Obama adviser: Afghanistan in no immediate danger of falling

[Afronaught]

What he said:

""I don't foresee the return of the Taliban," Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union." "And I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger -- imminent danger -- of falling.""

What he means:

"We are getting ready pull our forces out unexpectedly, the Taliban will retake Afghanistan and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is in Imminent Danger""

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/04/us.afghanistan/index.html?eref=rss_world

[MontysDouble]

Last week I read an unusual thing about Afghanistan: A high ranking US soldier stated that the current approach of hunting taliban is wrong, and the focus of foreign armies should be protecting Afghani civilians. Apparently this disappeared without a trace as since I've read continuing talk of 'fighting the taliban.'

Given the sheer quantity of small (and not so small) arms in that unfortunate country and the history of disparate rule by local 'strong men' the presence of foreign military is essential... if coalition forces pull out Afghanistan will either descend into warlord-gang fuelled chaos, be retaken by the taliban or will be held together as a military dictatorship by Karzai or another strong leader. All three scenarios essentially being 'back to square one.'

Keep coalition troops there, and send in battalions of police and lawyers. Have 'em focus on stamping out corruption and prosecuting and jailing criminals; while training Afghanis to do the same jobs.

Rule of and respect of law is the only basis for a stable society.

[Echo1]

fuck em. blow the country to hell.

sometimes to get rid of the termites you gotta burn the house down.

[Tilly]

Last week I read an unusual thing about Afghanistan: A high ranking US soldier stated that the current approach of hunting taliban is wrong, and the focus of foreign armies should be protecting Afghani civilians. Apparently this disappeared without a trace as since I've read continuing talk of 'fighting the taliban.'

Well not to say your point is wrong, but 'fighting the taliban' IS the reason we went there to begin with. That was the response to getting attacked ourselves. We didn't see our towers crumble and think "hey, let's go protect the people of Afghanistan." I do agree of trying to get Afghanistan in somewhat of a self-sufficient state, but hunting the taliban I believe should remain our top priority.

Given the sheer quantity of small (and not so small) arms in that unfortunate country and the history of disparate rule by local 'strong men' the presence of foreign military is essential... if coalition forces pull out Afghanistan will either descend into warlord-gang fuelled chaos, be retaken by the taliban or will be held together as a military dictatorship by Karzai or another strong leader. All three scenarios essentially being 'back to square one.'

Keep coalition troops there, and send in battalions of police and lawyers. Have 'em focus on stamping out corruption and prosecuting and jailing criminals; while training Afghanis to do the same jobs.

Rule of and respect of law is the only basis for a stable society.

I agree

[MontysDouble]

Well not to say your point is wrong, but 'fighting the taliban' IS the reason we went there to begin with. That was the response to getting attacked ourselves. We didn't see our towers crumble and think "hey, let's go protect the people of Afghanistan." I do agree of trying to get Afghanistan in somewhat of a self-sufficient state, but hunting the taliban I believe should remain our top priority.Yes, of course fighting the taliban is the reason we invaded, but I reckon what that dude was getting at was that the best way of ending taliban activity now is getting the general population onside.

Collateral casualties from our attacks against taliban are severely counterproductive.

[JooX]

I'll go in and save the entire place. I aced the FNG mission in COD4.

[MontysDouble]

^^^

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/Zippozeppo/cannonfodder.jpg

[MontysDouble]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/05/2705288.htm

Taliban assault heats up US troop debate
By Lisa Millar for The World Today

Posted Mon Oct 5, 2009 5:14pm AEDT

A massive attack on US troops in a remote part of east Afghanistan has added more heat to the debate about the level of American engagement in the country.

At least eight American soldiers and several Afghan police officers were killed when hundreds of Taliban militants launched a daylight attack with mortars and machines guns on their compounds.

The commander of US troops wants another 40,000 soldiers added to the 68,000 already on duty there, a decision US President Barack Obama is considering.

America marks the eighth anniversary of being at war in Afghanistan this week. It is an anniversary that comes amid intense debate over America's place in the country and its current strategy.

