The Surge 2.0 (Afghanistan)

[gonzo8402]

The US is expected to announce a significant surge of up to 45,000 extra troops for Afghanistan after Gordon Brown said that 500 more British troops would be sent to the country.

President Barack Obama's administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce, as early as next week, the substantial increase to its 65,000 troops already serving there.

The decision from Mr Obama comes after he considered a request from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send tens of thousands of extra American troops to the country.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said: "I don't want to put words in the mouths of the Americans but I am fairly confident of the way it is going to come out."

An announcement next week could coincide with a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, due next Thursday and Friday.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the claims, after President Obama met with his war council for the fifth time to map out a new strategy in Afghanistan.

"I would not put any weight behind the fact that a decision has been made, when the President has yet to make a decision," he told reporters in Washington.

"I've seen the report. It's not true, either generally or specifically. The president has not made a decision."

But Ministry of Defence sources indicated that the British Government had been told to expect a substantial increase in the number of of American troops.

Earlier Gordon Brown announced the British force in Afghanistan would increase to 9,500 but was told by former defence secretary John Hutton that he should have sent more troops to Afghanistan six months ago.

Mr Hutton said it would have been “much more helpful” to the British mission if the Prime Minister had listened to military calls for a larger force earlier this year.

Mr Brown previously blocked a military request for almost 2,000 extra troops for Afghanistan.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the former Army chief who is now advising the Conservatives, said that decision left the force fighting with “part of one arm tied behind its back”.

Mr Hutton was defence secretary at the time of the earlier troop request. He resigned from the Cabinet in June.

He made it clear that he wanted the earlier deployment plan to go ahead and suggested that blocking it had undermined the British mission. The Prime Minister “should follow the military advice”, Mr Hutton said. “I think it would have been much more helpful had we had the additional troops there six months ago.”

Defence sources disputed this view, insisting that there were not enough trained troops to deploy at the time.

But Mr Hutton’s words overshadowed Mr Brown’s announcement in the Commons that he would increase the force in Afghanistan, taking British numbers there to 9,500.

As The Daily Telegraph reported last week, a total of 1,000 more British soldiers will go to Helmand province. Five hundred will be new troops from Britain. The remainder is a British battle group currently deployed in Kandahar province under international command.

The Prime Minister said the Kandahar battle group was being redeployed “to meet the changing demands of the campaign, which require greater concentration of our forces in central Helmand”.

He said he supported the new deployments “in principle”, saying that before the troops could be sent, certain conditions must be met. Those terms were that soldiers were properly equipped, that the Afghan government promised more forces to Helmand and that Nato allies bore more of the burden in Afghanistan.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, mocked Mr Brown’s “condition”.

He said: “Won’t many people think: isn’t it the Government’s responsibility to make sure they have that necessary equipment? And might they also ask: why is it that after eight years we are still playing catch-up on equipment?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-up-to-45000-more-troops-to-Afghanistan.html

 

[LennyNero1972]

 

[gonzo8402]

Gibbs denied it. But where there's smoke...

 

[Lamarr]

W. W. D. D.

 

[Panameno718]

At the end of the day Obama will be an even a bigger War Monger than Bush...where are you anti-war protesters now . Endless wars once again sending the youth of this country to die for what .

 

[African Herbsman]

Bait and switch.

 

[BigUnc]

Bait and switch.

This is very true


Check this out


<IFRAME SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[QueEx]

This is very true


Check this out

I thought bait and switch involved the notion of intentionally offering one item (the bait), knowing fully that there was never any intent to provide that item, but, once you're in the door, "switching" to a different item that was intended all along.

Is my definition of bait and switch accurate ? ? ?

If so, how does the article you posted fit squarely within the concept ? ? ?

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

In post 4 of this thread, I post the letters W. W. D. D. (What Would Dubya Do?) Where is the Anti-War left?

Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

 

[lerri]

i just hope that none of you cats out there listening to me. underscore the seriuosness of this announcement.this is the most serious announcement since world war 2.when the japanese bombed pearl harbor.......its that kind of serious.......remember they got a battalion on stanby in maryland right now......i put that on everything. im not bullshitting you or trying to put fear or scare in you.just in case anti-war protest get out of hand.but i got a funny feeling thing's are gonna spiral out of control and plunge this country into civil war.also you need to bare in mind that HR 645 was passed under the bush administration under the homeland security act......in case you dont know what that is.that's the fema gulag's......you cats out there need to take a good look and ask youself is this the kind of world you wanna live in.cause thing's is about to get serious and i mean life threating serious.so to all you obama suppoerters,mccain supporters,sarah palin's and ron paul's. it dont matter which one you supporting .you need to ask youself is this what you really want.but i want you to remember my user name and i want to be the first to say i warned you about this. real talk.

 

[QueEx]

i just hope that

Not going to warn you again. Drop the five point caps.

QueEx

 

[2nd in Charge]

to the Obama detractors ,what should he do ? the Troops over there now need reinforcements - if he pulls out & leaves ,the USA looks bad on the Global Stage - if he doesnt support the Troops over there , he loses respect of the Military

he got stuck with a cluster fuck (thanks GW Bush) ,but being Commander -in- Chief he will have to make some tough decisions

 

[Lamarr]

to the Obama detractors ,what should he do ? the Troops over there now need reinforcements - if he pulls out & leaves ,the USA looks bad on the Global Stage - if he doesnt support the Troops over there , he loses respect of the Military

ah, I get it..................................Stay The Course! ! ! !

 

[QueEx]

ah, I get it..................................Stay The Course! ! ! !

1. Though the poster may have oversimplified the matter; assuming that the
   administration is refining the mission/goals, (I say assuming until we have
   seen the plan and assessed whether in fact thats so), how would refining
   simply mean staying the course ? ? ?
   
   
2. I understand that you're some kind of pacificist or dove; and I understand
   that is your position that we can't afford to be in Afghanistan, but,
   
   
   • (A) do you feel secure enough in that position so as to believe that
     there is no <u>reasonable</u> <u>threat</u> of A.Q., using Afghanistan to fulfill its aims
     if we simply withdraw; and
   
   
   • (B) if you are not reasonably certain that A.Q., will not so use Afghanistan,
     when should we make the attempt to secure Afghanistan, now while that
     cost may be cheaper; or later, after the threat materializes in the form of
     actual harm and when the cost will be much higher ???

 

[Lamarr]

1. I understand that you're some kind of pacificist or dove; and I understand that is your position that we can't afford to be in Afghanistan, but,
   
   
   • (A) do you feel secure enough in that position so as to believe that there is no <u>reasonable</u> <u>threat</u> of A.Q., using Afghanistan to fulfill its aims if we simply withdraw; and
   
   
   • (B) if you are not reasonably certain that A.Q., will not so use Afghanistan, when should we make the attempt to secure Afghanistan, now while that cost may be cheaper; or later, after the threat materializes in the form of actual harm and when the cost will be much higher ???

True, my main reason in opposing the Wars is the debt we are accumulating but we can go beyond that! We must listen to our 'enemy' to understand why they hate. They don't hate us for our freedoms as George Bush and others would have you believe. OBL outlined 3 reasons long before 9/11.

1) you are occupying our land
2) you are draining resources from our land
3) the unconditional support of Israel in the Palestinian conflict

On the surface, it appears to be a legitimate gripe. Put the shoe on the other foot and Americans would kick a lot of azz in handling a foreign invader. From a (foreign) policy standpoint, nothing has changed from the last administration to the present. These 3 elements still remain as long as this is true, expect more hatred towards the US!

To add to that point, it's been 8 yrs bruh. We are 'breeding' more hatred to a new generation of Afghans. It's time for "change", the oppurtunity is there!

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union.

 

[QueEx]

`

Before we get in to the other matters you advance; lets first see if we can establish some boundaries, with these:

1) you are occupying our land
2) you are draining resources from our land
3) the unconditional support of Israel in the Palestinian conflict

(1) What lands belonging to bin Laden are we occupying ??? and

(2) What resources are we draining from those lands (by draining resources, I presume that you mean taking resources, without paying for them) ???


QueEx

 

[lerri]

`

Before we get in to the other matters you advance; lets first see if we can establish some boundaries, with these:



(1) What lands belonging to bin Laden are we occupying ??? and

(2) What resources are we draining from those lands (by draining resources, I presume that you mean taking resources, without paying for them) ???


