Official thread in which we make clear what we want Obama to do regarding Afghanistan

[seminal]

This thread is meant to put us on record stating what we consider good and what we consider bad among the things President Obama can do in the next few days or weeks regarding the recommendations given to him by his generals in Afghanistan.

This roll call is meant to make it more difficult for some to

1) stay silent now and simply applaud (after the fact) whatever Obama decides to do, and
2) stay silent now and simply criticize (after the fact) whatever decision Obama makes.

My view is that the President should keep the same troop level. Less troops would be ok, and more troops would be bad. Your turn.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. What do you think the troops are doing there?

[johnaries]

2. I don't have enough information. I think that Obama should

gather as much info on the situation and our options as possible. Listen to all of the ideas and opinions from his experts, review all the options and then make a decision.

Oh, wait, that's what he's doing!

[Hansel]

26. +1

[question everything]

3. I often wonder about those "official" threads, usually in ALL CAPS

and with bold stars.

Who decides what is "official" on DU?

What if three people start a similar thread at the same time, say, about a debate, or a press conference? Are the other two being banned, or their threads locked and their Inbox get swamped?

Do they get special avatars identifying them as "unofficial?"

Just asking.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. ^-^

[timeforpeace]

4. Why do you hate people who stay silent now and then applaud or criticize after the fact?

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Leave ,with our money ,with Pakistan intact ,with our relationship as good...

as ever with the muslim world ,they will do to each other what they allow done to them,we will use technology and Diplomacy to effect the world, my hope.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. My preference would be for all troops to be taken out of

Afghanistan and for the search for Al-Qaeda to be conducted as more of an international law enforcement effort. Apparently there are barely 100 Al Qaeda operatives still remaining in Afghanistan, so it seems rather wasteful and foolish to throw even more human and monetary resources into this place where empires go to die. The Taliban aren't nice, but they're certainly not the only assholes on the face of the planet. We can't take out all the bad guys, no matter how many forces we deploy around the world.

I think it's time to bring the soldiers home, and let the military regroup and recoup. They've been stretched to the breaking point over the past nine years, and for what?


I'm a pacifist...I seldom think that war is the answer.

[Hansel]

27. I like the idea of an international law enforcement effort as well.

This is what Bush should have don't in the 1st place. My hope is that this is the direction Obama is trying to stir this mess in. I'm sure much of this change in strategy is already going on behind the scenes. He has to have some wins in this direction 1st though so that the RWs don't have a chance to pounce on the "cut and run" meme.

[bigwillq]

8. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[masuki bance]

9. It's time to end the occupations. nt

[karynnj]

10. My view is that he review everything and decide what his goals are, what the best strategy for that

is and what the number of troops needed for that is. I think then he will have to speak to the country and make a solid case for the the goals, then the best strategy and finally, defend the number of troops needed given all of that. He is incredibly wise to be doing this now. At that point, I will listen to his logic and the logic of anyone else using facts to back that plan or an alternative. Now, I know you will say this answer ia a cop out and exactly what you want to prevent - people saying one thing now and changing depending on Obama's action.

I have listened to the 4 SFRC hearings on this, designed to test the underlying assumptions made by each strategy. Even the brilliant Chair of the committee is still making an effort to get more information and will be going to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obviously, he feels this will help him better advise Obama. From what I have hear, I would support the counter terrorism approach, where we fight only terrorists (ie AlQaeda ) AND coupling this with the type of aid given Pakistan with strict oversight to help with reconstructing (or constructing) Afghanistan. It might require waiting until there is "good enough governance" - a phrase one witness used that many adopted in a hearing. Now, I have no idea how many soldiers this equates to, but I think it would mean adding none, as we are already 20,000 higher than early this year.

Now, no one here has anywhere near the information that Obama, Biden, Kerry et al have available and they are still making a serious attempt to figure out what the down sides of each option is. I know that if a compelling case is made - for a different alternative based on new information, I know I will change my opinion and I suspect others will as well. The idea that there is virtue in never changing your opinion is false.

[vaberella]

14. Agreed. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Three step program

1. Bring Osama's head out on a pike.
2. Declare victory.
3. Get out.

[stray cat]

12. We should let them massacre each other including woman and children and any who aided us

isn't that the peace loving thing to do? As long as we have peace who cares about them - they're just scum :sarcasm:

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. Sadly, I tend to agree with you. I don't know how peace loving, anti-war people...

would be able to live with the fact that more innocents will be killed with an immediate pullout, especially those who were seen as US friendly. It's a tough decision for people of conscience. The anti-warriors on the left seem to only deal in absolutes, they can't seem to fathom shades of gray.

