^^^ Just to add to that: Obama's already played more golf in about nine months than Bush did in several years. But I don't see Michael Moore and his sycophants filming Obama on his golf cart with "Vacation" blaring in the background.

10/29/2009 2:48:33 AM

An excellent article in the New Yorker about the limitations and problems of using Predator drone strikes to fight the war in Afghanistan (and in general, really):

Quote :

"Bruce Riedel, who has been deeply involved in these debates during the past few years, sees the choices facing Obama as exceedingly hard. “Is the drone program helping or hurting?” he asked. “It’s a tough question. These are not cost-free operations.” He likened the drone attacks to “going after a beehive, one bee at a time.” The problem is that, inevitably, “the hive will always produce more bees.” But, he said, “the only pressure currently being put on Pakistan and Afghanistan is the drones.” He added, “It’s really all we’ve got to disrupt Al Qaeda. The reason the Administration continues to use it is obvious: it doesn’t really have anything else.”"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

10/30/2009 7:22:34 PM

Quote :

"Obama seeks options for sending fewer to war: He asks Pentagon chiefs for alternatives to troop requests on Afghanistan WASHINGTON - President Obama has asked the Pentagon's top generals to provide him with more options for troop levels in Afghanistan, two U.S. officials said late Friday, with one adding that some of the alternatives would allow Obama to send fewer new troops than the roughly 40,000 requested by his top commander. Obama met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the White House on Friday, holding a 90-minute discussion that centered on the strain on the force after eight years of war in two countries. The meeting -- the first of its kind with the chiefs of the Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, who were not part of the president's war council meetings on Afghanistan in recent weeks -- prompted Obama to request another such meeting before he announces a decision on sending additional troops, the officials said. The military chiefs have been largely supportive of a resource request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that would by one Pentagon estimate require the deployment of 44,000 additional troops. But opinion among members of Obama's national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers. Obama is expected to receive several options from the Pentagon about troop levels next week, according to the two officials, who discussed the deliberations on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. . . . The timing of Obama's decision on Afghanistan remains up in the air. But his request for another meeting with the military chiefs -- and the expectation that he will meet again with his top national security advisers before reaching a conclusion -- may leave him too little time to decide the issue before he travels to Asia on Nov. 11. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to be overseas for much of that time, except for a brief stint at home from Wednesday to Friday, giving Obama little opportunity to convene his war council in person. It appears increasingly likely that Obama will not announce his new Afghanistan strategy until after returning to the United States on Nov. 20."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33560281/ns/world_news-washington_post/

10/31/2009 2:48:39 PM

Quote :

" President Hamid Karzai's leadership is weak, his government corrupt and nearly a third of the votes he won in the August election were thrown out as fakes. But in the end, the Obama administration is likely to stick by the Afghan president. It has few other good options. Karzai is far from the strong and capable partner that Washington had hoped would emerge from the electoral process that it and Western allies had pushed for in Afghanistan. They hoped the elections would stabilize the country and bleed support from the Taliban. But the process effectively ended in turmoil Sunday, even as the war with the Taliban intensifies. Karzai's challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, bowed out only six days before a scheduled runoff, charging that no fair election was possible."

- http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWS-iq74Txky__OmsJk0qHgUdJgQD9BMS9VG0

what a mess

11/1/2009 1:15:25 PM

Quote :

"Deliberations CBS News reports that U.S. President Barack Obama "has settled" on a new strategy in Afghanistan and plans to send "most, if not all" of the 40,000 troops top U.S. and NATO commander in the country Gen. Stanley McChrystal has asked for, though the White House denied the report (CBS News, CNN, Bloomberg). Obama is reportedly again nearing a decision, though it is now thought he will not announce any additional deployments until after he returns from a diplomatic trip to Asia, the week before Thanksgiving (AP, AFP). Japan announced yesterday that it is planning to send an additional $5 billion in aid to Afghanistan for a range of projects including civilian reconstruction, militant rehabilitation, and security forces training (New York Times, AP, Wall Street Journal). Tokyo also reportedly pledged $2 billion for neighboring Pakistan (AFP). Obama is meeting with his top advisers on Afghanistan tomorrow and will reportedly be presented with five different specific strategies, one of which is the McChrystal plan, all of which increase the number of U.S. troops in the country (ABC). Obama said yesterday that he wants to "make sure that we have tested all the assumptions" before sending more soldiers to Afghanistan, and ensure that the prospects of a functional Afghan government are "enhanced.""

