VP Biden: Expect More US Casualties In Afghanistan

[bigtree]

from ABC: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/vp-biden-expect.html


January 25, 2009

"I hate so say it, but yes, I think there will be," Biden said in response to a question from host Bob Schieffer (this morning on CBS's Face the Nation). "There will be an uptick. Because as the commander in Afghanistan said, he said, 'Joe, we will get this done, but we're going to be engaging the enemy much more.'"

The Obama administration has "inherited a real mess," Biden said. "We're about to go in and try to essentially reclaim territory that's been effectively lost." The training of Afghan police and military personnel has been problematic, he said. "Some of our allies who have committed to train these troops did not do them well," Biden said.

Asked about the predator drone attacks in Pakistan, Biden said, "I can't speak to any particular attack. I can't speak to any particular action. It's not appropriate for me to do that. But I can say that the president of the United States said during his campaign and in the debates that if there is an actionable target, of a high-level Al Qaida personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that."

Would the Obama administration notify the Pakistani government before making any cross- border attacks?

"I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can't respond to that question," Biden said. "I'm not going to respond to that question."

[Contrary1]

1. It will be interesting to hear the Repub's take on casualties,

now that Obama is in the White House. My guess is that the troops' lives will somehow become more valuable to them.

[aquart]

2. Trading one unwinnable war for another. Oh, goody.

[tekisui]

5. That is exactly what is happening.

A 'surge' in Afghanistan, almost double the troops and more engagement.

[BunkerHill24]

3. tell me what purpose does it serve to bomb these people?

You kill one suspected Taliban, and in return you have angered thousand tribal groups.

Doesn't make sense!

[bigtree]

4. but, but

. . . we have to 'reclaim territory'

[Frustratedlady]

6. I'm not for crossing borders and attacking, but it sounds to me like they...

thought they had bin Laden in their sights or some of his people.

I don't "do" war, so I may be wrong, but it would be quite a coups if they got him so early when Bush had 8 years. I would imagine Obama will get more cooperation from the people. I'm sure they know where he is at any one time.

I've been wrong many times before.

[bigtree]

7. The military calls them 'militants'

It sounds like, at the worst, the 'targets' in the Pakistan attack were associated with resistance forces to our Afghanistan occupation. I haven't heard any reports which suggest that ANY of the original suspects in the 9-11 attacks were thought to be the targets.

The locals say that NONE of the killed were 'militants'.

I wonder how we can distinguish between them from the air? I really don't see fighting resistance to our occupation as a fight against the 9-11 terrorists.

[Smith_3]

8. Sounds terribly like a rerun of the sixties.

As in "Hey, hey, LBJ ..."

I hope that's not what is going to happen.

[bigtree]

9. moving a line in the dirt/sand

all of those lives lost for that . . . yep, like in Vietnam