zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-02-09 12:20 AM
Original message

My assessment on Obama's Afghan War speech is that it really is a clean-up operation in disguise

Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 12:44 AM by zulchzulu

I know it may seem counter-intuitive to some regarding how Obama sending an addition 30,000 (+/-) troops to Afghanistan somehow leads to the strategy actually being a clean-up operation.

Here's what I think is happening.

Obama does not trust Karzai. Despite polite appearances that the Karzai government gets a wink and a nod, there is going to be someone else (and not Karzai) running the show:

The US is seeking to extend its control over the day-to-day running of Afghanistan with the appointment of an international "high representative" in Kabul in an attempt to bypass Hamid Karzai's much-criticised government.

The initiative, being pushed by the US special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, has caused a split between Washington and its closest Nato allies, who believe it could further undermine the Afghan president's legitimacy and the United Nations' role in the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/30/aghanistan-karzai-obama-united-nations

That is a very smart move. Karzai and his administration are perhaps the most corrupt in the World. And slapping Karzai down will shake him up and perhaps even get him sloppy enough to actually end his career like his father did...

Obama does not trust General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal was adamant about getting more than 40,000 troops deployed and made it known while in London. This was the equivalent of shooting across the bow of Obama's administration. McChrystal was probably not for a withdrawal timeline, so this adds more to the strategy:

Reflecting the increased sense of urgency, Obama is to speed deployment of an extra 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan within the next six months � a much faster timetable than the 12 to 18 months that had been briefed by US officials up until today.

The 30,000 figure is lower than requested by the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, but the Obama administration is hoping that other Nato countries will make up the difference. A senior administration official said the Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, will announce the deployment of extra troops on Friday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/01/barack-obama-speech-afghanistan-war

Even the Drudge Report (sorry, no link...) is broadcasting that it's a "final push". The usual chickenhawk and neocon suspects are pissed about ANY withdrawal timeline and are pulling out the dusty old card that we need to "use overwhelming force to win", but they are marginalized when asked who the hell is going to pay for an endless war when the GOP diatribe is to whine about "extra spending".

Training the Afghan soldier has been very trying, let alone a rather pointless charade. It is well documented that most of the Afghan soldiers that openly side with American troops and risk getting killed by Taliban soldiers get blitzed on weed, opium and other drugs in the morning, the afternoon, the evening and whenever else they want. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc8w0IX4UQ

Perhaps seeing just how effective Afghan troops are can look at this story, which came out months ago but certainly is yet another example of just how untrustworthy the Afghans are:

The Pentagon has failed to track an estimated 87,000 weapons given to Afghan security forces, one-third of the 242,000 shipped by the US government between December 2004 and June 2008, the Government Accountability Office said.

A 46-page report by the GAO, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, said there had been no monitoring of a further 135,000 weapons donated by NATO allies to the poorly paid and corruption-rife Afghan army and police.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/12-8

The fairly quick timeline to withdraw should be enough of a clue that Obama wants to get out of the occupation. The generals will get more troops, but they will only have 18 months to try to change what is essentially a narco-kleptocracy out of control and a Pakistani government that takes billions to get Al Qaeda and have done nothing... for years.

Getting NATO in there in a wider role and perhaps getting more allies to ramp up some support is making the conflict a more international effort. While some are wringing their hands that Obama is demanding a 18-month withdrawal timeline, they have to understand that the war there is not worth the cost in treasure if they are being honest.

Time will tell on this and I would suggest we make sure that the withdrawal timelines are kept. Obama made it clear he wants to rebuild our country in his final statements in the speech. Let's hold him to that.

My assessment on Obama's Afghan War speech is that it really is a clean-up operation in disguise

I'll bet he's lieing to us, but for our own good!