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/10/daily_brief_car_bomb_rips_through_busy_market_in_northwest_pakistan

11/10/2009 11:23:24 AM

Great, 40,000 more troops. Now we'll be able to successfully quell the resistance and maintain order in Afghanistan, right!?

11/10/2009 11:37:42 AM

An exceptional editorial out of Australia today discussing the strategic necessity of US presence in Afghanistan for al-Qi'ida:

Quote :

"THE Obama administration will shortly unveil its new strategy for the Afghan conflict. A key objective is the denial of al-Qa'ida access to sanctuary in Afghanistan -- a goal the Bush administration also shared. There has been vigorous debate within the US political establishment about what strategy will best achieve this goal. Counter-insurgency proponents argue for increased troop levels while others believe it can be achieved by a targeted counter-terrorism campaign with a lighter force footprint. Both of these approaches rest on the longstanding premise that al-Qa'ida wants another safe haven in Afghanistan. However, this premise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of its strategic intentions. Afghanistan's value to al-Qa'ida is as a location for jihad, not a sanctuary. While calling for jihad to liberate occupied Muslim lands is a potent radicalisation tool, it only yields substantive benefits when there is such a conflict at hand. Before September 11, 2001, most volunteers at al-Qa'ida's camps in Afghanistan wanted training for armed jihad. Al-Qa'ida had problems with attrition of its members and trainees who left its camps to seek armed jihad elsewhere, usually in Chechnya."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/al-qaida-prefers-us-to-stick-around/story-e6frg6zo-1225796639320


And another discussing the democratic leanings of Afghanis and the Taliban's move towards a liberation movement:

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A powerful grassroots movement has blossomed in Afghanistan, giving its people new hope, self-esteem and a sense of belonging. The problem is that this movement is the Taliban. As President Obama and his advisers ponder a new Afghan strategy, the conventional wisdom is that this bottom-up insurgency must be attacked with top-down solutions: a stronger central government, a decline in regional warlordism, a more loyal national army. But research we recently completed for the World Bank shows that what Afghanistan needs is not solutions from the top down but from the bottom up. It needs a good Taliban — a dispersed people’s movement, spanning thousands of villages, through which the Afghan people can regain a sense of control over their government. Is this utopian fantasy, or is it possible in a country bloodied by its own past? It may seem utopian under the myths that have become commonplace in the American understanding of Afghanistan. But our findings suggest that those myths need revision."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11iht-ednarayan.html?_r=3&ref=global

11/11/2009 9:35:59 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6556191/Barack-Obama-demands-exit-strategy-in-Afghanistan.html

Quote :

"White House officials said that in a meeting with Pentagon chiefs Mr Obama had made clear he wants his decision on troop reinforcements to offer a strong suggestion of when and how responsibility for security would be turned over to the Afghans."

Quote :

"While he is still expected to announce that he is sending reinforcements, Mr Obama insisted that a broad framework for handing over control of security to the Afghan army is written in, as he sought to warn Afghan leaders - and reassure the US public - that the mission is not "open-ended". "

Quote :

"“The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended,” said a White House official after the meeting. “After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner.”"

I support his general sentiment. I actually think he needs to be more forceful on this subject. We need to get out, not become even more entrenched. There isn't going to be stability there. It's stupid to think that anything we could do at this point would change that. The best bet is to get the fuck out and never look back.

11/12/2009 3:25:19 PM

Am I the only one who feels there is a lot of vagueness floating around here? I'm not accusing the administration of anything here, just that there has been a focus number of troops to be committed but almost no discussion of the concurrent strategies that would go along with the proposed troop levels.


Has anyone heard anything on that?

11/12/2009 6:20:15 PM

COMING SOON!

