Meet the new Boss,,Same as the old boss....Why is Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan

[dos pelos]

Why is Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan?This was Bush's war.It is not critical to American security.Afghanistan is not a threat to American security.WHY is Obama continuing the old Bush wars?I voted for change.This is the same old story here.The Taliban in Afghanistan did not cause 9/11,a bunch of Saudi nationals did that.The Taliban does not threaten us.Are we going to intervene and send troops to Burma?They have a nasty government.How about Sri Lanka? Lets send troops there!This is just a continuation,a worsening of the old Bush policies.

[DS1]

1. Because he's just like BOOOOSH!

[earthside]

2. And, where is the Iraq withdrawal plan?

We're down to fifteen months now for Obama to keep his promise.

[gratuitous]

3. I don't know; candidate Obama promised to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan

But what do I know? I'm one of those lily-livered pantywaists who believes that all war is sin, and that military personnel are under no obligation to a government that has broken its promises to them.

[GodlessBiker]

10. Yes, he campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[Mz Pip]

4. This is not a surprise

He campaigned on this so if you we paying attention you would have known this when you went into the voting booth.

I'm not crazy about continuing in Afghanistan but there were far too many other issues at stake for me to stay home or vote for McInsane/Gimmick

[TV Stevie]

12. Shoulda voted for Ron Paul!

Obama is a (possibly unwitting) shill for the entrenched financial power elites... just look at all the Wall Street types he has surrounded himself with. War is good for business and it is good for muffling the outrage of the economically downtrodden. Don't expect anything to change regarding U.S. military interventions around the world.

[blondeatlast]

27. God help us all--the PaulBearers are back.

Enjoy your stay.

[sufrommich]

37. Oy. nt

[anonymous171]

45. lol Ron Paul. nt

[leftofthedial]

14. The issue is not one of the OPs "surprise" or lack of surprise.

The issue is why do this? How can anyone possibly rationalize this? It is not enough tropps to make a difference. It is only enough troops to escalate violence in a region famous since before Alexander the Great for swallowing whole the armies and colonial aspirations of empires.

[Mz Pip]

25. Obama siad he would do this

Where was the concern about this during the campaign. I don't recall Obama being peppered with questions about the justification for continuing in Afghanistan. Now that he is following through with what he always said he would do the outrage comes out.

This escalation is worthy of debate but it's a little late to be just starting to ask those questions as though this troop increase is coming out of the blue.

[leftofthedial]

26. anyone who asked a critical question on ANY subject about Obama

was told to shut up and go away, had their threads locked, was put on widespread Ignore...

It is NEVER too late to ask those questions.

[Mz Pip]

29. I'm not talking just about DU

This didn't seem to come up in the campaign at all. I don't recall Obama ever being criticized on his plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. If anything, there seemed to be a pretty strong consensus that it was a good idea.

I'm not saying it's too late to start asking questions. We should. All I'm saying is if there was such concern about such actions why wasn't it addressed during the campaign? It wasn't. Now that it's happening people are expressing outrage. Where was that outrage before?

[leftofthedial]

35. I recall it as being recognized for what it was,

a pre-emptive bone thrown to the right to give him some degree of cover for proposing eventual withdrawal from Iraq. There was some jingoistic cheering that maybe that meant he'd go after bin Laden.

News flash. Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan.

Many were outraged before. That outrage was drowned out by the noise of the election.

Regardless, now that it's happening it's even more important that people speak out--not less so.

[Mz Pip]

41. I'm not disagreeing with you

Although I am not as certain as to where bin Laden is, I have changed my feelings about our continued presense in Afghanistan. Perhaps the neighboring countries should take the major role in going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It certainly isn't in the best interests of the neighboring countries to have these creeps destabilizing the region. Maybe our being gone will get them to understand that and deal with it on their own.

I don't think our goal was to ever take over the country like the Soviets wanted to, but where we go from here needs to be debated.

[leftofthedial]

64. This is so much like Viet Nam in the very early 1960's, it's scary.

We have no real mission other than a vague "us-versus-the-evil-empire" notion; we are escalating for no explicable reason; there are no end criteria; we "don't want to take over the country" like the last occupiers wanted to...


