President Obama has ordered approximately 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan. In September General McCrystal requested 40,000 more in order to get the job done. President Obama will surely have difficulty with his liberal base over sending more troops.
The New York Times states:
Mr. Obama conveyed his decision to military leaders late Sunday afternoon during a meeting in the Oval Office and then spent Monday phoning foreign counterparts, including the leaders of Britain, France and Russia.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, declined to say how many additional troops would be deployed, but senior administration officials previously have said that about 30,000 will go in coming months, bringing the total American force to about 100,000.
President Obama will ask NATO nations to help fill in the additional 6,000 needed troops. While he has suffered criticism from the left, the President has also been criticized from the right for deliberating for what some see \as too long. He was accused of ‘dithering’ by some Republicans. President Obama will address the nation tonight from the United States Military Academy at West Point at 8:00 PM.
What should happen here? Should a time line be announced? Should Obama have sent troops immediately without the many meetings with his military advisors? Does it endanger the existing troops in Afghanistan if there are not enough boots on the ground? Should generals always get what they ask for? How many troops are still in Iraq?
How many people do 34,000 troops equal?
Miss Pinko, while this decision may cost lives in the short run, our best bet is that it will save lives in the long run, both Afghan and American lives. As for the period of deliberation behind this decision, I can’t help but imagine it was related to the chaos surrounding the Afghan elections, and the awkward position we face with an anti-democratic and corrupt dictator, in effect, ruling Afghanistan without the trust of his people, and with the aftertaste of an oil executive chosen by the Bush Administration.
We elected President Obama with the understanding that we’d essentially need to start fresh in Afghanistan after 8 years fighting the wrong war in the wrong country. Of course it was not until two months before the election that we learned we would be facing a global economic crisis to go with duel foreign policy crises, but that does not change the fact that it is in our national interest to fix the pottery we broke, and not allow Afghanistan to deteriorate into a safe haven for terrorists.
A final note about the time it took for Obama to announce this decision: there is an old saying that goes “fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.” When American lives and global security are at stake, I prefer the later to the former. This decision was a decision that will have ramifications for the rest of our lives and indeed the rest of this century. I would loath to see such a decision made based on an inexperienced young President’s “gut,” or more accurately, at the urgent behest of a mercenary and panic-stricken Vice President, a perfect storm that created the present calamity plaguing the region and the globe.
Actually, I was literally asking how many people make up 34,000 troops.
I can’t tell if this war will save lives or not. I just know it is eating up our resources, time and spirits…never mind solders’ and civilians’ lives.
I understand, but national debt is not an issue when the money goes toward fighting wars, otherwise there would have been a populist revolt six or seven years ago. Economic impact is the most important factor for domestic policy and trade policy. Foreign policy, I think, should be gauged by lives lost and lives saved, not only American lives, but the peace and security of the region and of the globe.
34,000 pinko. Troops = service personnel. Saves saying Marines, Army, Navy, Air force, coast guard, men, women.
LBH, I am glad it was deliberated also.
@Moon-howler
Yes, but how many peopl? 20? 30? A million?
1 troop = 1 person.
so 34,000 military persons.
@Pat.Herve
Really? That’s weird. I always thought a troop was more than one person.
Okay, here’s where my confusion came in.
According to Wiki, a Troop is “a small unit of cavalry or some police forces.” (I guess that’s like “F Troop”?) But that’s not the same as our military troops.
I also read in a forum discussion that Marines and Air Force personnel get angry if you call them “troops,” that “troop” is an army term.
Everyone I know has always called a collective group ‘troops.’ Marines like to be called ‘Marines’ if separated from others. Not sure what the Air Force folks like.
President Obama is outlining the objectives for increasing troops in Afghanistan.
Highlights:
Increase security and oust the Taliban, combat corruption, train Afghanistan, assist with agriculture,
He assures the Afghan people that he does not want to occupy the country. He wants them to be independent and war free.
He speaks of our relationship with Pakistan and reinforces our friendships there.
Pakistan people are the most in danger because of proxminity to extremism. No safe haven for terrorists. We support Pakistan’s democracy.
