They do not want a large increase in troops and I have to agree with their reasoning. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the United States must fully share its plans for Afghanistan with Pakistan so that it can contribute to them. He warned of our closing posts near the border and I agree we should increase our presence there. Pakistan's Gilani warns Obama over US Afghan troop plan
I agree with Pakistan that we should put Karzai to the test and concentrate our efforts on securing the Afghanistan Pakistan border to contain militants in Pakistan so Pakistan can eradicate them if possible and keep them from migrating into Afghanistan to complicate our efforts. Border security is key to the success of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and should be a prime concern and the effort of Afghan forces can be spent training up and killing the militants that are already in country!
I agree with what should be the final option on the table, dubbed the "hybrid" option, it would involve a surge of around 20,000 troops to reinforce major population areas coupled with a renewed counter-terrorist effort against al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in lawless tribal areas along the border with Pakistan coupled with the major emphasis being training up Afghans to take over their security so we can go home.
We will find out in a few days and I am gratified with much of what I am hearing about Obama's plan but dismayed that he wants to add some 34,000 troops. Head of Management and Budget Peter Orzak had a ring side seat because of the costs involved. At a cost of $1 million per year per soldier and a possible “temporary” increase of some 34,000 soldiers we are not talking peanuts here and have heard rumors of a war tax, pay as you fight! US Will Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2017: White House
With the U.S. deficit hitting $1.4 trillion and fueling Americans' concerns about high government spending, sending more troops to Afghanistan will be a politically risky move for Obama. Republicans of course want the troop increase but will use the deficit to make sure that this is Obama’s Waterloo.
As you know, concerns at home are the smallest part of this. This is very complicated thanks to Bush’s ineptitude. Pakistan is blaming militants regrouping outside Waziristan on the US but it is due to their success. Counter to their belief, I think a surge hurts us but will in fact help them. I guess once again we will have to find out the hard way. I remember Obama saying he wanted to be out before his time was up knowing that meant two terms. Now we hear 2017. We can only hope that is etched in stone! Pakistan Taliban regrouping outside Waziristan
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
12 comments:
Hi Jim,
Isn`t the defecit closer to 14 trillion, rather than 1.4?
The stock markets are beginning to fall, across the world...and once again, there`s talk of a collapse in the greenback.
The British pound is struggling too, seems like much of our economy was based on house prices, arms sales... and bank profits.
The German minister of defence has lost his post, having lied over the conduct of German troops.
The European public is weary, they lack the blind faith in their governments that is often found in the US... they know that the war on terror is of dubious merit, and both Canada and Holland are set (during 2010), to withdraw completely from the Afghan theatre, followed no doubt by the rest.... except America.
If the dollar continues to fall, the cost of war will rise proportionately, but at what point does the security of "puppet presidents" in Afghanistan and Iraq outweigh the domestic pressures of government debt, homelessness and unemployment.
Ah well, 1.3 or 13 trillion, it does seem like bankruptcy and/or default are possibilities, the outcome of which I wouldn`t care to forecast.
(Oops...edit for syntax.)
Hi Landsker! Yes! 2.4 is for the year. They officially say the 14 total but you can google the truth. Last time I did a year ago real debt was$54 trillion and blind faith in these idiots is what got us here. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving if you celebrate it!
Will wait until Tuesday evening until making any judgments, much has been leaked about what Obama will propose, I hope the best bits have not, because what I have read is not good.
I agree Holte! Unless there is a lot going on behind the scenes what I have heard is not good!
Hi again,
Since the first comment, according to "The Guardian" in London, apparently, the London government have now got a new, but often used strategy of ...declare victory, furl the flag ... and run; In Trinidad yesterday, Gordon Brown announced that Britain is handing back Helmand province to Karzai, and that the British troops numbers are to be reduced by end of 2010.
London is clearly not so supportive of a prolonged engagement.... Britain is also in debt, but public opinion is rising against increased military spending.
The custom of feasting to celebrate European *arrival* in the New World?.... no, it seems not to be prevalent here .
Lanssker I am right now listening to an evaluation of Afghanistan. Is that because as was done in Iraq and each province showed the ability to take care of its own security it was handed back?
If I remember correctly the Brits were the first ti hand over. I was just listening to how if the tribal leaders could be persuaded to say no Taliban, there would be no Taliban.
Getting them on our side so we can leave is key. It will be interesting to hear what Obama has to say Tuesday night.
The guy who was supposed to get us out of these Republican wars has obviously taken the Bush agenda and run with it.
This truly is a mess. Obama is in a no win situation. I don't believe Afghanistan can rise to the occassion and provide the needed protection. There's too much corruption and high unemployment there. I think that's the only reason they have any Afghan army.
You did hear the latest on Zarkari? He's slowly giving up power. The country's nukes are now under Gilani's control. Great, so now we have to deal with two nations with questionable leadership.
As for running with the Bush agenda Larry what would you do? If we leave Al Qaeda can easily come back and we'd be right back to where we were before 911. If we stay and do a surge there's no guarantee we can finish it. It's a lose lose situation.
You're right Larry! Kinder and gentler but the same!
Demeur, Juan Cole makes an interesting case that the Taliban will not be too happy having AQ back. After all, their presence brought about the Taliban's eviction from power.
I think we can easily make a deal with whoever takes power in Afghanistan by offering aid in exchange for keeping AQ out.
It would be so much cheaper, and less deadly, than the permanent war alternative.
Demeur the situation in Pakistan is very convoluted and we are long prepared to grab the nukes or so they think. That is tomorrows conversation.
As for Afghanistan I did hear the right take and I have to hope Obama has it too. They do not want a central Government there period. Turn the provincial leaders against the Taliban. If they do not want them there they will not be! Then we will zip home!
Post a Comment