Obama says his Afghanistan plan coming soon (AP)
Nov. 13, 2009

Quote :

"TOKYO — President Barack Obama says he soon will announce his new plan for Afghanistan, one that takes into account the costs — the possible commitment of thousands more U.S. troops and billions of dollars. The president says the new plan for the 8-year-old war will be fully transparent. Speaking at a news conference Friday after a 90-minute meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Obama said he has taken exceeding care in examining a new strategy because he wants 'to get it right.' The Japanese leader says Japan is ending its refueling operation for American forces in Afghanistan but is committing $5 billion in aide to the impoverished country."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6718511.html

This illustrates a big part of the problem with putting academics in leadership positions: paralysis by analysis.

11/13/2009 7:26:33 AM

quick piece covering the other side of the border:

Quote :

" Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan’s army is one to two weeks away from winning control of all major roads in its assault on Taliban fighters in a tribal region, and will then move to take on the militants in their mountain strongholds. In the first stage of the month-old South Waziristan operation, 28,000 troops have captured key highways and all the significant towns in the region, Major General Athar Abbas said in an interview at army headquarters. “In the second phase, we go and chase and eliminate them from the pockets and their hideouts,” he said hours after militants attacked a spy agency office in the northwestern city of Peshawar, killing 18 people."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aD._1sRhjXtU&pos=9



and another article which is a bit critical of the President's indecisiveness:

Quote :

"A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise. David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/obama-us-troops-afghanistan-kilcullen

11/13/2009 4:17:17 PM

Quote :

"An excellent article in the New Yorker about the limitations and problems of using Predator drone strikes to fight the war in Afghanistan (and in general, really):"

the Predator represents the ultimate in psychological warfare.

one of the things most vets from the theater will tell you is how disheartening it is fight an enemy that does not fear death. the Predator presents the NATO version of that. plus, death can come anytime, from anywhere. that is not lost on the enemy's leadership.

the actual body count created from them is a secondary benefit.

11/15/2009 10:59:54 PM

Quote :

" the Predator represents the ultimate in psychological warfare. "

I dunno, I think 600 or so M77 DPICM bomblets, delivered via SPLL, do a pretty good job as well. Don't call it rain of steel for nothing.

11/15/2009 11:22:56 PM

^ yea but then you have to deal with the PR fallout from using bomblets... hippies don't approve.

psychological warfare is all about PR and psychological perceptions not only in the immediate enemy but across the world as well.... so... yea.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 1:35 AM. Reason : s]

11/16/2009 1:34:27 AM

Quote :

"one of the things most vets from the theater will tell you is how disheartening it is fight an enemy that does not fear death. the Predator presents the NATO version of that."

Quite the opposite. It portrays NATO as an organization too cowardly to meet the enemy face to face. I mean how many people in this board have railed against the Jihadists in Iraq being too cowardly to meet us face to face while we button up in mine resistant vehicles and conduct strikes with aircraft piloted from Nellis AFB in Nevada?

You cannot bomb a populace living in the 16th century into submission. They have nothing to lose. So the question is, are we going to kill every Afghan who is in the vicinity of a Talib, or are we going to convince them to do our killing for us?

Quote :

"Call it “pay as you fight.” After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war. Three full committee chairmen — including the House’s top tax writer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — are backing the initiative together with the chair of the party caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and close allies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The speaker has been silent thus far, and many dismiss the idea as more rhetoric than real legislation. But with President Barack Obama due to make a final decision soon on adding more U.S. troops, the initiative testifies to the growing restlessness among Democrats over the costs of the American commitment in Afghanistan. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29851.html

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ^^ Aww, Hawthorne is trying to use insider terminology to sound smart]

11/23/2009 8:40:16 PM

Aww, my dad was a 13A, and he's got M77 dummies lying around the house. GFY.

11/23/2009 8:44:28 PM

So was I, but if I wanted to refer to an MLRS I would have said rockets . . . even though their use has been rather limited since the 2003 time frame, and even then it was in the HIMARS package, not the tracked. Either way the relatively high dud rate amongst DPICM would prevent us from wanting to use them anywhere we conducted operations.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – The White House said President Barack Obama could use an unusual evening war council session Monday to lock in his long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanistan. Military officials and others said they 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. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments. The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement — in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan

11/23/2009 9:02:24 PM

Yes, but SPLL is generic, MLRS is specific.

