Obama to send more troops to Afghnisatan without a plan, or hope, they can do the job
No, I'm not kidding on that. That's the feeling among those in the incoming administration that the WaPo picked up on today, and it should concern everyone who supports our troops:
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
With conditions on the ground worsening by nearly every yardstick last year -- including record levels of extremist attacks and U.S. casualties, and the expansion of the conflict across Pakistan and into India -- Obama's campaign pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with more troops, money and diplomacy has encountered the daunting reality of a job that has barely begun.
Since the November election, Obama has been flooded with dire assessments of the war. A National Intelligence Estimate warned that a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership, dug into the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border, continues to plan attacks against the United States and Europe. The Bush White House delivered a major review of Afghanistan last month that echoed that judgment, acknowledged that a modern Afghan democracy -- stable and free of extremists -- may be both unattainable and unaffordable, and said that the United States may have to accept trade-offs among priorities.
"We have no strategic plan. We never had one," a senior U.S. military commander said of the Bush years. Obama's first order of business, he said, will be to "explain to the American people what the mission is" in Afghanistan. The officer is one of a number of active-duty and retired officers, senior Obama team members and Bush administration officials interviewed for this article, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the presidential transition.
First off, the biggest reason why Afghanistan i a problem right now is because of Pakistan, and their inability to take care of the Taliban/al Qaeda elements in their country that jump the border to attack our soldiers brazenly, then run like cowards back over the same border content with the fact that we can't follow them. A number of recent Predator strikes in the tribal regions has strained our relations with Pakistan. The Pakistanis have even taken to warning us that they will shoot down Predators violating their airspace. So to say the situation is dicey is an understatement.
However the idea that we should just drop 32,000 more soldiers into Afghanistan without a plan is insane. Before President Bush instituted the Surge strategy devised by General Petraeus, he had the general make a plan. The Surge brigades went into Iraq with a clear mission to stabilize the country, get the Iraqis on our side, and root out the terrorists once and for all. For that they needed the tribes in Iraq to help, which lead to the Anbar Awakening and the Sons of Iraq to step into the fray. They not only assisted our troops in combat operations, but were more than willing to point out where the bad guys were hiding.
Obama doesn't have a plan. Sending in 32,000 more troops without a plan is like Johnson escalating Vietnam, and dropping more troops into a meat grinder. He has assembled a decent national security team for his Cabinet. He's retaining Robert Gates. General Petraeus is CENTCOM commander. He can't sit there and say they don't have a workable plan. Worse, he's saying that the additional troops to be dropped into Afghanistan will only buy us time, and not work towards the initial goal of creating a stable, free, and democratic Afghanistan.
It took General Petraeus several months to come up with the feasible, workable Surge strategy for Iraq. He had been there, and he knew the mistakes that were being made. If Obama's smart he'll hold counsel with Petraeus, and in turn Petraeus will talk to the commanders from Afghanistan to come up with a strategy that'll work. In the meantime Obama should use his diplomats to send word to NATO nations that they need to send the troops to Afghanistan they promised, and then reneged on. That includes French troops and German troops; both nations promised to surge in several brigades to Afghanistan, and have yet to do so.
Once we get a strategy developed, then we can send in Afghan Surge brigades, but it is utterly foolish to send in more troops without some sort of a strategy. That'll cost us needless casualties. In addition, we'd recommend clandestine talks with the Pakistani government to allow our troops to pursue terrorists who jump the border and attack our positions in Afghanistan. We don't want to invade Pakistan, but it's clear the Pakistanis lack the stomach to deal with the militants, and their military and intelligence services are compromised by their refusal to engage these animals.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Something dawned on me after I read this piece again:
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
Buy enough time for what, exactly. Going in without a plan to begin with is nuts, but they're going to reappraise the situation. What does that mean. Are they buying enough time to make a diplomatic exit from Afghanistan? To make concessions to the fledgling Afghan government and then say "sayonara?" That had better not be the plan because if it is it'll mean dire consequences for us down the road. We would surrender Afghanistan back into the hands of the very same animals that were in charge prior to our invasion after 11 September.
