Sigh... Probably sooner.) There would be a vast "land rush" as hundreds of thousands of people sought to occupy this region that has suddenly been opened up. It would take as large a military occupation to screen the land against new settlers as it would to pacify it via traditional operations!

Silas

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Afghanistan is an example of an area that will be a perpetual problem, just as Somalia is. For various reasons, it can only support a sparse population in meager circumstances. That makes it an easy area for groups that need a place to train and make violent attacks from to invade and set up shop. The local population will not have the resources or time to oppose this, and indeed, as there is either business to be made in provisioning or plunder to be had (as with the Somali pirates), they may even welcome them. The Iraqi desert might be such a place, but for being appended to Mesopotamia, where there are conditions that support a population that cand emand essentially peaceful existence ('can' but may not, depending on politics and ideology). Western China (Xinjiang) to some extent would be like that, but China has the strngth and will to keep things under wraps. And that seems to be the only solution - making such areas part of a nation that has enough interest in keeping law and order and not picking fights with the rest of the world.

[AnglRdr]

I suspect that as long as Pakistan is, well, Pakistan, Afghanistan is largely a cause that is lost at least to the US and NATO forces.

And while I know Pervez Musharraf would disagree with me, I suspect that Pakistan prefers a fairly unstable, but not particularly dangerous to Pakistan, Afghanistan, as it keeps the spotlight off them.

Because Pakistan is about a dozen different varieties of dysfunctional.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

And while I know Pervez Musharraf would disagree with me,

. . . in public.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Pakistani fighter jets pounded Taliban sanctuaries Tuesday, as the militant group claimed responsibility for the latest in a wave of attacks which have killed 125 people in a week.

Fighter jets launched another round of bombing raids killing six suspected insurgents in South Waziristan, the semi-autonomous region near Afghanistan and a known stronghold of Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked rebels, officials said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...qbDJl912hSpf3g

[Mr. Billion]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

To begin with, I don't believe we have any neutron bombs! At most, we might have a couple test models in laboratory condition, not suitable for actual field use as a weapon.

In fact... Does anybody have any usable neutron bombs anymore? They seem like an expensive and relatively worthless investment.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Suicide bombers attacked a police station that was holding a number of high-profile militants for interrogation in Peshawar on Friday, killing at least 11 people in the latest of a series of bold attacks against security installations in Pakistan, officials said.

The wave of attacks has created new concerns that the country’s array of militant groups, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda, are pooling their resources and planning in a coordinated attempt to bring down Pakistan’s civilian government. The strikes have grown more sophisticated in recent months and have been carried out against even the most heavily guarded areas, including the national army headquarters in Rawalpindi on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/wo...a/17pstan.html

[I'mNotDedalus]

The U.N. refugee agency reports thousands of people are fleeing Pakistan's South Waziristan region in anticipation of military operations against insurgents. U.N. agencies estimate more than 100,000 people have become displaced since May.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-16-voa23.cfm

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Mr. Billion

In fact... Does anybody have any usable neutron bombs anymore? They seem like an expensive and relatively worthless investment.

Since when would that be a consideration?

[I'mNotDedalus]

Pakistan's army launched a ground offensive Saturday morning aimed at rooting out Islamist insurgents in the lawless tribal region of South Waziristan, an intelligence official in the area said.

The military had been planning the operation for months, amassing nearly 30,000 troops in the area and attempting to soften targets with aerial strikes. Military officials and security experts estimate that between 5,000 and 10,000 "hardcore" Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents are based in the area, which the United States views as a terrorism hub and has targeted with unmanned drone strikes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101700673.html

[I'mNotDedalus]

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signaled the U.S. may refrain from deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan until a “legitimate and credible government” is in place.

“The president will not be rushed to making a decision” on Afghanistan, Emanuel said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. It would be “reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels” without a through analysis of the country’s ability to govern itself, Emanuel said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aTdQrSwJvQI8

[I'mNotDedalus]

Pakistani troops and the Taliban fought fierce battles in a militant sanctuary near the Afghan border, with both sides claiming early victories in an army campaign that could shape the future of the country's battle against extremism.

The army said Sunday that 60 militants and six soldiers had been killed since the offensive began Saturday in the mountainous, remote region that the army has tried and failed to wrest from near-total insurgent control three times since 2004.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...wVTmAD9BDU2380