11/23/2009 9:13:30 PM

The Decision starring Barack Obama.

COMING SOON!

11/23/2009 10:43:01 PM

have you gone on record as the what YOU think the correct decision should be?

just so it's a matter of public record, and we'll all know whether or not you're being completely disingenuous when you inevitably start ranting.

11/23/2009 10:49:42 PM

^ There certainly are no easy answers concerning Afghanistan--but I'm not the president. And who ever said being president and making the decisions that come with the job was "easy."

We could start, however, by expecting Obama to stand by his statements--both to the letter and in the spirit of those statements--concerning what he said he would do in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it appears to me and a great many others of various political stripes that Obama could just stop "dithering" concerning a decision of any sort and immediately provide his hand-picked commander on the ground with the resources that he has so urgently requested in order to do what is necessary.

And I honestly don't think this is too much to ask of Obama. Half measures just don't get it done.

11/23/2009 10:58:54 PM

if you make a bad statement, you shouldn't stand by it after you realize its bad, just because it was YOUR statement.

i would go ahead and bring everybody home. thats just me though. I'm not a fan of death tolls.

11/23/2009 11:05:44 PM

^ Yeah, you've made it clear that you want to just give up--nobody cares. And there's been no serious indication from anyone that such a thing is going to happen.

And Afghanistan--which Obama has called the "central front" in the "overseas contingency operation--is where the 9-11 attacks were planned. People seem to forget this.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 11:11:42 PM

Quote :

"We could start, however, by expecting Obama to stand by his statements--both to the letter and in the spirit of those statements--concerning what he said he would do in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it appears to me and a great many others of various political stripes that Obama could just stop "dithering" concerning a decision of any sort and immediately provide his hand-picked commander on the ground with the resources that he has so urgently requested in order to do what is necessary. "

So you would rather Obama stand by statements he made during the campaign, than to evaluate the current information he has access to as president?

How dumb are you?

11/24/2009 12:00:49 AM

Shut the fuck up.

11/24/2009 12:17:47 AM

Quote :

"Shut the fuck up."

Another quality, substantive, well thought-out response from our good friend, hacksaw. Again with the first amendment hatin'.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : another]

11/24/2009 12:19:15 AM

^ You obviously don't understand how the First Amendment works. And you can't even see the paradox in your statement.

11/24/2009 12:21:36 AM

^ I understand how it works just fine, thanks. Your response to him was exactly four words, zero of which added anything substantive to the discussion. You wanna get back on topic now, or cry more?

11/24/2009 12:22:43 AM

^ You wanna go read the First Amendment and get back to me?

11/24/2009 12:27:04 AM

Nope, I'm good. I just find it ironic that you want everyone else to shut up when they have things to offer that run counter to your worldview. Cry more.

11/24/2009 12:29:05 AM

^ I can say just about whatever I like. Read the First Amendment.

I may want dumbasses to "STFU" here quite often (and I believe I'm correct in this), but it's the leftists in this country that routinely attempt to silence speech with which they disagree. If you don't know this, you're either an idiot or an ideologue.

11/24/2009 12:37:14 AM

Quote :

"I may want dumbasses to "STFU" here quite often (and I believe I'm correct in this), but it's the leftists in this country that routinely attempt to silence speech with which they disagree. If you don't know this, you're either an idiot or an ideologue."

Again, you want people that disagree with you to be quiet, while you talk as much as you want? Holy crap, you're a walking contradiction! Or, sitting/typing one in this case, I suppose. And now you're a righty, doing the same thing you accuse lefties of doing. Whatever point you think you made, you managed to talk yourself right out of it. This is fascinating. Do you have anything else for us?

11/24/2009 12:39:58 AM

^ I am free to say or type "STFU"--but I have no real expectation that anyone will do so. Far-left loons like you, though, actively pursue/enforce campus speech codes, the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine (or something akin to it), and so on.

BTW, STFU.

FREEDOM!!!1

11/24/2009 12:48:17 AM

Quote :

"Far-left loons like you, though, actively pursue/enforce campus speech codes, the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine (or something akin to it), and so on."