That's not feasible, nor is it the wise thing to do.
Publius II
UPDATE: Ace gives us the tip. Thanks!
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
With conditions on the ground worsening by nearly every yardstick last year -- including record levels of extremist attacks and U.S. casualties, and the expansion of the conflict across Pakistan and into India -- Obama's campaign pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with more troops, money and diplomacy has encountered the daunting reality of a job that has barely begun.
Since the November election, Obama has been flooded with dire assessments of the war. A National Intelligence Estimate warned that a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership, dug into the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border, continues to plan attacks against the United States and Europe. The Bush White House delivered a major review of Afghanistan last month that echoed that judgment, acknowledged that a modern Afghan democracy -- stable and free of extremists -- may be both unattainable and unaffordable, and said that the United States may have to accept trade-offs among priorities.
"We have no strategic plan. We never had one," a senior U.S. military commander said of the Bush years. Obama's first order of business, he said, will be to "explain to the American people what the mission is" in Afghanistan. The officer is one of a number of active-duty and retired officers, senior Obama team members and Bush administration officials interviewed for this article, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the presidential transition.
First off, the biggest reason why Afghanistan i a problem right now is because of Pakistan, and their inability to take care of the Taliban/al Qaeda elements in their country that jump the border to attack our soldiers brazenly, then run like cowards back over the same border content with the fact that we can't follow them. A number of recent Predator strikes in the tribal regions has strained our relations with Pakistan. The Pakistanis have even taken to warning us that they will shoot down Predators violating their airspace. So to say the situation is dicey is an understatement.
However the idea that we should just drop 32,000 more soldiers into Afghanistan without a plan is insane. Before President Bush instituted the Surge strategy devised by General Petraeus, he had the general make a plan. The Surge brigades went into Iraq with a clear mission to stabilize the country, get the Iraqis on our side, and root out the terrorists once and for all. For that they needed the tribes in Iraq to help, which lead to the Anbar Awakening and the Sons of Iraq to step into the fray. They not only assisted our troops in combat operations, but were more than willing to point out where the bad guys were hiding.
Obama doesn't have a plan. Sending in 32,000 more troops without a plan is like Johnson escalating Vietnam, and dropping more troops into a meat grinder. He has assembled a decent national security team for his Cabinet. He's retaining Robert Gates. General Petraeus is CENTCOM commander. He can't sit there and say they don't have a workable plan. Worse, he's saying that the additional troops to be dropped into Afghanistan will only buy us time, and not work towards the initial goal of creating a stable, free, and democratic Afghanistan.
It took General Petraeus several months to come up with the feasible, workable Surge strategy for Iraq. He had been there, and he knew the mistakes that were being made. If Obama's smart he'll hold counsel with Petraeus, and in turn Petraeus will talk to the commanders from Afghanistan to come up with a strategy that'll work. In the meantime Obama should use his diplomats to send word to NATO nations that they need to send the troops to Afghanistan they promised, and then reneged on. That includes French troops and German troops; both nations promised to surge in several brigades to Afghanistan, and have yet to do so.
Once we get a strategy developed, then we can send in Afghan Surge brigades, but it is utterly foolish to send in more troops without some sort of a strategy. That'll cost us needless casualties. In addition, we'd recommend clandestine talks with the Pakistani government to allow our troops to pursue terrorists who jump the border and attack our positions in Afghanistan. We don't want to invade Pakistan, but it's clear the Pakistanis lack the stomach to deal with the militants, and their military and intelligence services are compromised by their refusal to engage these animals.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Something dawned on me after I read this piece again:
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
Buy enough time for what, exactly. Going in without a plan to begin with is nuts, but they're going to reappraise the situation. What does that mean. Are they buying enough time to make a diplomatic exit from Afghanistan? To make concessions to the fledgling Afghan government and then say "sayonara?" That had better not be the plan because if it is it'll mean dire consequences for us down the road. We would surrender Afghanistan back into the hands of the very same animals that were in charge prior to our invasion after 11 September.
That's not feasible, nor is it the wise thing to do.
Publius II
UPDATE: Ace gives us the tip. Thanks!
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home