Journal Update #2 Mon 05 Oct 2009

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 08:57 AM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,943 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan doomed QUOTE ("oldsarge99") Obama is being faced with an LBJ moment, escalate the war by sending in thousands of additional troops or descalating the war and bringing the troops home. Obama has to deal with Petraus and Mc Crystal pushing for a troop surge to gain the upper hand and also with his party beginning to mount a cut and run campaign. I said many months ago it wouldn't be long before the DIMS lost their resolve to fight in Afghanistan. I also said that the majority of OBAMA's support would come from the GOP on this issue. Look for a temporary surge with Mc Crystal getting the troops that he has requested, but with a 12 to 18 month timeline for dramatic improvement. If OBAMA falters and loses his resolve and denies the generals request, Petraus and Mc Crystal may resign.That would be a body blow to the Fuhrer. It would throw the administration into chaos and cost Obama dearly. Obama recently said this was war of necessity and had to be fought. Well we about to see what he is made of. Does he have the resolve of Truman, Kennedy, Lincoln, or Dubya. JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: I suspect that our American Establishment President will give the nattering warmongers some if not all of what they want. SecDef Gates (another member of the American elite status quo Establishment) is said to be "leaning" towards sending more troops. 10,000 more troops would still be considered as a holding pattern in a policy of containment. Even 45,000 more U.S. troops would not turn the tide and change the trajectory of this war over the long term. A military victory is not in the cards despite what American supremacist "cut loose the military" types spout. It would take 620,000 occupation troops ten or twelves year to maybe win a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, and even that is doubtful because every state surrounding Afghanistan (populous Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asia republics) would also become more volatile over that extended time frame. The costs of such a protracted American-led NATO war in Afghanistan would be astronomical. We don't have the personnel, the materiel, the resources, the resolve, or the justification for escalating the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan to the levels required to prevail. This is a political war not a war of necessity. Obama made a mistake labeling it as such. Political wars never end with a clear victor, and they always end through negotiations. Better to get started with that process rather than wade deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan which is historically "the graveyard of empires".

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 10:17 AM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,943 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan doomed Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:13 am QUOTE ("oldsarge99") Synergy you and i don't agree on much, but Afghanistan is a noose around Obama's neck. The decision he makes will have reprecussions for many years. If he falters and loses his nerve. He will pay a price here at home he may not recover from. If he agrees to a troop surge, the war in Afhanistan belongs to him and is his to win or lose. How he handles this will show me what he is made out of. God help him if he falters and we leave Afghanistan and Alqaeda regroups and hits us again! JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: If Obama orders 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan and begins training Afghan army and police as fast as possible the U.S. military says it will take at 3 to 5 years for that to be accomplished. Many experts says it may take twice that long if it is possible. That means that Obama cannot "win" in any sense of that word in his first term and probably cannot "win" the war during his second term. The Chairman of the JCS Adm Mike Mullen says we are at square one or "the beginning" in Afghanistan. The past 8 years don't count in his math. The number of successful counterinsurgency wars can be counted on one hand, and they took an average of 10 to 12 years to "win". If Obama serves two terms and throws everything we have at "the problem" in Afghanistan then it will be the next President who realizes a "victory". Obama is wise to consider a regional strategy and to seek help from Afghanistan's neighbors including Iran. IMO negotiations have to be part of the solution since this is a political war and not a war of necessity. We cannot wage total war because of that fact. All political wars end through negotiations. It is being touted even in the right-wing Wall Street Journal / FOXNews press that Al Qaeda is severely weakened in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a local phenomenon not a jihaddist network bent on world domination. Negotiate with the Taliban and marginalize Al Qaeda. And then there is the problem with the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Good luck American occupiers!