The only difference I see is oil and natural gas pipelines.

[sufrommich]

38. Obama should just tell the American people "we're done

chasing down Osama". That should go over well.

[leftofthedial]

65. 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan,

or 50,000 more, or 150,000 more, won't bring bin Laden one second closer to Justice.

Although, since he hasn't been charged with any crimes, there is no need to bring him closer to Justice.

[Vinca]

5. Well . . . there is the odd chance he might get Bin Laden.

Wouldn't that be sweet?

[and-justice-for-all]

6. He obviously thinks there is some concern there...

Karsi does not have any authority out side of Kabul, the warlords and such control everything. Going in to Afghanistan is a waste of time, money and resources. Hell, occupation of the middle is a waste of time, money and resources.

I think, I would like to think anyway, that Obama has the true intentions of a full withdraw of that region. but, then again....

[Mrs. Overall]

7. Hmmm,,Nice try...

[The Wielding Truth]

8. We have a bad mess to stabilize. We will be approaching this

threat there,that is definitely growing, with intelligent cooperative guidance in which the military will not be used in the hard line fashion of the incomprehensible * administration.

If we leave with out mending the wounds we have cut into this country they will always see us as the monsters that * has shown us to be.

[tekisui]

9. WHile I disagree with his Afghanistan policy, Obama is not like b*sh.

Not in the least. The comparison is inane.

[riqster]

11. Because he promised to.

Unusual, I know, for a politico to keep a campaign pledge, but there you go.

[leftchick]

13. Oil, Pipelines, Torture Bases

all of the above.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Exactly.

[bowens43]

15. You did listen to him during the campaign, didn't you?

this is exactly what he said he was going to do. I guess seeing a politician do what he says he will do is a new experience for you......

[biermeister]

16. to secure the oil piplines & poppy production nt.

[blondeatlast]

17. The entire region is a mess and Veep Joe Biden knows that better than

just about anyone else on this planet.

Stability in that region will go a very long way in reducing terrorism within the region and without as well.

I'm not exactly HAPPY about this--but something needs to be done and the Taliban are motherfuckers to the Afghans.

Of all the mistakes Obama is going to make, I consider this one very trivial and it might just pay off in the long run (the long run--remember that?)

[serrano2008]

18. He sent them there to defeat Al Queda who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks.

Have you been up on the Internation Space Station for the past 8 years or something?

[leftchick]

61. I believe most were Saudi Nationals

and we haven't been fighting anybody lately except the Taliban. Who happen to have never done anything to the US except reject the Caspian Pipeline. Now that is enough to get you bombed an occupied. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Thanks For Your Concern Ralph.

[blondeatlast]

28. More likely Ron; the PaulBearers seem to be back lately.

I give them credit for stealth.

[Pirate Smile]

20. I guess you weren't paying attention during the TWO YEAR campaign.

[Numba6]

56. der uber-progressives don't really want to know "why", they want validation for being "right"

If they really wanted to know "why", how else explain why they can't seem to figure out how to look at his position papers from his campaign web site or whitehouse.gov or any of the hundreds of articles on Obama's position to see his reasonings?

they'd rather play the "aggrieved victim" who is SHOCKED about something Obama's talked about for a couple of years, and SHOCKED that Obama doesn't clear all his policy positions with them, personally, one by one

IMHO

(& I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt to say they're even "uber-progressives", cause I don't know for a fact they're trolls or something -- & I automatically put on my "ignore" list anyone who says "Obama is just like Bush" or "no different from McCain." Automatically.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. To prove he's "tough" on terra' and a "strong" leader.

Not to mention keeping the geniuses at the Pentagon happy.

[librechik]

22. It's part of a smooth transition out of that region entirely--without rousing the pitbulls

in charge of the military. THEY have been asking for more troops. This will be popular amoing the generals--and Obama needs that.

There's still time to withdraw, safely and prudently. Or maybe we should stay there to keep an eye on the nuke threat in Pakistan.

