President Obama is going to send 30 000 more troops to Afghanistan. This is something that I support and have long stated so. However, the part about the deadline is something that confuses me. Is it the goal of the President to exit in 18 months like we did in the surge, or are we going to have to close shop within 18 months?
This is something that is rather complicating as the two scenarios have such different outcomes despite appearing to be similar. If we are going to get the hell out in 18 month regardless of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, we are in trouble.

The President is going to allow, in his words, “ an unacceptable risk”, to be potentially around in 18 months. That would render all the blood and sacrifice of our troops in the next 18 months as fruitless.If he does that, he is failing America in a very fundamental way.

If this is the case, there is really no hope of extending the stay beyond 2012. If the troops are to draw down by July 2011; it would take 6-10 months for all of them to come home. The added incentive would be that President Obama would be viewed as the person who have brought back all the troops home, something that would go down well with his far left base.

On the other hand, if the President hopes to achieve all goals in 18 months, then that would be a good thing. We would only leave when our objectives in Afghanistan are met. That is a world away from leaving Afghanistan at a certain date by any means necessary.

As Iraq has shown us, it is very possible that we can meet our objectives in 18 months. If we could do it in Iraq, we can do it Afghanistan. This would be something very positive and something that I would support. I also like the idea of a very speedy troop surge. That is something that would be a logistical headache to the Officers and the NCOs, but I think it would boost the troop morale on the ground.

Now I do not know which one of those scenarios is right. The Republicans are claiming that the first scenario is right, while the Democrats are claiming that the second is. The President, in his speech yesterday, went both ways. Is he undecided? I wonder…

There is also the thing about the price of the war. The President has always promised that he would do everything in a deficit neutral manner. So how is he goi9ng to pay for the at least $30 billion that this war would cost? Is he going to go down the path of President Bush and leave the next generation with a $1 trillion dollar war burden? I hope he takes Governor Jesse Ventura idea seriously about a war tax.

I would also want to see do NATO her fair share of work. It is not only the United States that has suffered attacks that were being carried out by Al Qaeda which is supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I want to see that they contribute their very small share of 5000 men. I also hope that they go in with the desire to fight and not just be peace keepers, like they have done so many times.

Related articles by Zemanta

• West Point Reax (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Liveblogging the President’s Afghanistan Speech (seminal.firedoglake.com)
• The Plan for Afghanistan (mountainrunner.us)
• Obama’s West Point Speech: Did He Convince You? (alan.com)
• Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)
• You: Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)
• Security Adviser Calls Troop Increase McChrystal’s Opinion (nytimes.com)
• Obama’s tricky message on Afghanistan (tech.bl0x.info)
• Live Blog of the President’s Speech No. 2 (dailykos.com)
• An expert’s view on Afghanistan strategy talks (cnn.com)

This is something that the far left media is trying to zone in There is some cash that goes down a chain that starts from the US taxpayer all the way to the Taliban. They are adding this to their own train of excuses to cut and run from Afghanistan.

So what are they saying exactly? Before we fight the enemy, aka the Taliban or Al Qaeda, we have got to get supplies to our troops. These supplies cone from mainland USA and all over the world and it goes to the Bagram. Airfield. From there it needs to go to our military bases.

Along the way it is risky and the Taliban would wait for planes to come for them to launch attacks. This endangers the supply route. There are many methods to solve these problems and the method used is to have an agency in Afghanistan that would be in-charge of safety. This agency would then pay off the Taliban to ensure that the route is safe. Hence the US taxpayers funding the Taliban.

Look, these people have never been in the military before. I may not have been an officer in the Army and my rank may be low, but I definitely have enough faith in the commanders of this entire operation. They usually have these things covered. We have done them in training. This must be the best operation.

If it is really costs that much, don’t you think that they would just fly them to the base? They can load them up to choppers and fly them to the base. They could also secure the road or more likely travel in the convoy. On top of that they can also have dud convoys to spend the Taliban’s ammunition and give their positions away.

There are many other alternatives. But more some reason the US Military commanders chose this method of paying off the Taliban. Why? In my humble opinion, I think it must be because it is much cheaper this way. We can send more resources to fight the Taliban than allow the Taliban to have them.

My theory is backed by the fact that tens of millions of dollars of equipment travels each time from Bagram Airfield to the bases while we pay the agency that is in charge of the security $6 million a year. That sounds like a good deal to me.

There would be some conspiracy head hunters out there that would want to place the decision for this on the military industrial complex. My answer to them is that those guys would get their hands in this any method we choose to take. They are everywhere. It is a fact.

This is also a classic example of how the wingnut media distorts news to get their message across. In this case, it is MSNBC that is doing this. They are the propagating all this bull crap to get the far left message of “Get out now” ingrained in people’s heads. And they are doing it under the fallacy of it being a news network!