QueEx

that land doesnt belong to bin laden or al-queda.that land belongs to the citizen's of afghanistan........the resource battle had already been won...and i not gonna tell which country or who won the contract.but the united states is pretty much there trying to force the issue dawg......and to be brutally honest with you homes we are headed down the same path as the soviet union.....the same patterns we are taken .are the same one's the soviet union did back between 1979 to 1989.more troop deployment's, a surge, all that is just all too fimilar with the soviet-afghanistan war with the same result's.but the only thing i can hope for. is that the public can have some rationale and consideration,compassion with this process.that is the only thing that deeply disturb's me.

 

[Lamarr]

`

Before we get in to the other matters you advance; lets first see if we can establish some boundaries, with these:

(1) What lands belonging to bin Laden are we occupying ??? and

(2) What resources are we draining from those lands (by draining resources, I presume that you mean taking resources, without paying for them) ???

QueEx

Before that, these are not the matters that I advance. I'm referencing Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit. He's written a few books, 1 in particular, Through Our Enemies Eyes.

I'll address your questions:
1) We're talking about Arab land
2) He's refering to Oil (regardless of whether they were paid or not, it's their land)

This just leads me to the irrationality of the whole "War on Terror".

1) 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
2) OBL isn't the leader of a nation, How can we invade a nation?

Seriously, how do we justify displacing all those Afghans through these actions that they may not be directly related to?

Not to appear facetious, Don't you think these cats have relocated by now, It has been 8 yrs.

This is a law-enforcement issue (As Clinton defended) and I'd be in favor of allocating resources in that manner but not a War.

 

[QueEx]

Before that, these are not the matters that I advance. I'm referencing Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit. He's written a few books, 1 in particular, Through Our Enemies Eyes.

Thank you for pointing out who influences your thought. Since I know you don't expect me to read the book to respond to your thoughts, I won't.

I'll address your questions:
1) We're talking about Arab land

Which Arab country, save Iraq, is complaining about their lands being occupied ??? The U.S. has forces in several Arab countries, the last I heard, all (even in Iraq at present) are there at the invitation of the host Arab government.

I realize that there may be many people who dream of some utopic balance where this country can provide for its security on the one hand - - and avoid becoming embroiled in foreign entaglements, on the other. In fact, many of those people believe that becoming involved in foreign conflicts actually lead to our insecurity. Perhaps, in some cases, foreign involvment does, i.e., in my opinion, the invasion of Iraq. BUT, who honestly believes that our security can be preserved, without international risks ? ? ? WHO ???

Its an unfortunate fact that the world's resources are limited. Nations compete for those resouces. The world is not static and would not be so even if this country withdrew from the competition for resources. War or the threat of war, is inevitable. No country can be secure in its borders or secure the prosperity of its inhabitants that does not compete and take on international risks.

2) He's refering to Oil (regardless of whether they were paid or not, it's their land)

Oil is a resource and, as I said above, all nations do and must compete for resources. If you were talking about the U.S., just taking without paying for oil, that would be one thing, but for you to suggest that this country not seek to secure sources for oil, (a commodity that indisputably we pay dearly for), is well, assinine. What you're saying is tantamount to just waking up one morning and telling the world, you quit; you surrender. That doesn't sound to be in my or my childrens, best interest.

just leads me to the irrationality of the whole "War on Terror".

1) 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
2) OBL isn't the leader of a nation, How can we invade a nation?

YOU bring up the War on Terror. I didn't once say those words. My points relate, unequivocally, to securing Afghanistan.

Seriously, how do we justify displacing all those Afghans through these actions that they may not be directly related to?

I believe the former leaders of Afghanistan are responsible for any relocation as it was those leaders who allowed the use of Afghanistan as a training ground and launching pad for actions of Al Qaeda in other countries, including the U.S.

Not to appear facetious, Don't you think these cats have relocated by now, It has been 8 yrs.

Have you had your head up your ass for the past 8 years ???

This is a law-enforcement issue (As Clinton defended) and I'd be in favor of allocating resources in that manner but not a War.

*SMH* Law enforcement, also known as policing, is precisely what has gone on in Afghanistan since Tora Bora.

