The Obama Team fires up for war.

[OriginalWheelman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7877505.stm

Gen James Jones, the new US national security adviser, told reporters at the conference that a planned doubling in the number of US troops in Afghanistan to about 60,000 was not in itself enough.

"The troops alone will not be sufficient and we have to... engage in the broad spectrum of things," he said.

"I want to stress that it's the cohesion of the international effort that has to be better put together in order to be successful."

America has long been pushing its Nato allies to increase their troop numbers in Afghanistan and UK Defence Secretary John Hutton raised the need for "burden-sharing", without naming any particular nation.

Am I the only one having flashbacks to before the Iraq invasion? This all sounds very familiar.

[HashiriyaS14]

You hit it on the head.

If he fails in Afghanistan, then it will invariably be compared to Iraq.

[ishkabibble]

Might be. I feel we need to bring an overwhelming number of troops in to bring closure. Nobody wants to reinstate the draft, so we use what we have, which is not the most effective long term strategy IMO.

[OriginalWheelman]

I think we should go imperialist. Tell Afghanistan to man up an secure "their" area, or we will, and it won't be theirs anymore. That's the proper way to run a war.

What do I think will happen? I think we're going to go in with fervor, make some progress, the opposition will retaliate, strike a solid blow, public opinion will start to turn. The US steps up to meet the stronger opposition, the US public dislikes the increase in force public opinion starts to turn further. The death tolls will continue to rise on both sides, the US will be villanized for blowing up houses because we happen to be fighting there. Public support will fall of more rapidly, leading to more open opposition to the conflict, leading to more and more media exposure. The increased media exposure will further sway public opinion and vice versa until the public is demanding the Gov cease action in the area and return home, despite the area being neither secure nor ready to defend itself properly.

[480sx]

The whole thing reeks even worse than it did the first time. How did our grand coalition of the willing work out the first time? Now, with global opinion of the wars at an all time low(and while we are in the midst of a global recession), we expect to have a more unified global response to this situation?

Its kinda frightening to hear our military leaders making comments like this in one respect. Its almost like saying, 'This is such a clstrfvk, what we have to work with is not sufficient to get the job done'.

I feel we need to bring an overwhelming number of troops in to bring closure. Nobody wants to reinstate the draft, so we use what we have, which is not the most effective long term strategy IMO.

What closure would come from a massive surge?

In addition, we are stretched to thin as im sure you realize. Using what we have is not an effective long term strategy because of this. While enlistment is at a current high because of this economy, we are still stretched to thin. I cant see how moral would be good, most of our battalions are over worked and under appreciated.

Going into Iraq the way we did was moronic. Top Brass warned GB of the volatile situation in Afghanistan, and he made his point clear. Iraq was to be priority number one, Afghanistan number two.

I think we should go imperialist.

Were so damned close to being there anyway, why not take it the final step..

I think we should go imperialist. Tell Afghanistan to man up an secure "their" area, or we will, and it won't be theirs anymore. That's the proper way to run a war.

Do you have any idea what kind of commitment that would require from the American people?

In addition, this isnt a war on Afghanistan anymore, or at least its not supposed to be. Its a war on al Qaeda, a terrorlst organization. The chances of Afghanistan being able to 'man up' to this challenge alone isnt feasible in the countries current state. So lets just basically say that we go in and take over Afghanistan. Take a look at it geographically.



First off, to the east. Iran. How is Iran going to react to a land grab of their neighboring country?

Second, look at all the other countries surrounding it. To the north, you have nothing but 3rd world countries with no real means of securing their own boarders or creating a security force that is willing and/or able to stop Al Qaeda.

Third, you have Pakistan to the south, who while openly says they are committed to the war on terror have done some things that have sent a different message.

For example, this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_of_Evil

In addition, they have proven to be incapable of securing their own countries boarders. Terrorists and supplies funnel into Afghanistan from Pakistan. In addition, air strikes and military operations aimed at al Qaeda from Coalition forces are not tolerated by the Afghan government, and are seen as a breech of a sovereign nations boarders by most.

Pakistan and Iran's current relationship is in question IMO. They have been doing a hell of a lot more trade recently than they did after the Iranian revolution that distanced the two countries, primarily because Pakistan was seen as a quasi ally to the US. This could potentially unite them politically as well as militarily if we were to act as you suggest we do.

[OriginalWheelman]

Well you are right, it would never work, and if it did, would not be worth the cost. I really don't want to get involved but if we are to start a war, that's the proper way to run a war.

It's really a shame, from what I read about the region they have a lot to offer for tourism, that is, if you weren't going to get killed trying to see it.

[BusyBadger]

What do I think will happen? I think we're going to go in with fervor, make some progress, the opposition will retaliate, strike a solid blow, public opinion will start to turn. The US steps up to meet the stronger opposition, the US public dislikes the increase in force public opinion starts to turn further. The death tolls will continue to rise on both sides, the US will be villanized for blowing up houses because we happen to be fighting there. Public support will fall of more rapidly, leading to more open opposition to the conflict, leading to more and more media exposure. The increased media exposure will further sway public opinion and vice versa until the public is demanding the Gov cease action in the area and return home, despite the area being neither secure nor ready to defend itself properly.

Hmm, you'd think we'd learn after the first two times this happened when the US was involved that this scenario is pretty much inevitable.

While I have some concerns over Afghanistan the cornucopia of nightmare scenarios that could errupt in Pakistan is completely terrifying. If there were no nuclear implications it wouldn't be nearly the issue that it is now. Frontline on PBS has done a few Pakistan/AQ based episodes and the one that I watched most recently (within the last 8 weeks) was a nice change from the typical mainstream news pov.