[Hujkmlopes]

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security team is contemplating troop reductions in Afghanistan that would be steeper than those discussed even a few weeks ago, with some officials arguing that such a change is justified by the rising cost of the war and the death of Osama bin Laden, which they called new “strategic considerations.”

These new considerations, along with a desire to find new ways to press the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, to get more of his forces to take the lead, are combining to create a counterweight to an approach favored by the departing secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, and top military commanders in the field. They want gradual cuts that would keep American forces at a much higher combat strength well into next year, senior administration officials said. So basically you have Obama wanting to reduce troops and the general in charge saying much less reduction. Which of these is political and which is strategic? Which approach is better for the US (political or strategic)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/wo...ates.html?_r=1

[nanyaHgoc]

Obama finally sees an opportunity to suck up to his anti-war base.

The Taliban will return, we'll be right back where we started, and our blood and treasure will have been wasted.

And if I recall, this was precisely what he said he wouldn't do when he announced the kill.

[ashleyjoseph]

So basically you have Obama wanting to reduce troops and the general in charge saying much less reduction. Which of these is political and which is strategic? Which approach is better for the US (political or strategic)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/wo...ates.html?_r=1

First, what statements has Obama made endorsing one approach or the other? I've seen none.

I do not believe a steep reduction is the best decision strategically. Like Commodore said, it will cause the unraveling of everything that has been accomplished. Politically, it is best in the short-term, which is probably why some of his advisers are advocating it, but when the adverse effects of an unwarranted withdrawal begin to manifest themselves, he'll suffer for it. This is much like the discussion created by Fidei Defensor a little while ago; it seems those in the administration are divided on the same question of whether to stay committed or to use UBL's death as a catalyst (or excuse) for withdrawal.

[freeringtonesioo]

We cannot leave Afghanistan until a peaceful and propserous democracy is firmly established. Anything less is a humiliating defeat in the global war on terror.

[imporrilk]

First, what statements has Obama made endorsing one approach or the other? I've seen none.

I do not believe a steep reduction is the best decision strategically. Like Commodore said, it will cause the unraveling of everything that has been accomplished. Politically, it is best in the short-term, which is probably why some of his advisers are advocating it, but when the adverse effects of an unwarranted withdrawal begin to manifest themselves, he'll suffer for it. This is much like the discussion created by Fidei Defensor a little while ago; it seems those in the administration are divided on the same question of whether to stay committed or to use UBL's death as a catalyst (or excuse) for withdrawal.

What have we accomplished in Afghanistan or Iraq of lasting value ?

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Is there no end to these actions ?

[freeringtonesioo]

So basically you have Obama wanting to reduce troops and the general in charge saying much less reduction. Which of these is political and which is strategic? Which approach is better for the US (political or strategic)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/wo...ates.html?_r=1

First, I would like to say that generals are very political. That's why they are generals.

I think we should pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and stop interfering in every stupid event that happens around the world. If the people of one country want to kill each other then they can go ahead. It is not our job to police up their actions. The Taliban were not the ones who attacked us. They are a fairly radical Islamic group that were concerned with their own country. They did give harbor to Al-Qaida but I'm sure they regret that and will probably put the kabosh on that type of activity in the future.

[egoldhyip]

I still think we should delegate the power to the UN to ensure a republican form of government there. It would be more cost effective for the US, and give the UN some practice.

[mirzaterak]

If Pakistan is going to have a hissy fit about their sovereignty, then, yes - it's time to throw a great big victory celebration in the various US bases in Afghanistan. Move material to Iraq, or anywhere else it's useful to us or our allies. Pull out the high-value material, march the troops home.

Metrics should be attached to all future aid to Afghanistan & to Pakistan - deliverables & timetables for delivery. If we don't get either one, the target country doesn't get the aid scheduled. Prex for life's Karzai's regime will doubtless fall - but he's not all the useful anyway.

Perhaps like the Phoenix, something useful will rise from the ashes. If not, we can always lob in a few smart weapons if anyone - Al Qaeda - tries to build up a strike force to hit the US again.

[scemHeish]

We cannot leave Afghanistan until a peaceful and propserous democracy is firmly established. Anything less is a humiliating defeat in the global war on terror.

How about bringing peace and prosperity to the US, first.

[zoneouddy]

We cannot leave Afghanistan until a peaceful and propserous democracy is firmly established.

Is that independent of what the Afghans want for themselves?

Anything less is a humiliating defeat in the global war on terror.

[wrenjmerg]

We can not leave Afghanistan until the Afghans can secure their own borders.

Pakistan must be contained.

[sanddrareyk]

We can not leave Afghanistan until the Afghans can secure their own borders.

