Obama Okays Initial Troop Increase in Afghanistan

Numbers reported at CNN are 8000 Marines from LeJeune (0.00 / 0)

and 4000 soldiers from Ft Lewis with Strykers to Southern Afghanistan.

Seems like a half-hearted fart in a whirlwind, unless this is the 'initial' step. No policy statements accompanied this that I saw.

+++++++++++++

OT from Ft Lewis, really strange:  teenage girl found dead in barracks:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/...

and at Ft Leonardwood one soldier has died from meningitis and another is responding to treatment. Reported that this is a non-contagious form of meningitis. The two soldiers serve in the same unit, but the cases appear to be unrelated.

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 16:10:42 PM CST

CNN now has 'hard copy' posted (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 16:31:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sad update on the Ft LW story (0.00 / 0)

2nd soldier has died
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2...

The meningitis is reported to have come from pneumonia.  

---

by: deMeme @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:27:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah, good statement (0.00 / 0)

I was hoping you'd issue one.  I'm always interested in the opinions/analyses of those who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the Vote Vets men and women.

Afghanistan was where we should have focused our military efforts... obviously!  Of course, my opinion is anything but that of an expert, which is why I like your blog.

Finally, I remember Powell (and of course Obama) saying that the biggest problem was Pakistan.  I agree on a number of levels, but I'd like to know what you think.

---

by: Plutonium Page @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:12:05 PM CST

Hey, Page! (0.00 / 0)

It'll probably take something on the order of 300,000 troops to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban.  But most of that has to come from Afghan security forces themselves.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey back! (0.00 / 0)

This is something my husband and I discuss almost every other night, lol. (Man, we're political geeks.)

Ok, 300,000 troops.  That's a lot.  I'm pretty clueless - how many of those are Afghan at this point?  And what role do you think the NATO troops will play in the meantime?

How long do you think it will take?

Am I asking too many questions?  Why is the sky blue, Brandon? ;-)

Seriously, Pakistan is something that worries me quite a bit as well.  Obama has certainly inherited a giant mess.

---

by: Plutonium Page @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:27:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure, but I do know that they're not close (0.00 / 0)

to that number yet.  If we had 60,000 troops in Afghanistan, that would be 20 percent of the total goal.  That's an okay ratio, I think.  

How long it takes is too variable.  Nobody knows the answer to that.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 18:33:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now (4.00 / 1)

what do we do about Pakistan? Any ideas?  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:56:49 PM CST

Ouch. That's a tough one (0.00 / 0)

First, they have already ordered their military to fire on US troops in the past.  Second, they are very comfortable politically with a number of extremists elements.  Third, they have nukes and a very advanced military force.  

When you take into account the shape that our military is in due to the Iraq quagmire, that doesn't leave us much option.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 18:04:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We have to work more closely with the (0.00 / 0)

Pakistani government.  That's it.  If that doesn't work, we can't allow the Taliban to overthrow, regardless.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 18:34:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am opposed to troop increases (0.00 / 0)

Our government and our military have no idea how to resolve the quagmires to which Bush has sent US.  We need to understand how our blind support of the terror state of Israel fosters animosity towards US.  We need to take a step back and look at how our policies of global hegemony will continue to create groups dedicated to causing US harm.  Our foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of foreign states leads directly to threats and actions against US.  President Obama seems to be cut from the same political cloth as his predecessor.  How unfortunate for US.

---

by: JD @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 20:16:33 PM CST

Well (0.00 / 0)

until the relationship with Saudi Arabia changes, the relationship with Israel will stay the same. Now if we want to change both of the relationships, fine with me. However, to ditch Israel and stay in bed with the Saudis would be morally repugnant, not to mention retarded.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 20:48:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting comment (0.00 / 0)

While I think there are major differences between the Bush and OB admins, your last few lines are pertinent.  See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...
There are other commentaries like that all over the web -- the ones about the similarities in approach to Al Qaeda, esp regarding AQ prisoners.  But I think OB's careful process should be more productive.

But....... I gotta disagree with your comments about the "terror state" of Israel.  Keep in mind that the "animosity" you state is from Islamic fundamentalist states who would destroy the USA and Israel just for existing.

