NYT on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow

Obama's sending (even more) more troops to Afghanistan (than he did earlier this year). Think this will finally make varus happy?


Yeah, yeah, I know, it was a rhetorical question.

He can complain when he signs up himself.

How is "we're sending 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and then pulling them out in a year regardless of the situation on the ground" any more of a valid exit strategy than sending troops into the area and then pulling them out when the situation is stabilized?

The pull out is to start in 18 months, but doesn't give a time range for when all the troops will be out of Afghanistan.

I suggest folks read one of the Blogs I follow whenever something major military comes up. Jim Wright is an retired Information Warfare Specialist and is far more conservative then most people I read. His detail analyst of Obama's speech is best I read.

It's not. Luckily, that's not what was said.

Doesn't really matter. The whole idea is that the national army is supposed to be ready to start taking over by that point.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 9:21am by Jophiel

Heh... remember back in 2004 or so when the Pubbies were saying "They built a school in Afghanistan! Our army built a real SCHOOL! They didn't have a school before and now they do so we're the BEST!!"

Now it's "are they going to replace those infra-red night goggles with a tool belt?"

THEY FOUND NUCULAR WEAPONS IN AFGHANISTAN?!

Seems to have, sure.

I'd prefer a complete withdrawal from the region, allow the U.S. to suffer any "terrorist" attacks which it could not defend domestically through intelligence and prevention, open channels of what you would certainly regard as humiliating diplomacy and negotiation, and reap the consequences of our own Nation's rape of the region for the last 50 years (you know, like actually taking responsibility for it's actions and such,) but that's just me.

Just because Israel is our ally doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want to the Palestinians. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Rights really have nothing to do with it. A war abandons every concept of peacetime "rights." I and other people like to make up wartime "rights" as well, but those don't justify wars or allow us to apply those same standards to the enemy; they simply limit the damage that we cause.

My "anti-war stance" is justified insofar as that no stance should ever be "pro-war;" the very existence of the military, and the very potential for it to be a need of society is a stain upon it and cheapens our very existence. We have a military, even according to most people must further to the "right" than I, because we need one, not because it's good. Whenever it's used it represents the failure of society and of humanity to respect each other; it is a fundamental breakdown of law and order, because we see fit to temporarily abandon those laws in order to bring them about again in stronger force.

It's only logical, after having realized what military force is, to use it with precision, alacrity, and with as least amount of transgression of the breakdown as possible, in order to effect a peace. Waiting "until it's stabilized" is disrespectful to every single party involved in the war: civilians everywhere, governments, enemy combatants, and especially our own service.

The war in Afghanistan can't "fail" if Obama were to recall every single person from there tomorrow. It has already been a failure since it began, and will continue to be a failure until it is over; all wars are. The only real objective of the use of military (assuming that the participants are conscientious) is to try to fail the least amount and in the shortest amount of time.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 12:43pm by Pensive