[vaberella]

15. Everyone likes to forget what we did to Pakistan. Idiots the lot.

No one wants more war, but there's no realism when it comes to pull out. They just want it done within a day... they don't realize how important these things are. Or it seems to me that they don't see that we fucked up, we can't leave it, fucked up---we made it worse. To them taking responsibility is just saying so, but not trying to rectify the situation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Absolutely agree.

Ideological purity is fine, but it doesn't necessarily solve this problem. If the president, with all the facts before him, decides to stay put, I'll support him. I want them all home as well, but as you said, we fucked up because we diverted valuable resources to Iraq. I won't hold this against the prez, and I think even Code Pink is reconsidering its opposition, for humanitarian reasons.

[orpupilofnature57]

23. You don't seem to realize how arrogant it sounds for you to assume we can

rectify, what we helped cause.There are a lot of things important ,we can't prioritize our own affairs domestically ,thats important.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. You're absolutely right.

Better that WE kill the innocents with drones and missiles.

Gotcha.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Dead is dead, no matter who does the killing. The fact of the matter is..

that death is inevitable whether we pull out, or whether we stay. And either way, we're responsible.
But your usual sarcastic wit is duly noted.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Okay then. Death is inevitable, and either way, we're responsible.

Then why fucking stay?

If it doesn't matter who does the killing, why does it have to be US?

[vaberella]

20. You're being intentionally obtuse and making outlandish claims. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Ask Code Pink. I choose not to engage you further, because there's not a chance in hell..

that I'll believe you about anything. Sorry.:-(

[Warren Stupidity]

25. An oddly familiar argument...

ah yes, late in the Viet Nam War, long after it was clear that it was unwinnable, whatever winning meant, one of the many justifications for continuing to slaughter Vietnamese people was that, absent our slaughter (which by this time was mostly from the air) there would be 'a bloodbath'. And so it was our moral obligation to continue the slaughter in order to prevent the bloodbath. And all of this was stated with a straight face, with the earnest moralizing lecturing tone you adopt, and without any sense of the absurd irony of the argument.

[bvar22]

22. In case you haven't noticed, we're currently losing.

To keep troop levels the same is lingering and painful suicide.

Elimination of The Taliban is impossible short of slaughtering ALL the local tribes outside of Kabul including Northern Pakistan. Genocide CAN and DOES work militarily....just ask the Native Americans, but I don't think you have the stomach for it. I certainly don't, but for some on DU lately, that is a great idea if it gets us a "win".

To "pacify" Afghanistan, close the border with Pakistan, and stop the opium trade, most conservative estimates are in the 600,000+ troops range (400,000 trained and loyal Afghan troops + 200,000 "coalition" troops. (Bill Moyers, two weeks ago).
I think this plan is pure fantasy, especially the first part where they think it is possible to have 400,000 trained and loyal Afghan troops.
Loyal to whom?.....Karzai?....the corrupt mayor of Kabul?

Eliminate Al-Qaeda?
If you are talking about no Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, that is not too hard.
The estimates range now from between 0 to less than 100.
Al-Qaeda is NOT going to face the US head to head. They will simply cross the border to another country (Pakistan or any of the other Stans) and wait us out.
In effect, we have already eliminated Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Increasing troop levels marginally (40,000) is not an effective alternative.
According to people on the ground, that is not enough to make a difference, just more quagmire spread around a larger number of troops. It is not near enough to secure the southern border, or to take and hold ground in the countryside.


The very best alternative
1)Declare Osama DEAD (probably is anyway).

2)Declare Afghanistan free of AL-Qaeda.

3)Declare VICTORY

4)Bring every single US troop home.


But won't Al-Qaeda move back in once we are gone?
Yes. But they will do that whether we leave tomorrow or ten years from now.

[timeforpeace]

29. True. How did Afghanistan go so bad, so fast? Wasn't like this earlier this year.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. We should get out. Sooner rather than later. nt

[Blue-Jay]

28. You certainly think a lot of yourself, don't you?

[Orangepeel]

30. find a dead body that looks kind of like Bin Laden, declare victory and come home.