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

Which Arab country, save Iraq, is complaining about their lands being occupied ??? The U.S. has forces in several Arab countries, the last I heard, all (even in Iraq at present) are there at the invitation of the host Arab government.

Good point, however, this is an issue that Bin Laden had! 1 man & his network opposed US forces on the Arabian peninsula (and it should be treated as such). I'll stay consistent with my argument and say that man & his network should be rounded up and brought to justice. A war and an increase in troop levels after for 8 yrs is grossly inefficient. I suppose sometime this week we will hear about the mission is being redefined. Stay The Course! ! ! !

As far as us being there at the invitation of those govts, that is the very problem. 200+ yrs ago, we were advised to trade with all but to have entangling alliances with none! I think the Arabs should manage their own affairs, bring our kids home now!

I realize that there may be many people who dream of some utopic balance where this country can provide for its security on the one hand - - and avoid becoming embroiled in foreign entaglements, on the other. In fact, many of those people believe that becoming involved in foreign conflicts actually lead to our insecurity. Perhaps, in some cases, foreign involvment does, i.e., in my opinion, the invasion of Iraq. BUT, who honestly believes that our security can be preserved, without international risks ? ? ? WHO ???

We shouldn't fear conflict with any nation, If we must got to War, Let's have a "Declaration of War", take care of business with the full might of the US military (where the mission is clear & the exit strategy is defined). Notice I didn't say an "Authorization". I'm still of the opinion that this endeavor is Unconstitutional.

Oil is a resource and, as I said above, all nations do and must compete for resources. If you were talking about the U.S., just taking without paying for oil, that would be one thing, but for you to suggest that this country not seek to secure sources for oil, (a commodity that indisputably we pay dearly for), is well, assinine. What you're saying is tantamount to just waking up one morning and telling the world, you quit; you surrender. That doesn't sound to be in my or my childrens, best interest.

What slightly confuses me is 2 things:
1) Why do we act like there is no oil here? We can still trade with other nations, Whats the problem with being self-sufficient? We dependin' on foreigners for toooo much!
2) Why don't we see China's military securing their national interests around the world?

In regards to you & your kids best interest, hell, add me & mine: Are you convinced that the US won't go the way of the Soviet Union? They stayed the course too! We are only incurring more debt and digging a deeper whole for ourselves by extending this policy.

[/QUOTE]

 

[lerri]

Thank you for pointing out who influences your thought. Since I know you don't expect me to read the book to respond to your thoughts, I won't.




Which Arab country, save Iraq, is complaining about their lands being occupied ??? The U.S. has forces in several Arab countries, the last I heard, all (even in Iraq at present) are there at the invitation of the host Arab government.

I realize that there may be many people who dream of some utopic balance where this country can provide for its security on the one hand - - and avoid becoming embroiled in foreign entaglements, on the other. In fact, many of those people believe that becoming involved in foreign conflicts actually lead to our insecurity. Perhaps, in some cases, foreign involvment does, i.e., in my opinion, the invasion of Iraq. BUT, who honestly believes that our security can be preserved, without international risks ? ? ? WHO ???

Its an unfortunate fact that the world's resources are limited. Nations compete for those resouces. The world is not static and would not be so even if this country withdrew from the competition for resources. War or the threat of war, is inevitable. No country can be secure in its borders or secure the prosperity of its inhabitants that does not compete and take on international risks.




Oil is a resource and, as I said above, all nations do and must compete for resources. If you were talking about the U.S., just taking without paying for oil, that would be one thing, but for you to suggest that this country not seek to secure sources for oil, (a commodity that indisputably we pay dearly for), is well, assinine. What you're saying is tantamount to just waking up one morning and telling the world, you quit; you surrender. That doesn't sound to be in my or my childrens, best interest.





YOU bring up the War on Terror. I didn't once say those words. My points relate, unequivocally, to securing Afghanistan.



I believe the former leaders of Afghanistan are responsible for any relocation as it was those leaders who allowed the use of Afghanistan as a training ground and launching pad for actions of Al Qaeda in other countries, including the U.S.



Have you had your head up your ass for the past 8 years ???



*SMH* Law enforcement, also known as policing, is precisely what has gone on in Afghanistan since Tora Bora.

