Obama opposed the Iraqi surge. Why does he think the same tactic will work in Afghanistan?

[StrongBad]

Personally, I think a "surge" will work in achieving the goals of a stable withdrawal, but it will come at the sacrifice of many lives. It is a nasty tradeoff.

Yet I find it puzzling that Obama is accepting this course when he opposed it before regarding Iraq.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Because they are two different countries?

I dunno. Just guessing.

[StrongBad]

4. The rationale is the same.

I haven't heard an argument that describes why it was folly in Iraq but a good plan in Afghanistan.

Thanks for the snark though.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The conditions are different

The question is whether you oppose something in principle or for pragmatic reasons.

If you oppose something in principle, then different conditions don't make a difference. If you oppose something for pragmatic or consequential reasons, then the same action deployed under different conditions may be wholly acceptable. It's not that complicated, really.

[StrongBad]

11. So what are the pragmatic differences between Afghanistan & Iraq?

Is it terrain? Is it regarding nation building as a poster below states? I didn't hear any mention of this in the speech so some stuff still seems vague to me.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. It is technically not the same.

Bush Co surge included more troops, plus nation building (Petreaus Doctrine). This Obama strategy doesn't include Nation Building like in Iraq, just the troops necessary to retrieve Al-Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[avaistheone1]

3. Well the Democratic Platform includes nation building whether Obama

does that or not I don't know.

Someone posted that platform here a couple days ago.

[Lost-in-FL]

7. Nation Building in Afghanistan is a waste of resourses.

The "immediate" need is to stabilize Afghanistan AND THEN, bring humanitarian nation building. That's not me talking, it is some military strategists. I don't foresee a nation that have no running water building a full government, police and military on their own. Afghanistan lack very basic humanitarian needs and as long as the Taliban attack the population nothing will happen.

I am just glad they are not doing the Petreaus Doctrine but a modified Doctrine.

[avaistheone1]

10. I agree especially as the U.S. gets to implode.

I think the generals think we will be so entertained watching the shock and awe of the Afghan-Pak war, we won't notice the squalor we are living in ourselves.

[Cha]

12. It's not the same at all and

thanks for pointing that out to the OP.

[StrongBad]

17. Was this mentioned in the speech?

I caught the tail end of it (was stuck at work) and didn't hear that.

I agree with the non-nation building aspect of it...

[Lost-in-FL]

23. The way I understood the speech, I never heard the words "nation building"

which is what Petreaus is known for (surge+nation building). I only heard the words "more troops".

If someone heard otherwise, please let me know.

[phleshdef]

5. Because as much as we hate to admit it, the surge actually somewhat worked.

And we are now in the midst of the Iraq pullout leaving behind a somewhat stable situation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. And there's that

The dual strategy of paying off the Sunni tribes under the blanket of the Sahwa (Awakening) Movement and flooding the problem areas with troops actually did yield positive results. Unless people want to go back to the Iraq of 2005-2006?

[knightinwhitesatin]

15. Yeah but what we went through

in 2007 was not worth it. Dead best friend, lots of near misses from IED's and we ran ourselves ragged for what? So we could bribe the tribes into not fighting us. Once I am out of uniform if I ever see Bush that POS I am going to show him a picture of my best friend and ask that asshole was my friends death worth bribing the people that killed him

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. You'll get no argument on that

Perhaps the thousands of people that were not otherwise killed in chaos in 2008 and 2009 will thank you for it one day. Or their children.

[knightinwhitesatin]

27. I stayed in hoping that

Obama once elected would save the Army from its leaders. I know what he said during the campaign but I hoped he would change his mind. Now I feel betrayed by the guy I thought was going to save the Army. So now I am getting out in 19 months when this enlistment is done.

[knightinwhitesatin]

28. I don't hate Obama

at all. I am still proud everyday I salute the flag that I voted for him, but I am unhappy about this decision.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. Yup, the bribing played a huge part. I'm sorry about your lost. nt

[IndianaGreen]

9. The Sunni Awakening preceded Petraeus surge by months

[Lost-in-FL]

13. The surge did not work in Iraq.

Bushco got lucky. Al-qaeda inflitrated Iraq and the Iraqis sided with the Americans (through bribes) cause they hate Al-Qaeda (Al-Qaeda=Sunni, 70% Iraqis=Shiia) = Sunni Awakening.

Anyone is free to correct me.

[StrongBad]

14. That doesn't sound like luck. Sounds like a well executed military plan.

Bush shouldn't get credit for that though.

[Lost-in-FL]

16. That is why I am saying that the surge didn't work.

The "Sunni Awakening" happened at the same time that Bush announced the surge. By the time those troops touch the ground, the slaughter was almost over. Iraqis kicked Al-Qaedas' ass, not the americans.

He shouldn't take credit. If you read Thomas Ricks "The Gamble", Iraq is far from over. The Shiias are arming themselves to fight once the Americans are gone. This is just ilusion that Iraq is fine. It is going to get nasty in Iraq, there's going to be a slaughter.