I felt very proud to be an American watching that speech. I felt a kinship with all Americans for the first time in a long time, reminded as we were, millions of us, of the unity we had when the Afghan war began. I was not happy about the outcome of the decision but I accept the logic that underwrites this decision. I despise war, but love my country. Our cause is just, that much we can agree upon. Can we win is the question. I think we can.
Also, I had a frog in my throat just like Wolf Blitzer, even shed a tear.
Did anyone else notice how many people were falling asleep when ever they panned to the audience? It seemed like every time they showed the audience you could pick out two or three people nodding off.
Yes I saw a few at the beginning who were more into their phones and phone cameras. I saw at least one of them text messaging. I could have done without the extra shots. I wanted to see the President speak to me. But anyway, whatever point you’re looking to make, Hello, in the second half of the speech the kids were very attentive. No phones.
No phones, just the back of eyelids…
Witness, I know you had a Chris Mathews tingle up my leg moment with this speech but I did not. I’m not saying it was horrible but I didn’t do it for me. I didn’t see any passion, next to no emotion, and very little power. It was a decent speech of his plan and reasons but given in a very monotone, I’m reading straight from the teleprompter, type of speech Obama has become known for. Yawn…
I don’t know what kids you were looking at but it was very apparent that the longer it went on the more there were either falling asleep or already counting sheep.
Yes but wasn’t it nice to hear the President of the United States talk about national security issues and at the same time have the sense that he was sophisticated enough to make such a momentous decision? For too long we had a President who also read off a teleprompter, but did not fully comprehend the gravity of his decisions nor the full meaning of many of the words that were scripted for him. Obama is his own head speech writer. He is his own man, in no one’s shadow and under no one’s control. He truly is the Commander in Chief, and that alone is a great comfort in these troubling times.
Ill be the first to admit that he is a great talker when he has his TOTUS, who happens to have it’s own blog (http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/). However, I think your dreaming if you really think he writes his own speeches.
I saw no cadets sleeping. Interesting what the outcome would have been had one of them been seen sleeping on TV. West Point isn’t some schlock school where people can just wander into class when they feel like it.
Yes American, West Point still has standards. Sleeping during an assembly by the President would be considered conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
How about we stop all the extraneous stuff about teleprompters, speech quality, and sleepers in the audience, as well as the constant slaps at the previous POTUS. You just witnessed a speech which will be marked in history for its content. On 1 December 2009, President Obama made the war in Afghanistan his war and has taken on the full responsibility for the results of his actions. I am personally as far away as one can get from being a supporter of the current President, but I will tell you that, in my opinion, he has made the right decision on this issue. I will continue to oppose him on many, many of his domestic policies; but I will support him to the max in this fight in Afghanistan. I am damned sick and tired of living in the shadow of terrorist threats from this crowd of al-Qaeda jerks and other radical jihadists and I want this man in the White House to do everything he can to end it. In this case especially, politics stop at the water’s edge.
Well said Wolverine. Politics do indeed need to stop at water’s edge. If the term “support our troops” has in the past been used as a quash to any and all discussion of foreign policy issues. I wonder if it might now be invoked to, at least for now, put an end to the constant pettiness and partisan bickering that has plagued our political process since 2004. The relative silence of the far right members of our on-line community tells me that they have nothing negative to say. That is a step.
Like you, I support the President’s decision. I also welcome and appreciate the deliberate process by which he reached it. The speech was sorely needed and well executed. When we face a common enemy, we should be able to come together as Americans, and that includes accepting, as we have in the past, that the President is the person who makes these decisions, and the people then wait to offer their decision on election day. I like it that way. And based on my understanding of the threats we face as a nation, I believe it to be the right decision.
As for how we pay for the roughly 45 billion dollar price tag, I suggest we look for ways to cut spending rather than raising taxes. Yes, the deficit and the debt will go up some. But perhaps in the face of the global threat of terrorism, we might find the courage to understand that deficit spending is no more a cause for panic today than it was prior to Jan. 20, 2009, when we were, quite simply, focused on other things.