Related articles by Zemanta

• 2 NATO soldiers reported killed in Afghanistan (ctv.ca)
• 2 NATO Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan (abcnews.go.com)
• UPDATE: Afghanistan Decision Time (mydd.com)
• Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan – TIME (time.com)
• Many Sources Feed Taliban’s War Chest (nytimes.com)
• Afghanistan begins recount in disputed vote (msnbc.msn.com)
• Changing minds (news.bbc.co.uk)
• For Obama, escalation in Afghanistan is the only option? (mydd.com)
• 9 Pakistani Officers Killed by Roadside Bomb (nytimes.com)
• Obama’s war decision sends message (msnbc.msn.com)
• “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Be Sent to New York for Trial” and related posts (redstate.com)
• “NASA finds reservoir of water ice on the Moon!” and related posts (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• “William Jefferson Sentenced” and related posts (mydd.com)
• “Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls on Congress to pass immigration reform” and related posts (feeds.scpr.org)
• “Robert, Kristen and Taylor Are Up Late Due to New Moon” and related posts (popsugar.com)

The compromise has been made. The President is going to send 30 000 more troops to Afghanistan. The Generals have not voiced their dissent, but the right wing and the left wing nits have. To their credit though, they have not been as vocal as before.

This is more than the General Stanley McChrystal‘ initial minimum plan which required an additional 15 000 troops. This is also less than the safe plan that General McChrystal requested which was an additional 40 000 troops. The plan to add another 80 000 troops was not even discussed. It was flat out rejected.

Being in the Army before, I know that if Generals are not happy about it, they would voice things out. They have all the power to do so. The only other scenario is that there could be an order to maintain silence to the press but I think that this is highly unlikely.

I think the outburst by General McChrystal that happened before was something that was justified. I was also very against the idea of leaving the troop levels as it is when the Generals on the ground are asking for more troops.

I think 30 000 is a fair number for all parties. I think that Vice President Biden’s idea would also take into effect. While I do not think that cutting it down from 40 000 is necessary to save people’s lives, I also think there are financial implications if we increased it by 40 000 when we only required an additional 30 000.

As usual, there are wingnuts that see this differently. The far right claimed that the President’s unwillingness to increase the count to 40 000 is a signal that he is not willing to take on the base of his party and as a result, the troops pay with their lives. I think that this is absurd as he is taking on his base when he increase it by 30 000 and if the Generals are happy, so be it.

It is however, the far left that I am particularly pissed off with. They, as usual, are going all out with their no-war is good war stand. Have these people forgotten that it is not us that started the war, it was the terrorists when they attacked us on 9/11? Do these Liberals understand that if we do not get them today, they may kill us tomorrow? How many people should be dead before they understand that giving the other cheek is not the answer. We have got to smoke them out and finish the job.

However, I would be gracious enough, even to the wingnuts, to say that they have not made a big deal about this as they did before the decision was passed. It could be due to the Fort Hood tragedy or the health-care debate. They could be going for the issues that Americans are already aware of.

Either way, thank you guys. God bless America, God bless our troops!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama to hold meeting on Afghan war (cnn.com)
• King: Obama team to hash out Afghanistan strategy (cnn.com)
• Reviews Raise Doubt on Training of Afghan Forces (nytimes.com)
• State of the Union: National Security Adviser Jones Chides McChrystal (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• Prospect of More U.S. Troops Worries Afghan Public (nytimes.com)
• The Military Way (themoderatevoice.com)
• White House division surfaces over Afghanistan (cnn.com)
• The untold story of how bad it really is (cbc.ca)
• Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)
• You: Military Memo: Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear (nytimes.com)

After the open demands of General McChrystal was made before the whole world, and his apparent “talk” with President Obama later, there are rumors the US might actually take troops our of Afghanistan. There was also talk of a plan by Vice President Joe Biden, which involved more special operations and drones rather than soldiers.

I get the fact that the President is delaying this so as weigh the options. I do not think that it shows indecision, I think that it shows intelligence. If only we had this before we entered Iraq in 2003! So, I think that we should give him the time to think. I fully support him on that.

What I do not agree with is the weak-knee Liberals’ idea this is to cut and run from Afghanistan. I think that it would be the gravest error since Vietnam should we just leave Afghanistan. Granted, there are some conservatives that are also supporting this, but this is an issue that is very much discussed by the far left in America.

This is not Vietnam. Firstly, it is a legal war. We did not go out and attack them, Al Qaeda declared war on us! Vietnam was not the same. We have an obligation to finish the terrorists that are responsible for the death of thousands of our citizens’ lives. Vietnam had nothing like that. So please stop comparing this war with that of Vietnam!

Yes, the surge worked in Iraq. Would a surge in Afghanistan work like it did in Iraq? Is it the best method or the only method? I really do not know. I was not an Officer in the army. But my Army experience tell me that, the surge is a tactic that gives us a chance that a pull out would not.

What I know is that sending in drones and special operations alone just would not work. We still need the boots to hit the ground. Ask any soldier; and they would tell you that to get Al Qaeda, you still need the infantry (Army). You cannot just use the special forces. The Vice President’s plan is just not feasible.

So far, we have Press Secretary saying moments ago that the President would not leave Afghanistan. That is something that I liked. However, he was still brushing away comments relating to the troop surge and General McChrystal.

