What is Obama thinking?

[Ronnie]

Why does he want to send less troops than the minimum amount set by General McChrystal?  Isn't it better to just withdraw from the region completely than letting our American soldiers die?

Discuss.....

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why does he want to send less troops than the minimum amount set by General McChrystal?  Isn't it better off just withdrawing from the region completely than letting our American soldiers die?

Yes, it is. But Obama cares about playing politics, not about human life.

[Lief 🗽]

Why does he want to send less troops than the minimum amount set by General McChrystal?  Isn't it better to just withdraw from the region completely than letting our American soldiers die?

Discuss.....

Because in America, our civilian leadership doesn't always have to do exactly what the military leadership tells them to do.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why does he want to send less troops than the minimum amount set by General McChrystal?  Isn't it better to just withdraw from the region completely than letting our American soldiers die?

Discuss.....

Because in America, our civilian leadership doesn't always have to do exactly what the military leadership tells them to do.

^^^^

But, in general, the answer is "polls".

[Vepres]

Seemed like a fairly reasonable strategy to me, we'll see how it plays out.

[Rob]

Why does he want to send less troops than the minimum amount set by General McChrystal?

Let's be honest here. No amount of troops will really be enough for the military elite- if Obama sent as many as McChrystal wants, he would be requesting twice that number in six months.

We've already played this numbers game in Vietnam, and you can't win.

[War on Want]

There is no good strategy in Afghanistan.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why are we even in Afghanistan?

[Ronnie]

Why are we even in Afghanistan?

I am beginning to move toward that view each progressing day where it looks like we are accomplishing little and Americans are dying in large numbers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why are we even in Afghanistan?

The powerful defense contractors need your taxpayer money to do a sh**tty job of killing brown people.

[Psychic Octopus]

Obama is trying to compromise the two views of the war. Nevertheless, it just further divides the views, and inspires criticism of the President from both sides.

[Mechaman]

Why are we even in Afghanistan?

The powerful defense contractors need your taxpayer money to do a sh**tty job of killing brown people.

Thunderous Applause.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Obama is trying to compromise the two views of the war. Nevertheless, it just further divides the views, and inspires criticism of the President from both sides.

Where is the compromise? Between the options of A) escalate the war and B) escalate the war?

[Psychic Octopus]

Obama is trying to compromise the two views of the war. Nevertheless, it just further divides the views, and inspires criticism of the President from both sides.

Where is the compromise? Between the options of A) escalate the war and B) escalate the war?

what about C) End the war? and those options involves more or less troops. Obama doesn't want to alienate anyone, which he fails at, like anyone, massively.

[Torie]

The major departure was not the number of US and NATO troops, but the bit about ramping up the Afghan army rapidly. From little I know, that seems sensible because Afghanistan is not Iraq, and much of its population is illiterate and something not far away from the stone age.  In the background there may be a realization about cutting back the goals of the mission (no Bush, Afghanistan probably won't end up as the society either you or I would want), and that is quite wise I think.

The goal should be to secure the field to the point that it won't be used by nutters as a base. The end.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Obama is trying to compromise the two views of the war. Nevertheless, it just further divides the views, and inspires criticism of the President from both sides.

Where is the compromise? Between the options of A) escalate the war and B) escalate the war?

what about C) End the war? and those options involves more or less troops. Obama doesn't want to alienate anyone, which he fails at, like anyone, massively.

There obviously is no option C for the Obama regime.

[anvi]

McCrystle will get what he needs from the combination of the U.S. rampup and additional allied forces (particularly British forces) that we have requested.  On top of that, generals are like any other people in a bargaining situation; they always ask for more than they need so they can get what they need.

So the two questions here are: why are we in Afghanistan and why do we have such a short timeline for stabilization and training of Afghan forces?

Well, I doubt you conservatives would be asking "why are we in Afghanistan?" if a Republican were in the oval office.  But, since you asked: There was this event called 9/11, remember?, when we got hit by al Qaeda forces that were welcomed and protected by a Taliban government.  The Taliban have been staging a strong resurgence there for the past year, and if we left, they threaten to take back power, and guess who is coming back to dinner with them?  For however lousy the Karzai government is, it is not the Taliban.  We've got to prevent a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, keep the main body of al Qaeda forces in Pakistan's NWFP, and throw support to the Pakistani government to go after them.   If they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, they won't have such an easy time attacking us.  Failing to do this imperils our own national security, just in case you happen to care about that.

Why do we have such a short timetable?  Because the reality is that we can't keep 10% of our active duty military over there forever, and declaring a timetable puts the Afghan government and citizens on notice that they have eighteen months to man up, get their act together and fight for their own security or risk falling back into the Taliban tyranny and losing whatever progress, however halting, has been gained over the last eight years.  

In other words, you've got the requested troop levels, a defined mission with clear goals and the stakes laid on the table for the Afghan government and people.  From a menu of crappy options, this is not a bad choice.  For liberals who oppose it, sometimes we have to fight wars that are not very pleasant and are dangerous.  For conservatives who oppose it, sometimes we have to maintain our resolve no matter which party the president happens to be aligned with.  To Americans generally, vote against the president in the next election if you see fit, but when he calls on the nation to do its duty, it should be done.  That's how our fathers and grandfathers handed us what we've got.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not less than the minimum amount that McChrystal asked for - and the fact that people keep saying "McChrystal asked for 40,000" is really beginning to piss me off.

[dead0man]

Obama can't win here.  If he listens to the Pentagon and sends a lot of men, his voters have yet another reason to feel let down by him.  If he listens to his voters and ends the war EVERYBODY is going to be pissed at him.  If he plays politics and does what he is doing now, he takes a little sh**t from both sides, but nothing more than he can handle....and the war continues to drag on.

What do I think?  Afghanistan is probably unwinable, but we can't "cut and run" either.  The West as a whole is in a lose/lose here.  The biggest losers are the families of the men who never come home and the men that come home all kinds of funked up in the head (and their friends/family).  We'll treat them marginally better than we treated returning Vietnam Vets, but we won't treat them like they deserve to be treated.  They all volunteered to be "baby killers" after all.

[Phony Moderate]

Just withdraw all troops from there. It's unwinnable, and by staying there, the chances of another 9/11 are increasing.

[Franzl]

Just withdraw all troops from there. It's unwinnable, and by staying there, the chances of another 9/11 are increasing.

And why is that?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Just withdraw all troops from there. It's unwinnable, and by staying there, the chances of another 9/11 are increasing.

And why is that?

He probably thinks they'll hate us "more" if we stay.  I doubt they can hate us more.

[Eraserhead]

I think I can say that I have officially jumped off of the sinking Obama ship as of yesterday. There really isn't much of a point in trying to defend the guy now. He can fairly be labeled a warmonger, I'm afraid.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Leaving Afghanistan wouldn't "end the war", it would escalate the war as without American protection the Afghan state is reduced to a sketal appartus.

I'm with Obama here. Which may shock people.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Honestly, he's thinking how in the fuck do I get us out of this mess.

No easy answer, sadly.