I was glad to see him refer to the conflict for what it is, a war brought against us by outside terrorist groups. However, will the captured ‘enemy combatants’ from the ‘war’ effort still get miranda rights? If so, then I still have an issue with that one.
I agree with those who support the President’s decisions. I am glad he deliberated. When 100k American men and women are in harms way, it can’t be taken lightly. Those who cannot accept it will have to suck it up I suppose. I also confess to thinking ‘geez would you hurry up,’ but that was buying in to what those who were accusing him of dithering were saying.
I don’t think we can just walk away from Afghanistan. It will have to be done sooner or later. Might as well do it now.
I support sending in more troops but I strongly disagree with telling the Taliban when we plan on leaving…
If that actually happened, I would object to it also.
However, Hello, you are smart enough to read between the lines on that projection. You have got to be aware that part of the Obama base is extremely anti war. The war in Afghanistan is already 8 years old. Some kind of no-binding time table had to be thrown out there. Obviously if need be, the time table can be adjusted. It also sends a message to the Afghan govt to step up to the plate and start assuming more responsibility.
Let’s not make EVERYthing political. What do you suppose Obama ate for breakfast. Think he had meat?
Right. If the President were actually born outside the U.S., that would be unconstitutional. And if there were actually death panels, that would be un-American. And if there was actually a conspiracy to make it look like there was global warming in order to raise your taxes, that would be bad. And if there was actually a plot to take your guns, that would be unconstitutional. If anything you get from Fox “News” was actually true, you’d actually have a point.
As for Dick Cheney getting you all fake freaked out about dithering, Obama knew all along that troops were ready to begin deploying next month and not a day sooner. That’s when they are deploying. Be happy for a day. For once Obama did what Bush would do.
Oh, and don’t believe the email that says we’re taking “In God We Trust” off the dollar bill. FEMA will not be building concentration camps. There is no “War on Christmas.” And Sarah Palin didn’t write her book, she had a ghost writer who didn’t bother to fact check.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Justin. Still no one knows what Obama had for breakfast. I wonder if he ate…..[whisper] b-a-c-o-n? That would mean he really didn’t care about the environment and also that he wasn’t a Muslim A-rab.
I am anxious to see who makes a big deal out of how I spelled Arab. Hint: sarcasm button is on. Where is Harry?
I apologize if my comments about the former POTUS. I find the comparison between Bush and Obama instructive, and really I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s nothing personal against Bush. Mostly I’m just questioning whether anyone who prefers Bush to Obama should really be listened to. It’s a fair question.
It seems absurd to me that people become so deranged and hysterical about current events now that the President is African American and a Democrat. Why didn’t they follow current events when Bush was President? Why was everything so peachy in their minds as Bush led us into Iraq under false pretenses, failed to properly resource and focus upon Afghanistan where the real threat emanated, turned record surplusses into record deficits, failed to properly oversee or regulate our banks or our economy, failed to protect the justice department from political corruption, failed to our civil rights and basic human rights, etc.
Why was that all okay and now suddenly hysterics? It’s a fair question.
Moon-howler has an excellent point in para 2 of her #26. I personally do not support placing a timetable on any critical military conflict, and I have just listened to many critiques of that Obama move, ranging from Limbaugh to Bob Schieffer. The idea is that the Taliban will just sit back and wait until it is time for us to leave, meanwhile warning people in Afghanistan that, after the Americans leave, they, the Taliban, will still be there and they will have noted down the actions and attitudes of individual Afghanis between now and then. The danger is that we will march in, establish a false sense of security, and then march out again, finding afterwards that the Taliban is still a major player which had just been lying low for strategic purposes.
O.K. Some fair criticism under the arts of warfare. However, warfare involving Americans has become highly politicized within our own borders. It took a long time and the sinking of several civilian ships before Wilson decided to engage in Europe. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt did everything he could to downplay his decisions to aid the European allies materially because he knew the sentiment of the majority of Americans was strongly against involvement in another war in Europe. I need to say little about what happened in this regard with the Korean conflict, Vietnam, or the Iraq war.
