Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser

[SMR 368]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

That's a real possibility. The Taliban does have a lot of popular support in parts of the country. But a real democracy should give the citizens the ability to elect who they want not who we want.

If what they want is the government that was in place when we came here, wouldn't that make this whole operation a huge waste of time?

The Taliban isn't a democracy and never has been. They could elect in the people that want, but if it's a real democracy, they'll be able to get rid of them after a couple of years (or keep them, if they want).

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It doesn't fit with their arguments.

Joe, go back to your coloring books.

For me personally, I think it's an all or nothing situation. If you don't fully support the operation, then all you are doing is endangering those who are there already and accomplish nothing. I don't really see any solution. The Iraqi war is unjustified and the only reason we stay there is because Bush spent so much on bases and that god foresaken embassy compound that the current administrations hands are tied. I imagine there is some strategic advantage to having a military presence there, but at what cost? The Afghanistan war seems quite untenable. We've had a look into the future at how this war will go, anyone remember the Soviet attempt at it in the 80's? Those who we are seeking will strike and then flee into the Pakistan where we cannot follow (far). So what are we doing? Seems like shuffling around the pieces on the board.

The troop levels should be dictated by the goals of the mission. However at this time, the mission no longer has clear goals. AQ and the Taliban are not one in the same, they both have different goals. But are sort of support each other, by "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

If the goal is to just deal with AQ, then we don't need to have even nearly the number of troops that we currently have in the country. If the goal is to bring lasting democracy into the country, than we need more troops than current requests are asking for an a commitment of time that's likely to be another decade.

LoL, if our goal is to have lasting democracy there, what happens when they democratically vote in the taliban as Palestinians voted overwhealmingly for Hamas?

That's a real possibility. The Taliban does have a lot of popular support in parts of the country. But a real democracy should give the citizens the ability to elect who they want not who we want.

If what they want is the government that was in place when we came here, wouldn't that make this whole operation a huge waste of time?

The Taliban isn't a democracy and never has been. They could elect in the people that want, but if it's a real democracy, they'll be able to get rid of them after a couple of years (or keep them, if they want).

Seriously? If they elect in the Taliban, then the rules change and the Taliban once again will not give up power.

[nowhereman 1]

We're into nation building folks. You can argue whether or not that supports our national interests, but it's pretty much a fact.

[Dan J 277]

No comments from the Obama OT brigade?

Now I'm worried.

Most of us were sleeping at 12:11 am. I am concerned that President Obama is taking too long to make his decision, as time is critical. If I were Obama I would filter out the comments from the far right & liberals (which is good advice in almost any situation), have a long closed door discussion with SecDef Gates & General McCrystal and then make a decision based heavily on their input.

They've both already given him their opinions, and he is ignoring them for the time being until he weighs what will look best for him.

Gates & McCrystal are level headed & generally non-partisan, so I would listen to them. If they are both calling for 40,000 troops that is what I would do.

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

[nowhereman 1]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

[Dan J 277]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

[Dan J 277]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

That's true as well.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

Not to the military as a whole.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

Not to the military as a whole.

That is what I meant. The army has black and white goals while the rest of the country lives in various shades of gray. That isn't a judgement.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

Not to the military as a whole.

That is what I meant. The army has black and white goals while the rest of the country lives in various shades of gray. That isn't a judgement.

And if you'd read the thread, you'd know that I was talking in reference to the person who said the military was making political or PR decisions, which obviously is not true. They have one objective.

[nowhereman 1]

I think listening to just them can also be dangerous. Those involved in the military, are going to be biased into keeping troop morale up and avoid being seen as a failure. They will be willing to suggest a course of action, that may be ultimately futile but has the appearance that they are suggesting a strong course of action. They can get away with it as the money we spend on this operation is often approved without question.

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

It's clearly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but like I said time is critical & delaying action is counter-productive no matter what the ultimate decision is. Looking back to 2002/2003 I felt that the two people Bush should have listened to were Colin Powell & General Shinseki, but instead he listened to VP Cheney & SecDef Rumsfeld (which was clearly the wrong choice). President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma & IMO he should go with McCrystal & Gates.

I agree partly, and I think in reference to the post before yours - I do not believe the military has political or PR reasons for their recommendations. Their recommendations would obviously come from an objective to win. It would be up to the public whether they agree or not, but nonetheless, I have faith in the military leaders. I cannot bring myself to believe they are political in their recommendations.

It becomes political as we ultimately have to pay for it. Both in money and in lives lost.

Also, what is defined as a "win" is vastly different across the board.

Not to the military as a whole.

That is what I meant. The army has black and white goals while the rest of the country lives in various shades of gray. That isn't a judgement.

Well you have to understand the military culture as well. Military leaders tend to put a positive spin on things, for a couple of reasons. First of all it helps morale. Secondly failure is not an option. I have seen this many times during my Army career, but obviously at a lower (tactical) level. For example you may have an exercise that didn't go particularly well but at the AAR (After Action Review) everyone is slapping each other on the back & saying "good job".

Same thing happens in the corporate world as well, but you just have to keep this in the back of your mind when trying to be objective about how well a military exercise or operation is going.

[alienlovechild 75]

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

More to it than that the surge helped assert that the U.S. wasn't pulling out and able to cover more terrority. It wasn't a coincidence. The foreign fighters for Al Qaeda were shooting up neighborhoods and generally earning the wrath of local tribal chiefs. In addition, the Sunnis realized that once the U.S. left, they'd have under the thumb of a Shiite dominated government and left without the oil-producing regions.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

For example you may have an exercise that didn't go particularly well but at the AAR (After Action Review) everyone is slapping each other on the back & saying "good job".

see that one quite often still - oh yeah comms was up 99% of the time and the system ran perfectly!

ohai - rit only because i had to tell your operator how to fix their chit, all due to a leadership failure in training that person..