Hahahahahaha. This is so laughably idiotic that I don't know how to respond to it. I'm trying to pursue or enforce a campus speech code? Holy shit that's funny. I'm trying to do it on THE WOLF WEB. Hahahahahaha. Oh my god, you are a great big douche. Thanks for a good laugh, I needed that.

11/24/2009 1:00:28 AM

^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?

11/24/2009 1:09:34 AM

^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?

see what did there, captain amazing?

11/24/2009 1:17:21 AM

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

11/24/2009 1:25:00 AM

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

11/24/2009 1:25:58 AM

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you usually support left-wing candidates and politicians?"

Quote :

"^ Don't you support fearmongering, hate, and spending lots of money on wars instead of directly helping people in our own country?"

NICE CONTRIBUTIONS, KIDS!

11/24/2009 1:42:06 AM

and you're doing any better?

11/24/2009 1:44:15 AM

Quote :

" I can say just about whatever I like. Read the First Amendment.... I am free to say or type "STFU"--but I have no real expectation that anyone will do so."

The first amendment does not protect you from the terms of a privately-owned website such as this. The only reason you are free to be a childish, disrespectful moron is because this site is practically unmoderated. Any other place, you would not be tolerated for long.

11/24/2009 2:26:12 AM

^

Quote :

"The first amendment does not protect you from the terms of a privately-owned website such as this."

Yes, you have a firm grasp of the obvious. My comments weren't exclusive to this site. STFU.

11/24/2009 3:14:54 AM

wow

11/24/2009 8:54:33 AM

Obama Says He Intends to ‘Finish the Job’ in Afghanistan

Quote :

"Mr. Obama, offering a tantalizing preview of what looms as one of the momentous decisions of his presidency, said he would tell the American people about “a comprehensive strategy” embracing civilian and diplomatic efforts as well as the continuing military campaign. While he avoided any hints of the new troop levels he foresees in Afghanistan, the president signaled that he will not be talking about a short-term commitment but rather an effort muscular enough to “dismantle and degrade” the enemy and ensure that “Al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate” in the region. ... For two hours on Monday evening, Mr. Obama held his ninth meeting in the Situation Room with his war council. The session began at 8:13 p.m., aides said, and ended at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Obama’s military and national security advisers came back to him with answers he had requested in previous meetings, most of which focused on these questions: Where are the off-ramps for the military? And what is the exit strategy? The conversation settled around sending about 30,000 more American troops, two officials said, the first of which would deploy early next year to be in place in southern or eastern Afghanistan by the spring. The troop reinforcements would most likely be sent in waves, according to an official speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss war strategy. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 2:15:00 PM

COMING SOON!

And speaking of warfare, there's this bit of class warfare from the Democrats (who else):

David Obey Calls for War Tax on Wealthy
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is the latest lawmaker to call for a new tax aimed at the rich to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5748813.shtml

11/24/2009 3:13:40 PM

Those lousy democrats! actually trying to pay for stuff... it's like they think debts aren't good enough for the American people.

11/24/2009 3:20:29 PM

It's funny how most Democrats were anti-war while Bush was in office. Now, suddenly, we have to stay. We shouldn't be finding ways to pay for it, we should be leaving.

11/24/2009 3:23:39 PM

I would love it if we could leave, but it would be political suicide of Obama made that decision (and i think in the ideal world it's what he would do), and it is a very practical concern that just leaving would embiggen the Taliban and Al-Q.

I'm curious to know what Obama means by a comprehensive plan though. If he really has a comprehensive plan with a clear exit strategy (that's realistic), then that would be superior to just leaving and letting the sore that is Afghanistan-pakistan just fester.

11/24/2009 3:26:23 PM

I think a lot of them would like to leave, but it's admittedly a lot harder to do at this point. If they draw down quickly, someone's gonna accuse them (again) of cutting and running. If they draw down over time, people are still gonna get killed and an asston of money will still get spent. Still, I don't think we're going to accomplish much good over there no matter how long we stay.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : edit]

11/24/2009 3:27:46 PM

SOAK

THE

RICH

11/24/2009 3:28:22 PM