You have to be realistic about politics. Obama’s major political base is on the Left. Many in that base are instinctively anti-war no matter what the justifications given. From what I saw, they expected Obama to end all the wars completely and as quickly as possible once he was in power. Obama has to take them into account, even if he thinks they are wrong. To me the timetable represents that deference and an effort to dampen any disruptive criticism from that direction which might affect his re-election effort. Some will say that this is an horrific attitude which plays games with the lives of our troops. I will say that trying to get politics out of the American war scenario of today is like winding up with gum on the bottom of your tennis shoe. You’ve got to find some way to deal with it. It will not go away of its own accord.
In the end, timetables have a habit of falling prey to the realities of the battlefield. Judging from the way he has handled our exit from Iraq, Obama seems to understand that fact — hence his standard escape clause about our exit from Afghanistan depending on the situation on the ground in July 2011. As I stated in my previous post, he has made this war into his war simply by announcing a whole new strategy. As Schieffer put it, this is a defining moment of the Obama presidency. In my opinion, there is no way that Obama is going to make moves which carry an obvious risk of indelible damage to his re-election chances, his legacy, and the future of his own party. Unless I have completely misjudged the smarts of this man, we should be seeing him doing everything he can to ensure a positive outcome in Afghanistan. Some will say it is patriotism. Some will say it is politics. I don’t really give a damn as long as we accomplish our goal of ending the al-Qaeda threat based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama and all the rest of us ought to be hoping and praying that Stan McCrystal can live up to his reputation as the smartest and best counterinsurgency fighter we have on our military roster.
@ Wolverine
Excellent analysis! Well put. My favorite:
The fireworks at the end say it all.
Gen’l McChrystal requested, for best results, 60-80,000 reinforcements. He got 34K. It will take a few months for all of them to get there. In the meantime, in just 18 months, our troops will be leaving. Not rotating with new ones coming in, but, leaving. These reinforcements will be useless as they will be replacements, not reinforcements. Obama wants to get all troops out in 2011. He wants to change the mission from defeating Al Q and the Taliban to defending civilians while training the Afghani Army. It took years to train the Iraqi Army and they were light years ahead of the Afghanis. My belief is that the “dithering” occurred because Obama could not figure out how to satisfy his antiwar base without looking like a complete surrender monkey. This way he can say he did a surge and yet everyone is coming home. He’s “declaring victory and coming home.”
Counterinsurgency, done well, with FULL support, takes years. Once the Iraq theater was too dangerous for the Al Q bunch they reinforced Afghanistan. And with our elections coming up, the Afghanis and our allies saw the writing on the wall and are making accommodations with the Taliban. Like the Iraqi tribes, until unwavering support for them is demonstrated, the locals will not support us. And Obama does not inspire trust. His entire speech was about an exit strategy. He has already intimated that he can live with a Taliban government.
We should either go in to win according to McChrystal’s plans or start pulling out now.
Except either would make Obama look like a loser to his respective left and right audiences. And he’s too much of a……..community organizer, to lead.
Cargo–I don’t believe we listened to the same speech. Point 1 was to defeat the Taliban.
Also the withdrawal will be dependent on conditions on the ground. That was reiterated this afternoon, even though it was implied in the speech.
There seem to be some nuances here. What I heard from SecDef Gates this afternoon was that our immediate intention was not necessarily to totally defeat the Taliban but, rather, to weaken them to a point where Afghan forces can take over and defend their own government and country. Hopefully, in my own opinion, this would also give us a more open field to go in and obliterate the al-Qaeda leadership in a pincers movement in collaboration with the Pakistanis on their side of the border.
Cargosquid is speaking classic counterinsurgency and is right in opining that successfully training forces at the current level of the Afghans could be an iffy thing. I’ve got to admit that there has long been a concern in my own mind as to whether we can truly bring the Afghan forces into a sustainable fighting trim. It can be iffy even when you have an experienced military leadership to deal with, as evidenced by what happened after “Vietnamization” in a previous counterinsurgency. We are flat out going to need some luck and some breaks here, including a fulfillment by Karzai of his promises to clean up his administration in order to gain the confidence and support of the populace — again to avoid what happened in South Vietnam. Obama made that very clear to Karzai when he stated that we were not going to give the Afgthans a “blank check.”
