Afghanistan s turning into a quagmire...

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Obama administration is asking Congress for time to see whether a revamped war plan for Afghanistan is taking hold and does not rule out adding more American forces to help turn around a war widely assessed as a stalemate.

James Jones, a retired Marine general with experience in Afghanistan, said the United States will know by the end of next year whether the strategy President Barack Obama announced in March is working. In the meantime the White House is redefining how it will measure progress, with new benchmarks expected next month. The outline will be presented to Congress with an eye to creeping skepticism among many Democrats about the war's prognosis and costs.

Making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, Jones said the war is not now in crisis but did little to dispel the growing expectation that Obama would soon be asked to supplement the 21,000 additional forces he already approved for Afghanistan this year.

"We won't rule anything out," but the new strategy is too fresh for a full evaluation, Jones said.

If the administration is sending people out to say the war is not in crises, then you damned well know it is...

As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year.

The costs are almost certain to keep growing. The Obama administration is in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, putting its focus on long-term security, economic sustainability and development. That approach is also likely to require deployment of more American military personnel, at the very least to train additional Afghan security forces.

Later this month, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to present his analysis of the situation in the country. The analysis could prompt an increase in U.S. troop levels to help implement President Obama's new strategy.

Military experts insist that the additional resources are necessary. But many, including some advising McChrystal, say they fear the public has not been made aware of the significant commitments that come with Washington's new policies.

"We will need a large combat presence for many years to come, and we will probably need a large financial commitment longer than that," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the "strategic assessment" team advising McChrystal. The expansion of the Afghan security force that the general will recommend to secure the country "will inevitably cost much more than any imaginable Afghan government is going to be able to afford on its own," Biddle added.

"Afghan forces will need $4 billion a year for another decade, with a like sum for development," said Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine who has chronicled the Iraq and Afghan wars. Bing said the danger is that Congress is "so generous in support of our own forces today, it may not support the aid needed for progress in Afghanistan tomorrow."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html

The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the commander offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.

Gen. McChrystal said the Taliban are moving beyond their traditional strongholds in southern Afghanistan to threaten formerly stable areas in the north and west.

The militants are mounting sophisticated attacks that combine roadside bombs with ambushes by small teams of heavily armed militants, causing significant numbers of U.S. fatalities, he said. July was the bloodiest month of the war for American and British forces, and 12 more American troops have already been killed in August.

"It's a very aggressive enemy right now," Gen. McChrystal said in the interview Saturday at his office in a fortified NATO compound in Kabul. "We've got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It's hard work."

Where's the loyal opposition now? ​

 

[Bert Notorius]

It's just now turning into a quagmire?

*blinks*

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's just now turning into a quagmire?

*blinks*

You have a point there, but to the loyal opposition, it was, and remains, the right war...



*swallows*

 

[Holy Devil]

Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan was UN sponsored but America sent the most troops. Obama is doing the right thing. We should have faith in him.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Keep up the faith. Many will die for faith in Obama.





Now, comfort the families, tell them what they will achieve with the conquest and occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[firespin]

What Bert said. (Did I really type that?)

In order to defeat the Taliban, the people that live in Afghanistan have to see the Taliban as a less desirable option than the alternative.

Anybody confident that's the case?

 

[tactful]

The hills have are all turning to mud? Damn, that's alot of fucking rain there.
It's really bad to fight on somebody else's home turf, especially, if there are rules and shit, you know like Vietnam.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What Bert said. (Did I really type that?)

In order to defeat the Taliban, the people that live in Afghanistan have to see the Taliban as a less desirable option than the alternative.

Anybody confident that's the case?

Not me. The Taliban are more a part of the people than we will ever be. We were going to win hearts and minds in Vietnam too...

We're trying to change the people, the Taliban are trying to preserve the ways of their people; freedom fighters!

*snicker*

If McCain were president, we would be hearing the gnashing of teeth and the tearing of sack cloth...

The hypocrisy hangs heavy in the air, like the smell of napalm.

 

[Saint Peter]

Any war can be called a quagmire.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Six-Day War?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Falklands?

 

[Saint Peter]

The Six-Day War?

I said war. Real war.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Not me. The Taliban are more a part of the people than we will ever be. We were going to win hearts and minds in Vietnam too...

We're trying to change the people, the Taliban are trying to preserve the ways of their people; freedom fighters!

*snicker*

If McCain were president, we would be hearing the gnashing of teeth and the tearing of sack cloth...

The hypocrisy hangs heavy in the air, like the smell of napalm.

Speaking of hypocrisy, did you complain about the war in Afghanistan when Bush was president?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Speaking of hypocrisy, did you complain about the war in Afghanistan when Bush was president?

Of course he didn't. AJ and Vetteman thought war was kewl back then. It allowed them to puff up their chests and stuff and sing Lee Greenwood songs. But most of all, it allowed them to question the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree with them, which is what those two cowards liked to do more than ANYTHING!

 

[The_Trouvere]

Of course he didn't. AJ and Vetteman thought war was kewl back then. It allowed them to puff up their chests and stuff and sing Lee Greenwood songs. But most of all, it allowed them to question the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree with them, which is what those two cowards liked to do more than ANYTHING!

Don't call vetteman a coward. He won the War in Vietnam all by himself.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Show me where I said it was "Kewl" or anything but war. You accused our Marines of first degree murder, I suggested we wait for the facts, you said I had no honor. The facts came in, those Marines were acquitted, or charges were dropped, you were wrong, you have no honor, your rush to judgment was motivated by hate, hate for your country, hate for our military, and hate for the Commander In Chief. You're a spiteful little nothing, a piece of roadkill on the highway of truth.