---

by: E. Redding @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 19:14:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

maybe the pro-Palestine crowd would do us the honor of explaining to us why the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al Husseini was pals with Adolf Hitler. Or why the rest of the Arab world threw the Palestinians into refugee camps as well, and doesn't even seem to like the Palestinians, underneath all of the rhetoric.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 20:12:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was a great statement! (0.00 / 0)

I wish we would hear more language like that coming from the Obama/BIDEN administration - with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq.

All we have heard, so far - and this is just me being very, very impatient - is that there needs to be a surge of troops in Afghanistan and that troops will be withdrawn from Iraq - well, if only it were that simple!

I'm still not so patiently waiting for President Obama or VP Biden to articulate a comprehensive political and diplomatic strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan or at least drop a few hints that such a strategy even exists!

It's not like time is on our side, after all...and, it's not as if we're talking here about re-inventing the diplomatic wheel.

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 21:36:33 PM CST

I think (0.00 / 0)

the first thing we need to do in Afghanistan is kick some serious Taliban ass. Giving the Taliban a serious beating would hopefully lead to a lull in which get something done. It would also send a message to the fence sitters that the Taliban may not end up being the winning side after all.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 13:28:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's the key - sending a clear message as to who is in this for the long haul (0.00 / 0)

As I understand it, the reason Pakistan started making deals with the Taliban early on is because the US left the game and headed for Iraq, leaving Pakistan wondering what the heck was up with that!?

Musharaff probably reasoned that he couldn't count on the US to back him up in his effort to battle the extremists...and, the extremists weren't going anywhere...sooooo...what are you gonna do - battle the terrorists on your own or make some deals with the Taliban...pretty much a no-brainer, from the point of view of Musharaff...given the circumstances...

Hopefully, all that is about to change and the Pakistani government will have no doubt about who they should be making deals with!

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 17:17:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

going into Iraq in the first place probably did not help matters in Pakistan. The way Iraq turned out definitely did not help matters in Pakistan. However, ther situation was far more complicated than that. Pakistan has a long, detailed history of being buddy-buddy with Islamists. Musharraf himself has even admitted to cutting deals with Islamists. If I remember correctly, he was either using them or planning to use them as proxies against India. A Taliban run Afghanistan was also in Pakistan's interests. It also didn't help Pakistan any that we let so many of the Taliban get away after we toppled them. Granted, Musharraf did literally lay his neck on the line to fight AQ and the Taliban, and was the best ally he could be without losing his head.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 20:40:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As usual, you make very good points! (0.00 / 0)

I just think that Pakistan's relationship with extremists was changed by the events of 9/11 and things had played out differently, Musharraf may have acted differently...but, that is all speculation, and not very informed at that...

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 22:06:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I don't know how much Pakistan's overall relationship with Islamists has changed since 9/11. Given their history however, I think any diplomacy with Pakistan needs to be conducted in lile with the principle: "Doveryay, No Proveryay."

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 23:17:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure I agree with that. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 23:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Although (0.00 / 0)

it didn't help matters much that both sides of the American political isle seemed intent on bashing Musharraf into oblivion. Musharraf was undemocratic, but so is pretty much everyone else in the region.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 20:56:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

New developments on the cooperative front. (0.00 / 0)

Here's an article parsing the efforts, looks like bringing Russian and India into the mix.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/S...

---

by: 1watt @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 23:51:50 PM CST

And Japan [Rebuilding the Silk Road] (0.00 / 0)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/J...

Here's a map of the Silk Road
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Also remembering that during the campaign Hil was referred to at one point as Clinton [D-Punjab].

Also find that Holbrooke's resume shines an interesting light on possible directions that negotiations are going remembering that the National Security Adviser has NATO connections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

And Obama making his first foreign visit to Canada. Expressing thanks for the service of the Canadians in Afghanistan.

Get the feeling that they are trying to isolate Pakistan and cut off the arms-drug trade. Just guessing but Biden was quoted as saying that the issues were much more complicated than he had imagined.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:21:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]