The Surge in Afghanistan- Good Idea or Bad Idea?

[tekisui]

Poll question: The Surge in Afghanistan- Good Idea or Bad Idea?

The escalating surge in Afghanistan is coming this Spring. The US will be moving 20,000-30,000 troops into Afghanistan, nearly doubling the number of troops there. This will be paired with a strategy of 'greater engagement' of the militants, as well as cross border strikes in Pakistan, when needed.

Biden has told us to brace for an 'uptick' in US casualties. Casualties have been 'upticking' since the war in Afghanistan began.

Year US Other Total
2009 11 8 19
2008 155 139 294
2007 117 115 232
2006 98 93 191
2005 99 31 130
2004 52 6 58
2003 48 9 57
2002 49 20 69
2001 12 0 12
Total 641 421 1062

http://icasualties.org/oef/


Is the surge a good idea? Will it help us achieve the objective and get out sooner? Of will it pro-long the war?

[Aloha Spirit]

1. It sounds like a lot more than just a troop surge, if you believe what Holbrooke and Gates have said

on the topic.
Gates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8139572&mesg_id=8140381
Holbrooke
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8139572&mesg_id=8139572

still though, I'm curious to see where this poll goes... thanks for posting!

[Life Long Dem]

2. 30,000 won't be enough. More more more! And finish this off once and for all.

No draft, but Obama should reach out and inspire enlistment.

[tekisui]

4. I watched a PBS Frontline on Afghanistan,

the analysts in that piece said that to 'do it right; would require upwards of 100,000 troops, which we just don't have. Nor, the public have the stomach for.

[niceypoo]

8. Troops wont cut it

They need hospitals, schools, roads, brothels...

[BobRossi]

7. Yeah, more, like 'Nam.

Let's see if we can top 50,000. Please.

[BobRossi]

3. Very bad.

GET OUT NOW! We will never EVER change a culture that doesn't want to change. We will never EVER kill all of our enemies.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Yes, and you didn't even hint at the unholy alliances General "Peaches" has within this NARCO State.

:wow: It's a NO WIN situation ... let's read up on our history? The British horrid defeat in 1918 after messing around in that area for a quarter centuray and the plight of The Soviets after their attempt at empire building during the 1970s?

We will NOT get a long sustaining Multi-national force, we don't speak the language and WE don't know the culture.

Most important: The Afghani Citizens do not want their country to be OCCUPIED. Like the Vietnamese they will lay low and fight us to their last citizen. THEY (THE NATIVES) WILL WIN and WE WILL GO BROKE. :thumbsdown:

[unhappycamper]

6. Afghanistan = Vietnam

One would think we learned our lesson in Vietnam, but I guess not. One would also think Obama reads history and ask WTF are we doing there, but it appears he's gonna 'surge'.

The 2009 military budget is now at almost a trillion dollars, with the continued occupations costing upwards of $150 billion.

We now have $11 billion aircraft carriers in the pipeline, $5+ billion destroyers, $355 million fighter airplanes. etc. etc.

[mmonk]

9. I think it will eventually lead to further implosion and collapse.

We already may be there but haven't come to grasp with reality yet.

[tekisui]

10. I think it is already a failed state.

All we are doing now is trying to hold Kabul, and keep Karzai's weak government as mayor of Kabul from falling.

[Aloha Spirit]

11. What are we supposed to make of Medvedev's comments about helping the US?

Seriously, I have no idea.

[tekisui]

12. Mixed signals from Russia:

Russia stops US on road to Afghanistan

At any rate, within a day of Petraeus' remark, Moscow corrected him. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Maslov told Itar-Tass, “No official documents were submitted to Russia's permanent mission in NATO certifying that Russia had authorized the United States and NATO to transport military supplies across the country."

A day later, Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, added from Brussels, "We know nothing of Russia's alleged agreement of military transit of Americans or NATO at large. There had been suggestions of the sort, but they were not formalized." And, with a touch of irony, Rogozin insisted Russia wanted the military alliance to succeed in Afghanistan.

"I can responsibly say that in the event of NATO's defeat in Afghanistan, fundamentalists who are inspired by this victory will set their eyes on the north. First they will hit Tajikistan, then they will try to break into Uzbekistan ... If things turn out badly, in about 10 years, our boys will have to fight well-armed and well-organized Islamists somewhere in Kazakhstan," the popular Moscow-politician turned diplomat added.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KA27Df01.html

They don't want a failed state in Afghanistan, but they aren't eager to help either.

[cali]

13. I don't know.

I think a military surge, in and of itself, is a bad, bad idea. I think that if it's built into a multinational effort with U.N. approval/guidance that focuses on rebuilding the country, it could be a positive move.