Obama's escalating disaster

[IndianaGreen]

Obama's escalating disaster

October 7, 2009

The U.S. war on Afghanistan began eight years ago, and yet today, the U.S. seems further than ever from achieving its goals. The Obama administration is now embroiled in a debate over whether to carry out a further escalation on top of the 21,000 troops Barack Obama ordered to Afghanistan earlier this year.

Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist who writes regularly for Inter Press Service about U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. His latest book is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

He spoke to Eric Ruder about where the debate in the political and military establishment is headed, and what that will mean for Afghanistan.

WHAT'S THE intent behind Gen. Stanley McChrystal's report on Afghanistan? The tone of the report was much more pessimistic than past ones, and it was attached to a request for 40,000 more U.S. troops. Is this the Pentagon's attempt to demand something of Obama that he can't deliver and thus--as in the Vietnam era--shift blame for the crisis to "political leaders" who "tied the hands" of the military?

I'M VERY much persuaded that this is one of the things that McChrystal is thinking about. His report is so remarkably candid in terms of acknowledging the obstacles within Afghan society and the government to the success of any possible counterinsurgency war the U.S. might conceivably wage.

The report has to be considered an effort to paint a very pessimistic picture so that if, in fact, McChrystal is forced to go ahead with the troops he now has, or even if he gets more troops, he is able to point to the report that outlines a situation where failure, if it should occur, wasn't his fault. I think he suspects very strongly that the mission isn't going to work.

DO YOU think there's any chance that McChrystal will get the 40,000 additional troops?

I THINK there's zero chance he's going to get 40,000 troops. The figure is a tip-off that he's almost inviting rejection by Obama.

I suspect that he was already picking up clear signals from his contacts in Washington and in Florida at the Centcom command headquarters that Obama and some of his civilian advisers were very much disillusioned with the idea of fighting a long counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan.

I think that was certainly part of the context in which he wrote that assessment and asked for a number of troops so high that he must have known there was little chance he would actually get it.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/07/obamas-escalating-disaster

[rgbecker]

1. What's up with this post? Negative Recs?

Probably the closest thing to the truth you'll find on this subject. I hope they have given Obama time to read up on this country before he sends anymore troops or spends anymore money. I way leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis. These folks are not a danger to the US.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The unrec bots don't even bother to read the news stories

They knee jerk based on the title alone, or the poster.

[Purveyor]

3. I myself have found this to be very true, indeed. eom

[IndianaGreen]

4. U.S.: Fears of Blame for Defeat Shadow Afghan War Meetings

If DUers were to read the entire OP at the link provided, they would find a hyperlink to this story:

U.S.: Fears of Blame for Defeat Shadow Afghan War Meetings

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 28 (IPS) - In a remarkable parallel with a similar turning point in the Vietnam War 44 years ago, President Barack Obama will preside over a series of meetings in the coming weeks that will determine whether the United States will proceed with an escalation of the Afghanistan War or adjust the strategy to reduce the U.S. military commitment there.

The meetings will take place in the context of a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for 40,000 additional troops, which reached Washington over the weekend. That would bring the total U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan to 108,000 – nearly a 60-percent increase.

Obama has hinted at serious doubts about being drawn more deeply into the war in Afghanistan, and administration officials have signaled that a key issue is whether the proposed counterinsurgency war could be won.

A plan backed by Vice President Joe Biden to scale back U.S. forces in Afghanistan and to focus more narrowly on al Qaeda was one of the options discussed at a Sep. 13 meeting of top administration officials, according to a report in The Age (Melbourne) Friday. That plan would reportedly depend on U.S. Special Forces to track down al Qaeda and ratchet down the counterinsurgency war.

But the decisions that emerge from the coming meetings are more likely to be shaped primarily by the concerns of the military and of the White House about being blamed for a defeat in Afghanistan that now seems far more likely than it did just six months ago.

In that regard, the approaching White House meetings recall similar consultations in June 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson and his civilian advisers responded to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a major troop increase in South Vietnam by discussing ways to limit the U.S. military commitment in South Vietnam.

President Johnson, Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy were all doubtful that the war could be won even with a much larger troop commitment.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48621

[ShortnFiery]

5. Thanks IG ...

Excellent research efforts ... I'm always pleased (and better informed) from reading your threads. :thumbsup:

[JTFrog]

6. I remember when they would lock threads from sites like this.

Socialistworker.org:

"We do not support candidates of capitalist parties like the Democrats or the Republicans."

WSWS being one of them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3631195#3632343

Maybe the mods will catch on again soon. :shrug: