U.S. surge in Afghanistan could lead to more violence: ISAF

[gogoplata]

While an expected surge in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan next year will be welcomed by NATO forces there, their arrival could herald an increase in violence, says a senior spokesman for those forces.

U.S. president-elect Barack Obama could send up to 12,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in the spring. They would join 50,700 NATO-led International Security Assistance Force soldiers, of which 2,500 are Canadian.

But there will be more confrontations with Taliban forces as additional U.S. forces arrive, said Brig.-Gen. Richard Blanchette, a Canadian who serves as a spokesman for ISAF.

"There is a risk that it gets worse before it gets better — when you have more troops, you have more interface between the insurgents and the forces from ISAF," Blanchette said Wednesday during a visit to Kandahar Airfield.
....
But as the Afghan troops engage insurgents, they are also experiencing higher casualties, said Blanchette.

Canada has lost 97 troops in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/03/isaf-afghanistan.html


We are walking into a huge morass. 12,000 in the Spring, when are the rest of the 20-30,000 troops going to be sent to this quagmire?

edit to add link.

[gogoplata]

1. crickets.

[atimetocome]

2. There was an excellant article

in last months Atlantic.


It talked a lot of afgan begin a tribal country and we are doing what the brits and russians did when they were there (and they both left with nothing but resentment accomplished)---building up the big city Kabal and forgetting about the rest of the country. Basically it claims we need to work with the local tribes in order to make any headway.

[redstate_democrat]

3. How the hell are we gonna get out of this clusterfuck over there?

I do think we need to really get that region under control, but it seems like a really impossible task.

[gogoplata]

6. Obama has stated that al qaeda is on the border area, actually in Pakistan.

If that is true, we don't need to occupy Afghanistan. We need to stop the imperial expansion.

[FrenchieCat]

4. We have to deal with the poppy growers, and try at doing one of the reawakening

like what was done in Iraq....which appears to have worked better than the "surge".

However, I believe that we probably do need a few more troops there....still.

I do believe that Obama's approach is not simply to do a "surge".....
as he in his extended discussions of Afghanistan that I have heard,
he talks about the economic and tribal issues that have to be involved.

I hope that we not going to underestimate that what Obama has in store in order to solve
the AlQaeda problem is as simplistic as increasing troops and nothing else.

Just sayin'.

[gogoplata]

5. Also remember that most analysts agree that al qaeda, is not actually in Afghanistan,

they are hiding out in the mountains in Pakistan. So the goal of the surge, to capture bin Laden etc.., may require "modifications".

[FrenchieCat]

7. I think that AlQaeta appear to be working out of an area that incompasses

both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, Some of the Taliban are also involved.

I think if we can gain the trust of some Taliban members and help them with the region
as in economically, they can be part of the reawakening that might lead to more cooperation
with the Afghan people. My neighbors directly accross the street from me are Afghanistanis.
They had an Obama sign in their house window....and these folks (except for the youngest son) are not americanized.

[gogoplata]

8. So, basically you're saying that your neighbors are Afghani, and they like Obama.

Therefore, it's a safe bet to extrapolate that we could gain the trust of the Taliban, give them some money (like we did in the 80's and 90's) for their Opium crops, then the "people" will cooperate with us. Especially since we also have sent 30,000 troops to terrorize them.

Got it.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I wouldn't and didn't suggest that we give money for opium.

I suggest that we provide alternative crop seeds, and provide the "education" required to make that crop successful.

In addition, diplomacy is a wonderful tool...one not used in the last 8 years.
I believe that there are some who truly believe that Obama will only continue was Bush started
years ago in both approach and tactics. I think those folks will be proven wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "We have to deal with the poppy growers,"

No we don't.

"like what was done in Iraq....which appears to have worked better than the "surge"."

The violence is "lower" in Iraq due to widespread ethnic cleansing.

"However, I believe that we probably do need a few more troops there....still."

When are you planning on enlisting?

[FrenchieCat]

11. I can't have an opinion?

Jeeze, I tought everyone was afforded at least that
in a supposed free society.

When are you planning on saving the world?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. You can't put your money where your mouth is?

"Jeeze, I tought everyone was afforded at least that
in a supposed free society."

Ah, the old "you're oppressing my first amendment by winning the argument" argument.

"When are you planning on saving the world?"

Well, I'll start by not war-mongering.

[ecstatic]

12. The troop surge idea was just catnip for the warmongers

Obama is going to deal with the situation sensibly.

[gogoplata]

14. Can you describe this "sensible" policy that will happen with 30k more troops?