If only things could be Manichean Black and White, as Bush believes. It would be so simple to just label the area "EVIL" and retreat. But then there's a danger the tribes would be closer to control of the Pakistani missiles.

I'm glad it's not my job. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[TNOE]

40. Not that's a "sanity" post!

My God(ess) this is unbelievable - we were already at "war" or occupation in Afghanistan - he can't undo everything king george did for the past 8 years in a month. We can't just walk out and brush off our hands. We've made a mess - its our responsibility and our duty to try and leave it better than we found it.

We could have had McBush - and all out more wars and a draft - or Hillary - who supported the war. We got and took the best we were offered.

PATIENCE PEOPLE.

[spanone]

23. he's is not at all like the old boss

[WI_DEM]

24. yes, Obama is just like Bush

apparently you didn't pay attention during the campaign. Obama long has said that he would do more in Afghanistan and that the war in Iraq was misguided because it took the mission away from where it should have been after 9/11.

[stray cat]

30. Do you really think life would be identical under McCain/Palin?

[TwilightGardener]

31. Am I the only person on DU who believes we face a very credible threat from this region?

Because to say that we face no threat from Al Qaeda (who are sheltered by the Taliban) is to say that 9/11 was either LIHOP, MIHOP, or didn't happen--we all hallucinated it. Reading this shit makes me unfortunately think of the Freeper term "moonbat". There's Democrats (I am one), and then there's moonbats who believe that if we always back down from threats, they'll go away and it'll be marshmallows and sunshine. Holy shit, the stupidity...

[bigtree]

32. then there are folks who believe that if we just do more of the same

. . . doubling down on the military forces and escalating the offensive violence against the resisting Afghans, that we'll 'win' something or the other that we can wave around as a 'defeat' of 'al-Qaeda'.

Most folks looking on are astute enough to recognize that the 'threat' to the U.S. has actually been inflated in response to our swaggering militarism across sovereign borders in the region as more and more individuals are identifying and aligning with our 'al-Qaeda' and 'Taliban' nemesis with violent expressions of self-determination and sovereignty that our grudging forces dismiss as mere threats to their consolidation of power. This occupation long ago descended into a perpetual battle against the effects of our own self-serving militarism. To represent this as a prudent or responsible response to the 'threats' you describe ignores the entire history of our military deployments in the years following the 9-11 attacks.

[TwilightGardener]

34. You have completely confused Afghanistan with Iraq--funny, on DU even

as late as last fall, Afghanistan was defended as a military action, separate from Iraq--now everyone here is LUMPING IT IN with Iraq, as though they are simply two different battlegrounds of the same war all of a sudden. I can't argue with people who see the motives, circumstances, and ultimate consequences of the two wars as having morphed into identical twins--because there's no arguing with irrational people. Somewhere, between the war-for-war's-sake Republicans, and the "no war is ever justified" far left, sanity lies.

[bigtree]

39. Now you've reduced yourself to ridiculing my opinion

. . . by conflating it with your DU strawman ('everyone here is LUMPING IT IN with Iraq').

Try and understand that some of us have bothered to keep track of EVERY aspect of militarism waged abroad by our nation. I didn't mention Iraq at all in my response, but it's really impossible to evaluate our mission in Afghanistan without taking the consequences and effects of the Iraq invasion and occupation into account.


How did reason enter the world? As is fitting, in an irrational way, accidentally. We will have to guess at it, like a riddle. - Nietzsche

[TwilightGardener]

44. First of all, there is no strawman--read many of the posts above ours.

You clearly have an agenda to fit Afghanistan into just another example of our "militarism" (which apparently implies "unjustified")--you are unable to consider it separately from all of our other military actions--that's a lazy way to deal with something very complex. I want all the DUers who oppose further troops to Afghanistan to tell me what will happen to our soldiers already there when they start to become outnumbered and outgunned by militants--we haven't significantly raised our troop levels there (couldn't spare them, really), and yet we're taking greater casualties. Then tell me what will happen if we abruptly pull out and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, or any other extremist regime or terror network that decides to jockey for power--what will this do to the Afghanis who resisted the Taliban, what will happen over the border in Pakistan? What will this mean to the rest of the world? What will happen if another major terror attack from this region happens to us again, or to our allies? What do we do then, shrug in helplessness? What will we do if extremists eventually take over Pakistan and their nuclear arms? Hope they go back to just hitting us with airplanes, out of mercy? Think it through.