Pakistan must be contained.

And on and on it goes. Let me ask you something. Is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan secure now(and by that I mean with US forces doing the job)? Or how about this....is the US and Mexican border secure?

How would Afghanistan or the US ever hope to contain anything? If not Pakistan then Iran. If not Iran than Libya. If not Libya then Syria. If not Syria then Yemen.

I'm sorry but I do not support having an endless world war and constant police state actions.

[bp9QxekG]

The war in Afghanistan cant be won and a withdrawal of troops is inevitable sooner or later. In my eyes it was a mistake in the first place to get involved like we did (us germans too).

[KlaraNovikoffa]

How about bringing peace and prosperity to the US, first.

We will get that when Sarah enacts tax cuts. Folks like you will not be satified until mushroom clouds are blooming over New York City.

[botagozzz]

And on and on it goes. Let me ask you something. Is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan secure now(and by that I mean with US forces doing the job)?

The US currently suffers from a doctrinal deficiency where it denies itself the ability to deploy elaborate defenses, on the idea that it needs to remain mobile and that fix defense just make you a target. They picked this up after WW2, after seeing various Germain defenses fall, due to extensive use of air power on our part. This continued in Europe throughout the Cold War, as air superiority over the Soviets was in doubt. But it is not in doubt in Afghanistan. The Taliban is able to slip through and then blend in only because we don't draw a line in the sand.

Or how about this....is the US and Mexican border secure?

That is out of political correctness.

How would Afghanistan or the US ever hope to contain anything? If not Pakistan then Iran. If not Iran than Libya. If not Libya then Syria. If not Syria then Yemen.

Same way the Germans were stopped on the Western Front in 1914.

I'm sorry but I do not support having an endless world war and constant police state actions.

Well, we really don't get to pick our challengers, do we?

[enteltcheft]

We will get that when Sarah enacts tax cuts. Folks like you will not be satified until mushroom clouds are blooming over New York City.

(My emphasis)

1. If you mean Prexy S. Palin - I don't think that that is going to happen. She doesn't even appear to be a serious candidate for the GOP prexy nomination. All we're getting from her is a kind of political poledance - will she run or won't she? She advances & retreats, does bits on Fox, shows up here & there, flits about the country.

2. Congress enacts legislation, including finance & budget.

3. If Al Queda ever got their hands on nuclear weapons, they would certainly use them. I don't know that they have the delivery system for the classic mushroom cloud, though.

[lXvtm0ox]

The US currently suffers from a doctrinal deficiency where it denies itself the ability to deploy elaborate defenses, on the idea that it needs to remain mobile and that fix defense just make you a target. They picked this up after WW2, after seeing various Germain defenses fall, due to extensive use of air power on our part. This continued in Europe throughout the Cold War, as air superiority over the Soviets was in doubt. But it is not in doubt in Afghanistan. The Taliban is able to slip through and then blend in only because we don't draw a line in the sand.

That is out of political correctness.

Same way the Germans were stopped on the Western Front in 1914.

Well, we really don't get to pick our challengers, do we?

The State Department is having its problems with Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and others, so what should to US do, according to the neo-cons? It should do what McCain suggested- "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb , bomb Iran." I'm not kidding. An article in today's paper by the Associated Press (Read "State Department press release".) quotes Michael Knights of the Washington Institute as saying "Iranian-backed militias are flexing their muscles and have steadily incrreased pressure on US forces (in Iraq)". And what is the Washington Institute? It's a neo-con think tank that includes such war-mongers as Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle, and is praised by Charles Krauthammer, beating the drums again. Here:
About Us

[unlomarma]

Obama finally sees an opportunity to suck up to his anti-war base.

The Taliban will return, we'll be right back where we started, and our blood and treasure will have been wasted.

And if I recall, this was precisely what he said he wouldn't do when he announced the kill.

We did not go there to destroy the Taliban. We went there to get OBL. We got him. Mission accomplished. Let Karzai worry about his country. The Taliban will never go away. Period. The best way to handle them is to get the military out of there and let spec ops and the CIA do their thing.

You want spending cuts....here is one of them. I know it is not the kind of spending cut that fucks over old people, disabled people and poor people but it is still a spending cut. Maybe, we can starve part of the population there before we go to make them suffer a bit.....will that work for you?

[kertUtire]

What objection is there to delegating the power to ensure a republican form of government to the UN, in Afghanistan? It should be more cost effective and should allow for more unified command and control.

[BuyCheapest]

What objection is there to delegating the power to ensure a republican form of government to the UN, in Afghanistan? It should be more cost effective and should allow for more unified command and control.

Why not? And if the UN is up to the task, it could also ensure a republican form of government in the US, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and so on.