[StrongBad]

18. Gotcha. Well we'll see. We really don't have a choice but to let them do whatever now.

[Lost-in-FL]

19. Yup.

I just hope Obama and his generals are right.

[phleshdef]

44. Bushco didn't get lucky. Our men and women on the ground were successful DESPITE bushco.

And get fucked if you want to doubt their abilities to produce this success.

[Lost-in-FL]

46. I blame the leadership not the troops.

They had to get there somehow and it is not by taking a cab. As a veteran, I understand the consequences of bad leadership so get lost. Don't you play this "do not dare talk bad about the troops crap" with me cause I am not.

The single one thing Bushco did right was to place Gates at the right time. Gates was who saved the troops from the clustefuck they were in. Troops got lucky that hatred united Iraqis to fight Al-Qaeda thus giving the troops a break from the fight and taking good care of the civilians.

[Bad Thoughts]

20. No, it didn't

Find Steve Simon's article from Foreign Affairs 2008 (preview http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63398/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge). The premise behind the surge was DOA, but the influx of new resources were used creatively by diplomats and military officials to support the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda.

[Lost-in-FL]

33. Thanks for the link. nt

[doc03]

21. Because he was running for President at the time

and the surge actually worked.

[Garam_Masala]

24. Could be because the surge worked in Iraq?

The president is a fast learner!

[Lost-in-FL]

26. The surge DID NOT WORK.

It is documented. See post #20.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. !

:rofl:

[Lost-in-FL]

31. ?

:spank:

[PBS Poll-435]

32. No dear, you edited the wrong part

I snorted Diet Dr. Pepper out of my nose because of "DID NOT WORKED."

[Lost-in-FL]

34. I AM NOT SCREAMING!! I'M SERIOUS!!!

:silly:

[PBS Poll-435]

35. I know

;-)

[Lost-in-FL]

36. Thanks for pointing my mistake out.

I swear I am not an uneducated freeper, I am just a bad speller.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. I'd be a lot more critical

But you are one of the nice ones...


:D

[Lost-in-FL]

38. Thanks!

:loveya:

[doc03]

39. All knowing all seeing? Here is what I remember, nearly

every Democrat opposed the surge, I opposed it myself. But after a few bad weeks things things did turn around that's just the facts. You don't want to accept that you were wrong. The fact is the violence is down in Iraq and we have started to withdraw.

[Lost-in-FL]

40. I am not the military expert here.

but only republicans think the surge worked.

I opposed the surge then, I am opposing this new surge. I opposed both wars.

I was clear on my earlier post, that "anyone" could point to my mistakes. I am not "all knowing"

Sorry, but I am not the one that determined that the surge didn't work. Military experts said so. Violence is down for now, until the troops leave. After that they will have their civil war like it or not. Generals know it, but don't ask me, ask those who think so.

Read Peter Galbraith, Thomas Ricks, Seth Jones, Andrew J. Bacevich, they all said the surge in Iraq failed. Accepting being wrong or not would not bring back those who died.

[doc03]

41. The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence in Iraq so

we could turn control over to the Iraqis to give us a way out and it worked. So instead of admitting the surge met its goal they claim it is a failure because they think they will have a civil war after we leave, I don't care if every damn one of them kill each other.

[Lost-in-FL]

45. That was just "one" of several goals...

Did I mention that troops levels during the surge were less than during the peak of the war? You can correct me if i am wrong.

(1) Violence had to go down to (2) create the conditions for a new government but then the Shiias boycotted the elections. I don't call that a winning situation but an incomplete mission. So I guess in a limited way, the surge "worked".

The violence was reduced sustancially but it is debatable as the "surge troops" got in the ground once the killings was almost done with. The right strategy was implemented with the new commander BEFORE the new troops touched the ground.

"So instead of admitting the surge met its goal they claim it is a failure because they think they will have a civil war after we leave, I don't care if every damn one of them kill each other."
You are mistaken, I didn't said that it didn't work cause of a possible civil war after the troops are gone but just that the Shiias are waiting for the chance to get even and the current condition of "peace" its just illusory. Gen Odierno was concerned with this back in 2008 and would be interesting if he still thinks the same way.

It is in our best interest that "they don't kill each other". But if it makes you happy that they kill each other... whaever rocks your boat.

So here, blame him, not me. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200905.ricks.understandingsurgeiraq.html

[Zavulon]

30. He doesn't.

This is his way of throwing a bone to the other side of the aisle and to keep them from screaming too loudly now that he's announced a timetable for Iraq. The number of additional troops going over there are half of what was requested. This is an example of stupid compromise and more people are going to die because Obama thinks this is his best political move.

Just sad.

[Garam_Masala]

42. Iraq was a war of choice..Afghanistan is a war justifiable

for many reasons. You have seen them well documented in various threads.

[Moochy]

43. He has been reassured by the company that they have enough bribe money for the warlords

The warlords will stage an "awakening" which would actually just be quid pro quo for us recognizing that sham election. They'll receive their bribes and us empire is saved!