QueEx

seem's to me that your type. is beckoning for world war 3 thermonuclear holocaust to come right at your door step's.why dont you tell the people who are running this country with the elites to just go ahead and get it over with.quit wasting civilization's time.cause it seem's like china want's to run the world,THE us,russia everybody wants to have there say and influence and everybody is willing to go through military means to do it.why dont you just end it all for civilization.cause nobody is not gonna let the US DICTATE AND INFLUENCE THE WORLD NO MORE.AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WERE WE HEADED.JUST END IT ALL FOR EVERYBODY INCLUDING THEMSELVES.

 

[HAR125LEM]

We are such a country of Fuckin' big ego and short memory.

So many folks refuse to remember the practical decimation of Soviet Forces by the Afghans during the 80s. All those Russian troops were coming home with lost limbs, faces blown half-off and everything.

This is the MAJOR thing that's pissing me off with Obama right now.
This Dude is making a major mistake.
And he's going to pay for it.

 

[African Herbsman]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eH60o8RmOUU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eH60o8RmOUU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Lamarr]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Newt-Gingrich-praises-Obama-apf-137648315.html?x=0&.v=1

Former House speaker Gingrich says Obama shows political courage on Afghanistan

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is praising President Barack Obama for political courage on Afghanistan.

The Georgia Republican says Obama is doing what he thinks is right for the country by increasing the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. But Gingrich predicts that Obama will have trouble pulling out troops in 2011, and that there will still be U.S. troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2012.

Gingrich says Obama made a difficult decision that took considerable courage because it will split his supporters.

Gingrich spoke to reporters Wednesday night in Cincinnati, where he was leading a town hall meeting on job creation on the eve of the president's job forum in Washington. Hundreds turned out at a downtown hotel to hear Gingrich promote cutting taxes and reducing government spending.

 

[Lamarr]

A modern day "Stripes" with the Afghan army!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AzAl33b8QBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AzAl33b8QBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Afghanistan's No. 2 Taliban leader
captured in Pakistan</font size></center>


McClatchy Newspapers
By Saeed Shah
February 16, 2010


KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban's second in command has been captured in neighboring Pakistan, Taliban, Pakistani and U.S. sources said Tuesday, dealing a serious blow to the insurgency and raising hopes that Taliban chief Mullah Omar could also be apprehended.

The capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, believed to be the key strategist of the Taiban's military campaign, also is likely to knock the Taliban off balance just as a massive U.S.-led offensive is pressing the insurgents on the battlefield in the southern province of Helmand.

it also may mark a strategic U-turn by Pakistan, which has been accused of secretly supporting the Taliban and hosting its leadership, despite officially breaking ties with the movement after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped the Taliban seize power in Afghanistan in the mid 1990s.

Baradar, the most senior Taliban figure arrested in years, was snatched last week in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi by U.S. and Pakistani intelligence forces.

A Pakistani official who asked not to named because he was not authorized to speak to reporters said that Baradar was arrested in the Baldia Town area of Karachi.

"There was not much resistance," the official added.

A senior U.S. military official confirmed Baradar's capture. "We got him," the official said.

The Taliban's leadership was thought to have been based in the western Pakistani city of Quetta, close to the Afghan border. But with the growing U.S. offensive in Afghanistan, many reportedly relocated to Karachi, a bustling city where they might easily blend in. Baldia Town, in Karachi's west, has a sizeable population of ethnic Pashtuns, the group that makes up most of the Taliban. Some 3 million Pashtuns live in Karachi, making it easy for Afghan Taliban to mingle with the population.

A former senior Taliban official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that Baradar was captured “some time ago.”

“Pakistan has arrested this man to put pressure on the Taliban, so they have to accept whatever Pakistan says,” the former Taliban said. It was not clear where Baradar was being held.

Baradar is believed to be the key interlocutor in tentative behind-the-scenes peace talks between the Afghan government, the international community and the Taliban. His representatives met with the top United Nations official in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, in Dubai last month. He is said to head the Taliban’s supreme council or shura, and the only figure above him is Mullah Omar, the founder and spiritual leader of the movement, who has not been seen since 2001.

(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent. McClatchy Pentagon correspondent Nancy A. Youssef contributed from Amman, Jordan.)


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/85369.html