'Barack Obama urged to act after eight more US soliders die in Afghanistan' (UK Guardian, Oct 5)

[Jackeens]

White House under pressure over troop deployments as US military suffers deadliest day in more than a year

The American military suffered its deadliest day in Afghanistan in more than a year when eight soldiers were killed on Saturday in audacious daytime raids by insurgents on US outposts in the east of the country. The deaths came as calls mounted in Washington and London for decisions to be taken quickly over future troop deployments to Afghanistan.

Barack Obama's administration, which will hold two meetings this week on military strategy in the region, was urged to bring its deliberations to an end swiftly or risk giving the impression of indecisiveness. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of the US central command, told the CBS programme Face the Nation: "We have to be careful how long this goes on. It could be seen as being indecisive, unable to make a decision."

General Sir David Richards, the new head of the British army, said more troops were needed to improve security and take the fight to the Taliban. "If you put in more troops, we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with fewer casualties," he said. "You achieve greater security and the risk to your own troops declines."

The heavy loss of American lives occurred in the remote Nuristan province, close to Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. It was the deadliest raid since a similar attack in the same mountainous region killed nine US soldiers in July last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/05/us-military-afghanistan-deaths-deployment

[hokies]

1. This is what happens when you "muddle through" a war

can't be surprised that things aren't going well after being there almost a decade.

[IndianaGreen]

6. This is what happens when politicians micro-manage a war

Is Obama going to do an LBJ imitation and pick bombing targets as LBJ did, or will he do a JFK and decide to cut bait in Afghanistan?

[hokies]

7. Well, he shouldn't let McChrystal have all the power in war decision-making (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

9. While Obama fiddles with PowerPoint slide show, our troops are being killed in Afghanistan

Troops that are carrying out Obama's war strategy, which was announced in the spring.

[hokies]

12. And around and round we go

where your logic stops, nobody knows. :crazy:

So if Obama hadn't boarded Air Force One for a few hours, those troops wouldn't have died? Moments earlier you were arguing against politicians micromanaging wars, but now you want Obama to micromanage this one? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

13. I realize many of you are suffering from selective memory when it comes to Obama

Back in the spring, Obama announced his war strategy for Afghanistan, referring to it as a "war of necessity." The Pentagon was ordered to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. What was not said, is that the number of troops committed to Afghanistan fell well short of what is needed to carry out Obama's "war of necessity."

Our troops in the field are hard-pressed and operating in very difficult conditions. They need reinforcements now! Obama has not only delayed sending reinforcements, but he has further sunk the US deeper in the Afghani quagmire by endorsing President Karzai's regime, despite incontrovertible evidence of massive electoral fraud.

Obama has two clear choices in Afghanistan: provide the troops and resources needed to carry out his own announced "war of necessity," or cut bait and bring all the troops home.

The status quo, and endless delays in making a decision, is not helping our troops in the field.

Churchill didn't hesitate to commit all of Britain's resources to rescue British troops at Dunkirk.

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. +1 and well said nt

[hokies]

16. All or nothing are the only choices = naive

Well, why not take the "all" in your all or nothing proposal? After all, it's estimated that al Qaeda is in ~100 countries due to its decentralized structure, so why not just invade each one of those countries? When we expel them from Afghanistan why won't they just set up shop in a lawless place like Somalia? Also, where's the money coming from for these extra troops? Or does it grow on trees, contrary to what our parents told us?

Unlike you, I actually think that there's nothing wrong with taking time to make a decision about sending more US troops to Afghanistan. The traditional Afghan fighting season is coming to a close soon, so the troops won't be needed until the spring time (and even if approved by Obama would not deployed anytime soon). You didn't actually think that the 40,000 troops would buy a one-way ticket on American Airlines this weekend, did you? Also, you're not naive enough to think that this will be the final troop request, are you?

By the way, the Soviets sent a total of 620,000 troops to Afghanistan. I wonder how well that worked out for them...

If you knew a street (or country that begins with the letter "A") where every car (or military empire) that tried to drive down it (or send massive amounts of troops) blew out a tire and crashed into the same tree (or ceased to exist), would you drive down that road (or send massive numbers of troops there)?

Perhaps you should realize that with the hilly terrain in Afghanistan, there's no such thing as overwhelming force, excluding using nuclear weapons to level some of the hilly areas where the enemy can just hide.

[jaxx]

2. Let's see the UK send 40,000 more troops or he can shut up.

And the armchair generals.............

[Thrill]

3. Who the fuck cares about winning the war. Bring those troops home

.

[rebel with a cause]

4. Losing eight men today is terrible

but I remember when the numbers were much higher in Iraq and there was no one questioning bush's strategy except 'we the people.'

Maybe I need to slap myself silly so I will feel better tonight.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The Left opposed the Iraq War from day one

While our glorious Democratic representatives stood alongside Bush and Cheney in the Rose Garden to endorse the Iraq War Resolution, the Left demonstrated and petitioned our elected representatives against the war.

The Left is now opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq (yes, it is still going on), and Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter if the President is a Republican, a Democrat, or a Vorlon, the Left will consistently and resolutely oppose the wars.

[IndianaGreen]

11. The casualty rate for US forces is approaching the levels in Iraq in 2006 and 2007

The deaths over the weekend brought the total number of US and NATO troops killed in Afghanistan this year to 399, and for the war as a whole to 1,444. Insurgents have killed over 200 occupation troops in the past three months alone, reflecting the deteriorating military and security situation for the occupation forces. The casualty rate for US forces is approaching that which prevailed during the worst of the fighting in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/afgh-o05.shtml

[ingac70]

5. Sounds like a good reason to pull out to me. n/t

[jeanpalmer]

8. You lose 8 soldiers

and what's the response? Send more soldiers over to die. I say send Sir David over there. I sure hope Obama doesn't cave on this.

[Orsino]

15. Victory is just around the corner.

Pay no attention to the Sicilian in the corner.

[ej510]

17. More deaths and money wasted in this useless war.

We are in Afghanistan and Iraq, because someone is making billions of dollars. Eisenhower "Beware of the military industrial-complex."