Come on America! Lets finish this job. We have been killing lots and lots of terrorists and lets finish Al Qaeda! There were Senators that said that there were only 100 Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. Can’t we deal with that? Can’t we finish off 100 people? Can’t we secure Afghanistan? Why is it that we can work out Iraq, but not Afghanistan?

Please President Obama, lets kill the terrorists and finish the job. It is only then that we should leave. We should be incorporating the “Yes We Can” spirit that got the President elected. This is also part of the job description of President Obama : to keep our country safe.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Army Head Supports Afghanistan Forces Boost (news.sky.com)
• Close quarters (news.bbc.co.uk)
• U.S. Afghanistan strategy under fire (nationalpost.com)
• The class that would not quit (timesunion.com)
• An expert’s view on Afghanistan strategy talks (cnn.com)
• Obama’s Kennedy moment on Afghanistan (guardian.co.uk)
• Sources: U.S. eyes more drone hits on terror havens (ctv.ca)
• Political scientists report drop in US standing (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Security Adviser Calls Troop Increase McChrystal’s Opinion (nytimes.com)
• Learning lessons (news.bbc.co.uk)
• “Nicole Richie Banged Up in Car Accident” and related posts (tmz.com)
• “Hotmail phishing attack confirmed, 20,000 accounts in total” and related posts (neowin.net)
• “Adobe Shows Off Flash Apps For iPhone. Yes, You Read That Right.” and related posts (techcrunch.com)
• “Oil States Dumping Dollar as Currency for Trading Oil” and related posts (yidwithlid.blogspot.com)
• “David Letterman Apologizes To His Wife On-Air” and related posts (perezhilton.com)
• Obama to hold meeting on Afghan war (cnn.com)
• Robert Gates calls for calm after public row over Afghanistan troops (telegraph.co.uk)
• “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart.” (althouse.blogspot.com)

We should not be doing it alone. That is what President Obama seem to be telling the Europeans at the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, Germany. But why is it that America’s NATO allies not want to send their own troops over in Afghanistan?

This should be something that should be in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mind. After all that Europe has gone through it should be a no-brainer that they should want to send troops to Afghanistan to finish off the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They have suffered several attacks such as the 3/11 Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the 7/7 London bombings.

The first obvious reason is the fear of a loss in the next elections for the allies in their own local elections should the war become unpopular in their own countries. When the body count goes up, the chances of these politicians being re-elected again goes down. Hence many are often reluctant to go after the terrorists the way they should do just because they are scared to lost the next election.

Adding to the point of elections, there is a sizable Muslim population in NATO countries such as England, Spain and especially France. Should they be in favor of attacking a country such as Afghanistan, this would definitely not be popular with the Muslim populations there, and thus cause the politicians to lost their next election.

The next point is that there are people who are ideologically against sending their troops to go into Afghanistan when Afghanistan is propping up many laws that are against their ideals. For example, many Europeans often ask why should they send and risk the lives of their troops for a country that does not il-legalize marital rape? Why should they send their troops to a country that would sentence a person to death should they convert out of Islam?

Adding to the point of ideologies, many Europeans share their point of view that is similar to Bill Maher’s that Al Qaeda and Taliban should not be a military problem but a law enforcement problem. Many claim that they should be concentrating their efforts in preventing terrorists from striking in their country rather than chasing them in countries that the terrorists reside in.

There is also the point of view from some NATO countries that they should not be interfering in other country’s problem unless they are invited to do so. Many of these countries have not suffered a terrorist attack and fear that by sending their troops, they risk their troops dying in Afghanistan and also they fear that because they send troops into Afghanistan, they would also become targets for the terrorists in their home country. E.g. Should Ukraine send the troops to Afghanistan, Al Qaeda may try to attack her for doing so.

There is also another group of countries in NATO that feel that they do not have the money to do this. They feel that they should be more interested in building up their own economies rather than worry about a terrorist threat far away.

I think that most Americans would agree with me that the President is absolutely right. For all the concerns that the Europeans might have, I think that they should understand that the threat of terrorism is real. The threat in Afghanistan is real. As mentioned earlier in this article, some countries in NATO have already experienced the evil that is terror.

No matter what ideology one belongs to, the loss of human life due to religious fanaticism is not a good thing at all. What can we tell the families of the victims of terrorist attacks? When people commit murder, the are often tailed till they are caught. In the same way, when terrorists commit mass murder, they should be pursued. That is the least that countries that suffer terrorist attack do. Countries like Spain should send in the additional troops, which they are resisting to do so, to help pursue the terrorist that kill their citizens in 2004.

And should the murderer leave and go on a wild goose chase, all other neighbors and friends should do their part in helping to catch the murderer. In the same way NATO members should pitch in their support to helping the US and others to put pressure and ensure that there is a solution to this problem. There is no guarantee that because the countries that are not affected by terrorism yet would not be a victim of it in the future should it not help in catching the terrorists.

Anyway, isn’t it in the NATO agreement that should there be an attack on one country, it is as good as an attack on all members of NATO? Isn’t there be a legal obligation for NATO members to send their troops there?

There is really no argument of that NATO countries have not to support President Obama. If you have any comments please write it below.