US General asks for more troops

[Fate]

no blood for poppies

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it's a war people care about though.  I mean many countries have figures like that and it doesn't make Afghanistan a big enough issue for politicians to lose votes, or people to march over.

Combine that with a Democratic base that's opposed to the war and already upset with Obama on a number of issues, and a president who doesn't like to spend political capital, that's not a recipe for success.

[Sheilbh]

Combine that with a Democratic base that's opposed to the war and already upset with Obama on a number of issues, and a president who doesn't like to spend political capital, that's not a recipe for success.

I disagree.  I don't think people currently really care about Afghanistan - opposition is dissatisfaction not rage, support is pretty tepid.  That could change but I think it's difficult for opposition to a war to get riled up when almost everyone initially supported it.  I don't think the Democrat base are that angry either. 

I actually think Afghanistan could start a division in Republican foreign policy thinking.  The neocons on one side arguing for whatever it takes and, on the other side, old school conservatives (like George Will) for whom Afghanistan's the model of a futile war - nation building in, difficult terrain, with little support and opponents on many sides.

If we pull out of Afghanistan it won't be because of public anger or Congressional/Parliamentary votes.  It'll be because a group of wise men go there and say it's not worth it/not winnable.

[Admiral Yi]

I disagree.  I don't think people currently really care about Afghanistan - opposition is dissatisfaction not rage, support is pretty tepid.  That could change but I think it's difficult for opposition to a war to get riled up when almost everyone initially supported it.  I don't think the Democrat base are that angry either. 

I actually think Afghanistan could start a division in Republican foreign policy thinking.  The neocons on one side arguing for whatever it takes and, on the other side, old school conservatives (like George Will) for whom Afghanistan's the model of a futile war - nation building in, difficult terrain, with little support and opponents on many sides.

If we pull out of Afghanistan it won't be because of public anger or Congressional/Parliamentary votes.  It'll be because a group of wise men go there and say it's not worth it/not winnable.

If by a panel of wise men you mean a fig leaf to hide behind, I agree.

No, there's not rage, and I don't think we'll see it.  What we will see are candlelight vigils for dead US servicemen, increasingly snide political cartoons and late night jokes, water cooler mutterings about quagmires and flowerly op-eds from Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein about the greater type of courage that it takes to admit you can't win.  All aimed at a president that takes the public mood very seriously.

[The Minsky Moment]

All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.

Latest ABC poll has 53% of Americans responding that the war is not worth fighting.

Good news for NYC tourism!

[The Minsky Moment]

The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.

there was an operational strategy of clear, hold build, and cutting deals with local milita commanders.  No reason in theory why the model can't be ported over.  There wasn't an overarching political strategy in Iraq on a national level, and indeed we were stuck with the less than inspiring Maliki (shades of Karzai there) and a dysfunctional government that STILL HAS NOT PASSED A PROPER OIL LAW among other deficiencies.

My skepticism with the surge in Iraq was precisely that there seemed to be no approach to dealing with the fundamental political problems - many of these still remain unresolved to this day and yet the results of the strategy were still positive.

[Berkut]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

We've had between one and two thousand troops in Afghanistan nearly continuously since '03.  Our armed forces only total about 50k, of which sadly many are more administrative people, or are in the airforce or navy.  We don't have all that many more troops we could send.

And our troops have been fighting and dying that entire time.  They have not been restricted to Kabul like some nations.

On a per capita basis we have done our share.  You can argue we ought to have a larger army and so ought to be able to send more troops.  You can make that argument.  But to call our contribution "paltry and sad" when we literally sent as many trooops as we could is just not accurate.

I do in fact make that argument.

Saying we sent as many as we could because we hardly had any to begin with doesn't address my point at all.

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jhJA1Hjxk


*respect*

[Darth Wagtaros]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI

Berkut's hatred of Canada was obviously inspired by the lamestream media.

[Neil]

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

Why?  Until this summer, both countries had .1% of their population in Afghanistan, and the US military is proportionately twice as large as Canada's.

Face it:  The US has been slacking in Afghanistan and leaving Canada to carry the load.  It's no wonder that the Canadian military is pulling out.

[The Minsky Moment]

If only we could satisfy Afghanistan's security needs with fingers being pointed.  Then we would have more than we could ever need.

[Neil]

If only we could satisfy Afghanistan's security needs with fingers being pointed.  Then we would have more than we could ever need.

Why should Canada care about Afghanistan's security needs?  Afghanistan did nothing to Canada.  Strictly speaking, it's shouldn't even be a NATO matter.

[Berkut]

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

Why?  Until this summer, both countries had .1% of their population in Afghanistan,

And that is clearly not enough for either country.

I guess you could argue that if the rest of NATO gave a damn and actually sent some troops who were willing to actually do something, neither the US or Canada would need to send more into Afghanistan.

[Agelastus]

And that is clearly not enough for either country.

I guess you could argue that if the rest of NATO gave a damn and actually sent some troops who were willing to actually do something, neither the US or Canada would need to send more into Afghanistan.

I TAKE IT I SHOULD PETITION THE IDIOT IN CHARGE OF MY COUNTRY TO SEND OUR 9000 TROOPS HOME THEN, INSTEAD OF SENDING MORE AS HE IS THINKING OF DOING? DO YOU WANT ME TO SPIT IN THE FACE OF THE SACRIFICE OVER 200 OF MY COUNTRYMEN HAVE MADE, WHILE FIGHTING IN HELMAND AND ELSEWHERE?






Excuse the rant, brought on by tiredness and general pissed-off-ness.

[Berkut]

You really should take the time to read more carefully.

I can't help but wonder how someone can confuse "Canada (and everyone) should send more troops" with "DO YOU THINK MY COUNTRY SHOULD SEND OUR TROOPS HOME! ZOMG! FER SURE!"