Perhaps the best we can hope for ultimately is a window of opportunity which allows us and the Pakistanis to have at al-Qaeda in a form of closure. Given that war plans rarely, if ever, go the way they are written on paper, I would expect to see some slippage in the July 2011 deadline if it looks like that window of opportunity can brought into our grasp through an extension of effort. It will take some hard fighting and some luck; and, as Cargosquid has emphasized, much depends on the Afghans themselves. It may be that we will have to get al-Qaeda and then just hope that the Afghans can hold their own in the future. Afghanistan strikes me as one place where we ought not to be looking at “nation building” as a benchmark of success. The Cargosquid is absolutely right: Afghanistan is not Iraq. We cannot stay there forever, and the Afghans are going to have to decide whether they want to live in freedom or in a theological tyranny.
We pretty much know what they will chose, don’t we.
I agree that nation building is out there.
I just find it odd that Cargo and I ended up hearing such very different ideas out of the same speech. It probably had to do with mind-set before the speaker ever opened his mouth.
Jon Stewart is hilarious about the presidential speech. There is a little something for everyone:
Full Episodes
Actually, I read the speech. I can’t stand to watch President Obama speak. My wife objects to me throwing things at the TV. I have it up at UCV and posted my comments interspersed. Most readers here will probably disagree with me.
That said, you have to read between the lines and put his speech in context with his past and his current allies on the left. The fact that he did not mention the word “victory” even once, especially in a speech at West Point, is very telling. Afghanistan will never be a “country.” We could improve it, but it would take years and many more thousands of troops. Look at what we did with Japan…..
Obama does not appear to believe in the idea of American exceptionalism. He had the nerve to call the Afghanistan government corrupt after the shenanigans that have been exposed in ours? Heck, Mary Landrieu was just bribed with $300K with OUR money to vote on a bill that is fervently opposed by at least half of the US. Our Congress votes on bills that they don’t read nor intend to read. Cold Cash Jefferson. Congressman Rangel. Other assorted crooks on both sides. And he has the nerve to call Karzai corrupt? With ACORN running around?
Obama and the Congressional Democrats don’t want us to be in a War. It forces difficult decisions on them. It forces them to act on principles that show no electoral gain for themselves. Obama ran on the premise that the USA needs to change and that we cannot act. We must talk. And talk. And talk.
The terrorists don’t talk.
Either go in to win or pull out tomorrow. Those are the ONLY moral choices.
If anyone is interested, here’s the link, if that’s OK:
http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/2009/12/not-one-single-mention-of-victory-in.html
That’s definitely a conservative site, Cargo.
I try to find things I like about all my presidents. I think it is better for me when I do since I am stuck with them for better or worse.
I am not real locked in to liberal or conservative though. I tend to be all over the political spectrum rather than in one arena.
Thanks for stopping by. Yep, we are conservative, with a lot of libertarianism. My co-blogger and I have different styles, and may disagree on some minor points, but, we do agree on most major concerns. If it supports our military, ConcreteBob is deeply involved. If I can make fun of pompous politicians, I’ll do it. What we both like are representatives that follow the Constitution.
And yes, we criticized Bush when we felt the need….
But, face it, we liked most of what he did, at least in foreign policy. Domestically, he was a very moderate Republican.
Anyway, just want to say that your site has developed some of the best comment thread I’ve seen and I surf the Net ALOT. I’m unemployed…….
Thanks, Cargo. And thanks for the explanation about your blog. Now I know it is you, I will put it on our blog roll. I will get back over there and snoop around some more also.
The 3 of us here each have different styles and swords we choose to fall on also. Sometimes the ones I pick surprise me even.
Sorry about the unemployment, if it is not your intention to be unemployed. It looks like we both have spare time on our hands. And you know what they say about spare time…..idle hands are the devil’s tools….
I guess if we are both bloggers then no one can accuse us of having idle hands. Idle feet maybe but not hands.
I went back, Cargo. That is a very attractive website for sure. Nice job! Bravo! I also put you up on the blog roll here.
Great discussion. I agree with President Obama and his thoughtful approach. I udnerstand the premise of giving a time line.