*points and laughs at Vetteman*

Go out and get the audiobook of 2 time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Ricks called The Gamble. (I won't ask you to read it, you don't need that sort of pressure, but you should be able to handle listening to it).

The first 100 or so pages of the book, which deals with the chronology of "the Surge", talks about the Haditha Marine fiasco as the catalyst for the Surge.

Long story short: The Marines were getting their asses kicked in Anbar province in 2005. They weren't winning, they weren't "not winning", the Marines were being defeated at nearly every single turn for the first time in Marine history. The Marines, frustrated, took a page from the My Lai massacre and began shooting at everything that moved. A platoon of Marines slaughtered an extended family of Iraqis.

That was a tragedy.

Little known outside of military circles, however, was the ressssst of the story:

• The Marine company commander participated in the coverup/whitewash.
• The Marine battalion commander participated in the coverup/whitewash.
• The Marine fucking BRIGADE commander participated in the coverup/whitewash.

ONLY when the coverup got to the EXPEDITIONARY FORCE level was it exposed. Thank God America had an ARMY officer who recognized that "honor" was more than lip service. He stopped the coverup in its tracks, exposed the pervasive lying and lack of honor in the Marine officer structure, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff then read the fucking riot act to the fucking COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, who in turn was on the next fucking plane to Iraq to remind the theater Marines just exactly what HONOR was.

Read the book if you can, tard. You'll be sickened. We had an entire generation of Marine officers raised on quick resolution wars that just can't seem to hack it in a protracted conflict. Like you, they're good at raising the flag and thumping their chests and bragging about their macho-ness. But as far as honor goes....they came up woefully short.

Just
Like
You.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Speaking of hypocrisy, did you complain about the war in Afghanistan when Bush was president?

At the end I did in that I supported Karzai in opposing the Bush doctrine and opening a dialog and negotiations with the Taliban because you will never defeat them and they never would have come to power if our Congress had not pulled the rug out from the Afghan's feet at the moment of victory in order to save money.

The Democrats were all saying as soon as Bush went into Iraq that he took his eye off the right war.

I would have supported Obama had he followed the path of negotiation and reaching out to our enemies, but alas, the Democratic rhetoric about hunting down and killing Osama as the benchmark of success seems to have painted him into a corner where if he pursued the rational course, he would, of course, look like a hypocrite and his party too.

You guys on the Left just ascribe and demonize instead of trying to think.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Show me where I said it was "Kewl" or anything but war. You accused our Marines of first degree murder, I suggested we wait for the facts, you said I had no honor. The facts came in, those Marines were acquitted, or charges were dropped, you were wrong, you have no honor, your rush to judgment was motivated by hate, hate for your country, hate for our military, and hate for the Commander In Chief. You're a spiteful little nothing, a piece of roadkill on the highway of truth.

Yeah, Throb and Murtha are both big pieces of dog shit...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Of course he didn't. AJ and Vetteman thought war was kewl back then. It allowed them to puff up their chests and stuff and sing Lee Greenwood songs. But most of all, it allowed them to question the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree with them, which is what those two cowards liked to do more than ANYTHING!

Yeah, and you wanted the war too dumbass...

In fact, the Friday Night before the Saturday Morning liberation of Afghanistan, your party's leaders took to the airways to bash Bush for doing nothing about the Taliban and how they would already be kicking ass and taking names if they were in charge of the war effort.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Show me where I said it was "Kewl" or anything but war. You accused our Marines of first degree murder, I suggested we wait for the facts, you said I had no honor. The facts came in, those Marines were acquitted, or charges were dropped, you were wrong, you have no honor, your rush to judgment was motivated by hate, hate for your country, hate for our military, and hate for the Commander In Chief. You're a spiteful little nothing, a piece of roadkill on the highway of truth.

Tell us another war story, Combat. I want to hear about how you distinguished yourself in Vietnam in the boom boom houses you patronized.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Democratic polity in a nutshell.

If we froze North Korea out of diplomacy, they wanted talks.
If we talked to them one-on-one, they wanted "partners."
If we held six-party talks, they wanted one-on-one talks.







No hypocrisy, just doublespeak.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Where's the loyal opposition now? ​

Well, the Republicans, being the party in the minority, are supposed to be the loyal opposition right now, but appear to show no interest in the "loyal" part . . .

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What Bert said. (Did I really type that?)

In order to defeat the Taliban, the people that live in Afghanistan have to see the Taliban as a less desirable option than the alternative.

Anybody confident that's the case?

I think there are plenty of people in Afghanistan who see the Taliban as a less than desirable option.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is committed to the concept of tribalism. The central government means nothing out in the countryside. Some of those tribes were never enamored with each other to begin with, so the inability to unite in a manner similar to the old "Northern Alliance" usually gives the Taliban the upper hand in dealing with local tribes, and in taking over the country as a whole.

Its the usual problem the United States faces in fighting and winning any war. If we prevail and attempt to engage in nation building, we are the 'ugly Americans.' If we prevail and let the post-war chips fall where they may, there is no guarantee we won't have to eventually go back in and fight the same fight all over again.

In fact, I believe we are doing that in Afghanistan right now.

 

[great lover]

Any war can be called a quagmire.

Not necessarily true.