[bigtree]

46. 'lazy' would be the word I might use to describe your own argument

. . . which echoes the justifications used by the past administration in their 7-year occupation of Afghanistan.

Advocating for some rationality to our mission there isn't a call for withdrawal. That's your own strawman. The folks you refer to as 'they' are swelling in ranks in response to our strident militarism. Even Obama's Pentagon leaders have admitted that the military isn't the ultimate solution in Afghanistan, so, I'm certainly not going to represent them as such.

I may not be opposed to more troops in Afghanistan after I hear the 'plan' which is currently under review. But, it's presumptuous to expect those looking on to support a military posture without a clear direction or end game. You may well have a notion of the ultimate outcome of the introduction of these forces. The military, however, has predicted an increase in casualties without outlining the mission that would justify those sacrifices.

By the way, it's my understanding that the 9-11 hijackers 'launched' their attacks from New Jersey. I'm not any more concerned about the prospect of an attack 'from Afghanistan' than I am from anywhere else that America's self-serving, swaggering militarism is objected to and resisted.

[TwilightGardener]

51. Then neither of us are calling for an immediate withdrawal, both of us agree that

there should be clear and measurable goals and an exit strategy/end game. Good enough.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Falling dominoes redux? "We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here?"

Your arguments for more war have a familiar ring. Going all the way back to the Roman Empire whose politicians and emperors enthralled with the notion of external threats from distant tribes of invaders. It worked well. The Roman people gave up their freedoms and bankrupted themselves trying to defend it from the "barbarians", many of whom had previously been their allies.

[TwilightGardener]

50. Well, here's the problem--this is a stateless enemy, in a nuclear world.

Do we allow them to take over a state, and have or develop access to nuclear weapons? In Iraq, the "fight them over there" argument was ridiculous, since Iraqis did not attack us and were not even INCLINED to attack us. In parts of Afghanistan and the no-man's-land border area, are there people who intend to strike us, or not? It all depends on what you believe. These are not barbarian dudes with arrows and battle-axes--they can bring large western cities to their knees, and they are not doing it to grab our silver or land. This is an ideological problem--not something that can be negotiated or reasoned out. These are people who throw acid into little girls' eyes because they dared go to school. I am all for an end to this war, being that I have "skin in the game", but for those who want us to simply leave, please use your crystal balls and tell us what will happen, with confidence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. I can no more tell you what will happen if we leave than you can tell me

what will happen if we stay.

What I think might happen if we leave is that the Taliban will take over parts of Afghanistan. What I think will happen if we stay is that the Taliban will take over parts of Afghanistan.

I further think that Pakistan will isolate them in the NWFP and deal with them piecemeal.

Both of the (undeclared) wars we are waging are the result of the fear engendered by our government to justify their appetite for war and display to the American people that they're "doing something" however stupid and self-defeating.

By any rational measure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been, and continue to be, monumental flops.

[TwilightGardener]

58. I think Afghanistan was justified, and the mission there winnable at one time, as

opposed to Iraq, which was never justified and there's nothing to "win" (not our security, anyway). I didn't need the government to engender fear in me regarding terror, I was able to do that on my own, with my own eyes on my own TV. Just because the American people (and especially DUers) by and large have lost their taste for war, revenge, what have you, due to our Iraq folly, does NOT mean that our goals or efforts in Afghanistan are similarly pointless. It's worrisome that people keep tying both efforts together in a bid to abandon both. Each should be examined on its own merits. The jury's in on Iraq, has been for a while--it was a lie and a hoax and a tragedy, and needs to be brought to an end. But Obama does not have a similar luxury with Afghanistan, which is why it pains me to see formerly supportive DUers turning on him at this difficult juncture and ascribing BushCo motives to him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. It was never "winnable" whatever that means.