Brigadier General Eric Tremblay is the spokesman for the International Security Assistance Forces. When he spoke to reporters on the weekend, the battle was still going on.

"We are on the second day of the operation. Reinforcement has been provided," he said.

"Quick reaction forces with the proper surveillance on the ground and normal framework operations are being conducted as we speak in the villages."

Back in Washington there is a fight - not as deadly - but just as serious.

The US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has asked for more troops, suggesting there will be a terrible mission failure if his wish is not granted.

Mr Obama is mulling over the decision. The two men met on the tarmac in Copenhagen just days ago, the first time since General McChrystal delivered his grim report on the military prospects.

'Not just about Al Qaeda'

General Anthony Zinni was once head of US Central Command. He has joined the voices urging the President to send additional troops.

"I do think we need those troops and I think General McChrystal has made an honest and thorough assessment as to what you need," he said.

"It begins with security. You can't do all the other things without it."

Americans are losing interest in winning a war in Afghanistan but Anthony Zinni says there is a bigger picture.

"I think we have to remember this is not just about Al Qaeda and the Taliban," he said.

"We have two nations out there with nuclear weapons; one of which had the Taliban 65 miles from their capital.

"We have the Taliban and others trying to provoke some sort of conflict between these two nations.

"We also have a Taliban that is stretching their influence into central Asia."

Even if the President decides to bump up the number of boots on the ground, he could face a battle in Congress.

Senator Carl Levin is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and he is opposed to deploying more troops.

"I would not commit to more combat troops at this time. There's a lot of other things that need to be done to show resolve," Senator Levin said.

"What we need a surge of is Afghan troops. There is a marine captain out in Helmand Province who put it this way: He says our achilles heel is a shortage of Afghan troops.

"When I was in Helmand Province just a month ago, we were told by the local folks what they want is their Afghan Army to be strengthened and the ratio of marines to Afghan soldiers when we were down in Helmand Province was five marines for one Afghan soldier.

"That is exactly the wrong ratio. It ought to be reversed from that."

Mr Obama's own national security adviser, Jim Jones, says the discussion going on inside the White House is about far more than simply increasing troop numbers.

A decision on the wider strategy in Afghanistan is expected within the next few weeks.

[Afronaught]

Well not to say your point is wrong, but 'fighting the taliban' IS the reason we went there to begin with. That was the response to getting attacked ourselves. We didn't see our towers crumble and think "hey, let's go protect the people of Afghanistan." I do agree of trying to get Afghanistan in somewhat of a self-sufficient state, but hunting the taliban I believe should remain our top priority.


If I remember correctly.. The Taliban had nothing to do with the WTC attack, no Taliban member was even part of the planning or execution of the attack... it was another organization called Al Queda... the invasion of Afghanistan was because the Taliban refused to Cooperate with the US in getting Bin Laden... and bin laden still hasn't been found.

Because he was not in Afghanistan in the first place.

[Tilly]

If I remember correctly.. The Taliban had nothing to do with the WTC attack, no Taliban member was even part of the planning or execution of the attack... it was another organization called Al Queda...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e339/OQwerty1/no_wai.jpg

the invasion of Afghanistan was because the Taliban refused to Cooperate with the US in getting Bin Laden... and bin laden still hasn't been found.

Yeah, but that's a partial truth. They were the target because they were harboring Al Qaeda.

Because he was not in Afghanistan in the first place.

Are you kidding me? What about the battle of Tora Bora where bin Laden was chased into the mountains of eastern Afghanistan? Even if you try to argue that he wasn't there, it's known fact that Al Qaeda had a strong presence there, given the number of them that were killed at the hands of American forces in Afghanistan.

Everyone knows the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. That's why we need to kill them. Not to mention they oppress their own people, and the fuckers betrayed the US considering the US actually helped them at one point.

[Echo1]

If I remember correctly.. The Taliban had nothing to do with the WTC attack, no Taliban member was even part of the planning or execution of the attack... it was another organization called Al Queda...

and the germans had nothing to do with pearl harbor. so the fuck what.