If 60,000 more troops are needed then 60,000 more troops should be sent

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

And if zero troops are needed then zero troops should be sent.

And if we should pull out tomorrow then we should pull out tomorrow.

The one thing I am absolutely certain we should not do in Afghanistan is some "middle course" calculated to please everyone.

I am sick to death of these pointless compromises and magic numbers.

The stimulus must be below 1 trillion. Why? No rational reason whatsoever.

The health insurance reform must be below 1 trillion. Why? Because a trillion sounds scary.

McChrystal asks for 40,000 more troops. He then presents plans for 20K, 40K and 60K. Does that make 40K "just right"?

Just because there is a range of choices doesn't make sending 20,000 more troops dovish. If there is no reason to send more troops then sending 20,000 would be insane, not moderate.

If there is some persuasive reason that sending more troops accomplishes some vital national interest then why stint? Send 100,000 if it would actually help secure a vital national interest.

But if sending more troops is just some circle-jerk to look like were are "serious people" then don't send any.

The key phrase is "vital national interest."

[Truth2Tell]

1. I vote circle jerk. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

2. What have we accomplished? Oil? Bin laden? Vital national interest

is here in America.

[ThomCat]

16. The military industrial complex has made Trillions in revenue

and Billions in profit. That is all I can see that has been accomplished.

On the other hand, the list of costs that have come out of Iraq and Afghanistan are huge. This is costing the American people, and tens of thousands of American families directly, far, far too much.

As usual we pay the horrible costs and they keep the profits. That is how government subsidized mega-capitalism works. :cry:

[orpupilofnature57]

17. Ya ,since 63 ,Eisenhower warned and was thought dotty ,as was Sherman

when he saw the carnage it would take ,to unite us. Woodrow Wilson helped change all that and received the Nobel Peace prize for it ,Rockefeller should have been the best teacher ,but we just don't learn and half of us revere and aspire to such misanthropes.

[thunder rising]

3. Just ask Alexander the Great, Russians, British how easy it is to conquer Afghanistan

First, as Alan Grayson stated, there are no Afghanis. The only reason Afghanistan exists is that it's what's left over. It's an ancient tribal region and it will remain so.

It's not like they are a peaceful lot. They war between themselves, but it's obvious that tribes get to change sides at just about any point in the inter-tribal wars.

Our goal must be to get them to quietly go about their tribal business and welfare and not threaten us. If you think Palin and the teabaggers do not like federal involvement. The tribes absolutely do not cooperate at all and never have.

The biggest problem is the dope. They are going to be more corrupt than any banana republic. And with that money comes international conflict. So, how do we get them to stop growing the poppies?

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Kill all the heroin addicts?

Just kidding, just kidding....

[masuki bance]

4. It's time to end the occupations. nt

[avaistheone1]

6. Well we are certainly not going there to save the women and children.

That is for sure.

[Hutzpa]

7. Let me see... hmmm, what are you?

a WAR MONGER or a WAR HAWK??

[timeforpeace]

8. "Listen to your generals!" has become inoperative, as Bush has left the building.

[DURHAM D]

9. So we spend all our blood and treasure for

China and Russia and India. That is who wins if we stabilize the region. We don't.

Great. Just great.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. What is the mission?

[Brother Buzz]

11. Call Colin Powell whatever you want but his doctrine must be addressed EVERYTIME.....

we commit more money or troops.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

21. Since you said "call him anything you want" I will call Powell a war criminal who...

aided and abetted Shrub's illegal war. Now that the political tide has turned Powell has tried to change his tune and hope that we will forget, but we will not forget.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. The Powell doctrine was enunciated when the W presidency was just a gleam in Eva Braun's eye

The fact that Powell is an opportunistic amoral stooge does not in itself undo the wisdom of his proposed (and then not followed) method for war-planning, which boils down to essentially, "Have some idea what you are doing rather than just flailing around to do something."

[Oregone]

12. The numbers are arbitrary and are based on the political realities

If you acknowledge what I claim, then it undermines the notion of "need", and may suggest none more should be sent.

Some estimate half a million troops are truly "needed", using population model. Do you advocate that many should be sent if the military leadership puts that forth without it being suppressed by the political leadership?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. No. The OP is not about deferring to the military.

The OP suggests that whatever action marks the 'sweet spot' of maximum appeal to politicians and pundits (and generals) is almost certainly wrong.

Single-payer off the table from the start. Withdrawal from Afghanistan off the table from the start.

Why? Those are political decisions, not practical decisions.

I don't like the war but it doesn't follow from that that I'd chose sending 20,000 over sending 60,000--it's not about the number, it's about a sensible policy that promotes a major national interest.

That may mean leaving. It may mean a major escalation.

But it almost certainly doesn't mean sending 20,000 more troops. The concensus "just right" solution is usually "just wrong."

[niyad]

14. I want someone other than that lying, grandstanding, obstructionist sob mcchrystal to be saying

what is needed.

and I want a clear explanation of why we are there--why we went there (apart from that gas pipeline)

[grantcart]

15. Yes and the first person who says Vietnam should be sent tomorrow

There is a strange logic that has overtaken a lot of thinking people.