And, there is still no "end game" other than staying there until we are too broke, too exhausted, or simply beaten.

I didn't "turn" against Obama, I was against the invasion and subjugation of Afghanistan as much as I was against our other dick waving measures in Iraq. I've been anti-war since they asked me to extend my enlistment and kill Vietnamese "terrorists" that threatened, according to the bosses, to install Communism in 'Murka.

In this instance, the war is not only immoral, but downright stupid. They're still trying to kill an idea with firepower and calling it security. It secures nothing. It kills people. A lot of people. More people than died in the WTC by far. And, for similarly stupid reasons.

[quickesst]

66. Good on you

"LUMPING IT IN with Iraq" Obvious, but needed to be said.

" Somewhere, between the war-for-war's-sake Republicans, and the "no war is ever justified" far left, sanity lies."

I can't think of a sane argument against that. :)Thanks.
quickesst

[Hugabear]

63. Remember when Bill Clinton invaded Libya with thousands of troops?

Oh wait...he didn't. He relied on diplomatic and economic methods to pressure Libya into handing over the PanAm bombing suspects.

[Greyhound]

67. You can't fight a war against a tactic. You should know that.

Al Qaeda exists all over and is only one of dozens or hundreds of such organizations. We could depopulate Afghanistan and terrorists will still exist, will still hate and plot and kill.

There is no military solution to terrorism, just accept it and move on to things that will work.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Campaign promise kept.

[bigtree]

43. but, as for the 'why'

. . . I'm not sure the campaign promise will suffice as an answer. We're still waiting for the bulk of the 'why' which is due in April from the 'inter-agency task force on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The initial 'why' has been described by officials as a shoring-up of the forces in the south (not a bad plan) and a reinforcement of security around Kabul ahead of the upcoming 'elections'. Beyond those, we really don't have a clear understanding of 'why' or 'what for'.

[sufrommich]

36. OMG, he is exactly like BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eyes:

[northernlights]

48. Afghanistan, Pakistan and a couple hundred nukes

The Taliban and al Qaeda operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pakistan is on the brink of becoming a failed state. al Qaeda and the Taliban are trying to push it over the brink. Pakistan, in case you have forgotten, have a nuclear arsenal.

It's not about the opium trade. It's not about being tuff on terra'ists. It's because the region is considered the most serious threat in the world today.

Do you *really* want to see bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban with their own state -- and a nuclear arsenal to boot?

[Greyhound]

68. And when Pakistan drives it's nuke into New Delhi what will the justification be? n/t

[TNOE]

49. Embarrassing Freeper Post Award

for this one.

[firedupdem]

52. Was your mission accomplished? What a dumb post!

Transparent as hell.

[tammywammy]

53. Fulfilling a campaign promise

:shrug:

How dare that guy say he was going to increase troops during the campaign and then have the audacity to actually do it when he's elected president!

[sad sally]

55. Because the US has ONLY been in Afghanistan for seven - count 'em - 7 YEARS

heard today US troops will be there for another FIVE YEARS. Let's see, if a Country has foreign occupiers in it for seven going on 12 years, will it generate good will and peace? Oh, peace wasn't the objective of these wars? The "goal" was to rid one Country of an evil ruler or find weapons of mass destruction, and to catch a lunatic in another or to wage a war the Russians couldn't win in 10 years? And then there's the big continuing "stimulus package" for the always needed war machines - wars are also an easy way to lose track of a couple billion of those dollars. If you're hungry and homeless just find a big bullet you can suck on and an empty bomb box to sleep in. Forgot, wars are also good for the makers of prosthesis and funerals.
yes, this subject - WAR - makes me crazy!

[jillan]

57. Could it be because Al Queda is in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan - and Pakistan has nukes?

[firenze841]

60. iraq withdrawal

How about making a big dent in the budget deficit and start
pulling troops out of Iraq NOW!.. I haven't heard the word
Iraq from Obama's lips since he has been president.  When will
we begin to draw down troops there?

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I don't know why.Probably because he never puts a space after the end of a Sentence.Really!

One thing about Obama.He's funny that way?He is.