Vietnam was an insurgency.

The US ally was overtaken by an insurgency.

The US cannot defeat insurgencies.


Some insurgencies reflect a national liberation movement of a historically distinct people seeking nationhood and independence.


Some insurgencies are evil.


How ironic it is that the People's Republic of Vietnam eventually tires of its neighbor insurgent, the Khmer Republic and invades Cambodia and defeats that evil insurgency.

Thailand defeated an insurgency.

Malaysia defeated an insurgency.

Indonesia defeated an insurgency.

Cambodia was overtaken by an insurgency and then was liberated by a country that was unified by an insurgency.


Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia all defeated their insurgencies with completely different methodologies. Thailand did it eventually without firing a shot. Malaysia developed a killer method where special forces would track down insurgents even if it took them on month long treks into the jungles. Indonesia used duplicity and Cambodia was liberated of its communist psychotic killers by communists from Vietnam who then handed the country over to the capitalists to take over. (They couldn't stay - they had to repel an invasion from China.)


There is a successful solution. It is an Afghan solution. We can help. We can equip. As you say it may require 60,000 troops initially. It may require 0 troops initially.

In the end it must require 0 NATO troops.

The one thing that is known for sure is that ultimately the Afghans have to do it themselves.


Before people say that we should abandon the Afghans to the Taliban then you should accept that the Taliban will use women as chatel and that they are not a national liberation movement but a movement against the idea of a national government, against the advance of civilization. They have used terror in the past and will use it in the future.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-By4xFJwDYk/SKj45kpqjZI/AAAAAAAAACc/OzCpU2bJrLQ/S1600-R/women+in+burkhas.jpg







And if you don't think that the Taliban doesn't have the same mentality of the Khmer Rouge then go here, but only if you have a very strong stomach.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188003.php

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Good post. This reminds me of my Iraq solution...

My take on Iraq from 2004 to 2008 was fairly consistent: At this point we don't know if we are helping or hurting but we have an absolute obligation to prevent another Cambodia.

I proposed disengaging from day-to-day interaction with the populace while retaining enough force on bases to intervene tactically if things go to hell. Even if we aren't doing any fighting we shouldn't simply leave.

I have one same problem with Iraq and Afghanistan which is that our solution is to create a gigantic national security force with the assumption that such a force will do good. A respectable national government probably has to precede a big security force in service of a national government rather than visa-versa.

I have no solution. But eliminating even one option (whatever middle course best comports with our domestic politics) is a step closer to a solution.

[saltpoint]

19. I had the admittedly inappropriate image of a group of Taliban officials

in a mountain village circle jerk.

It would be a nice change of pace from their oppressive tyranny of the population of that country and it might chill them out a notch or two.

Thank you and God Bless America.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. It's a reality of democracy, elected officials do things based on public opinion

Churchill was right when he said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all of the others that have been tried.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. He also said that America can be counted on to do the right thing...

He also said that America can be counted on to do the right thing...

...after exhausting the other options.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Well we did the right thing just as soon as it was politically viable for Roosevelt

And to a certain extent we wound up doing what was in our best interest because of that. Harry Truman put it quite bluntly when a few months before America's entry to the war he said that the best thing we can do is sit by and let the Russians and the Germans kill each other for a while. Doing so probably saved a lot of American lives. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do but it was certainly a reflection of the popular will.

[msallied]

25. So in essence, we need to do what is necessary to get the job done.

And in that, I agree.

If we want to finish this thing, then we need to stop kowtowing to outside political forces that understand very little of what is happening on the ground there. If we don't send in enough troops, the ones we are sending will be sent to their slaughter. That's what happened in Iraq. We thought we could do it on the cheap, but we were wrong.

If we're going to be in this thing, then we need to do whatever it takes or get the fuck out. Personally, I support our efforts there to wipe the Taliban off the map. Call me a hawk, but there is a ripple effect, from the human rights issues, to the religious extremism, to the heroin problem that will not go away until they are defeated.

I don't like war. Not for a second. But I also understand that we have to finish the job, and we can't do that if we don't give the mission the full effort it deserves.

When it comes to a war, you're either in and you're managing all of the risks and death that come with it in order to accomplish your goal, or you're out. Neither option is pretty but you gotta choose.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. It would be nice if the job were specified

I am all for getting the job done but at this point I don't know exactly what the job is.

[msallied]

27. I honestly would like to know more. I only know most of the talking heads are more ignorant

than anyone else on this issue. We aren't privvy to the President's briefings on this issue, but I don't think that he would be wanting to step up our efforts there if he didn't think it was in our vital interests. Obama doesn't strike me as a neocon at all, though.

[kenny blankenship]

28. 8 years ago, 10,000 coalition forces were enough to overthrow the govt and crush the taliban

Now 8 years owards, 64,000 troops are not enough to hang on in a "deteriorating situation", and another 40-60,000 more are being requested.

Think about it.