• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Barack Obama to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

matt101pwn

New Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan001.html?ref=rss- Link from CBC News

President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to be deployed in Afghanistan — but he also pledged Tuesday to begin withdrawing American forces in about 18 months, beginning in July 2011.

In a televised prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., the president said "our security is at stake" and his new policy is designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion."

The troop buildup, which will cost $30 billion US for the first year alone, will begin almost immediately with the first marines in place by Christmas.

"We must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven," Obama said "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government."

The additional forces will be sent at "the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centres," [and their destination would be] "the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by al-Qaeda," Obama said.

Cadets listen to Obama's speech at West Point. (Julie Jacobson/Associated Press)
"It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."

It marks the second time in his presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground. There now are 71,000.

Most of the new forces will be combat troops, most likely from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and marines primarily from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

The additional 30,000 troops will include about 5,000 trainers, underscoring Obama's emphasis on preparing Afghans to take over their own security.

'Deliver for the people'
"The days of providing a blank cheque are over," Obama said. The United States will support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and "deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable," he said.

The additional troops, Obama said, "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans."

Drawing on America's experience in Iraq, Obama said a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will be executed responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

"We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government and, more importantly, to the Afghan people that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country," Obama said.

In Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said early Wednesday that NATO and U.S. forces will hand over the responsibility of securing Afghanistan to the nation's own security forces "as rapidly as conditions allow."

Demonstrators gather near the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to protest Obama's speech. (Craig Ruttle/Associated Press)
McChrystal made the comments in a statement issued just before Obama's speech.

Obama also leaned heavily on NATO allies and other countries to join in escalating the fight. "We must come together to end this war successfully," he said. "For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility. What's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world."

NATO diplomats said Obama was asking alliance partners in Europe to add 5,000 to 10,000 troops to the separate international force in Afghanistan. Indications were the allies would agree to a number somewhere in that range.

The war has even less support in Europe than in the United States, and the NATO allies and other countries currently have about 40,000 troops on the ground.

Canada's military mission to Afghanistan began soon after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. The current mission in Kandahar, which began at the end of 2006, includes 2,800 troops focused around an infantry battle group.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said he will adhere to a motion passed in Parliament and not extend Canada's military mission beyond 2011.

Since 2002, 133 Canadian soldiers have been killed in the Afghan mission, resulting in the highest per-capita death rate among foreign armies in Afghanistan. One diplomat and two aid workers have also been killed.

Lawrence Cannon, Canada's minister of foreign affairs, welcomed Obama's announcement of additional troops.

"We look forward to furthering our collaboration with the U.S. in order to reach our ultimate and common goal of leaving Afghans an Afghanistan that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure," Cannon said from Brussels, where he will attend a NATO summit meeting.

Sharing common enemy
Turning to Pakistan, Obama said the U.S. and that country "share a common enemy" in Islamic terrorists. Obama says the same "cancer" of terror that hampered Afghanistan has taken root along the border with Pakistan.

His policy will be to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target terrorists, and he said the U.S. has "made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known," Obama said.

While the al-Qaeda leadership appears to be bottled up in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal regions, the U.S. military strategy of targeted missile attacks from unmanned drone aircraft has yet to flush Osama bin Laden and his cohorts from hiding.

Obama began his much-anticipated speech t by recalling "why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. …We did not ask for this fight," Obama said.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks on the United States.

Bin Laden and key members of the terrorist organization were headquartered in Afghanistan at the time, taking advantage of sanctuary afforded by the Taliban government that ran the mountainous and isolated country.

Taliban forces were quickly driven from power, while bin Laden and his top deputies were believed to have fled through towering mountains into neighbouring Pakistan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly the war is getting too expensive? The states spend 300billion dollars estimated per year and is driving into further det.
Will Canada put in more troops with the pressure of Barack sending in more, or will they stay at their current number of 2950(Estimated). Let me know what you think.
 
Obama was really speaking to two audiences - those who support the war on terror and those that dont. To the first group he ordered more troops to Afghanistan and to the second group he tossed out a 2011 withdrawal of surge troops. This morning his lunatic base is mad as hell at him but they will forget it in time as they are really focused on turning the US into a socialist workers paradise.
 
Typical double speak.  It took him three months to come up with this???


PS: Though his focus was on Iraq, I really do miss G.W. Bush at times.  This is one of them.
 
Whitehouse.gov transcript

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty transcript

Meanwhile, Canada's initial response:
“Canada welcomes the additional military and civilian resources the United States will deploy to Afghanistan, particularly to the south. Additional U.S. resources will help to provide a more secure environment for the Afghan people.

“The excellent cooperation that our military and civilians enjoy with the U.S. in Kandahar will certainly be strengthened when additional U.S. resources are deployed. This will allow Canada to further concentrate its efforts on its six priorities and three signature projects, including Canada’s vital work to increase the capability of the Afghan National Security Forces and place responsibility for security back in the hands of Afghans.

“We are pleased that the objectives of the U.S. policy are complementary to Canada’s own priorities. Canada has a significant civilian contingent on the ground in Afghanistan working alongside their military colleagues to ensure our programs and policies are helping the Afghan government to build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.

“We look forward to furthering our collaboration with the U.S. in order to reach our ultimate and common goal of leaving Afghans an Afghanistan that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure.”
 
It's not what Obama said (as mentioned, it took three months for this leap?), it's what he didn't say. The problem is with intelligence, and I think George Friedman from STRATFOR nailed it.

[My excerpt; this is not the complete STRATFOR text]

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
 
Obama's Plan and the Key Battleground
December 2, 2009
By George Friedman

All war is about intelligence, but nowhere is this truer than in counterinsurgency and guerrilla war, where invisibility to the enemy and maintaining the initiative in all engagements is key. Only clear intelligence on the enemy’s capability gives this initiative to an insurgent, and only denying intelligence to the enemy — or knowing what the enemy knows and intends — preserves the insurgent force.

The construction of an Afghan military is an obvious opportunity for Taliban operatives and sympathizers to be inserted into the force. As in Vietnam, such operatives and sympathizers are not readily distinguishable from loyal soldiers; ideology is not something easy to discern. With these operatives in place, the Taliban will know of and avoid Afghan army forces and will identify Afghan army weaknesses. Knowing that the Americans are withdrawing as the NVA did in Vietnam means the rational strategy of the Taliban is to reduce operational tempo, allow the withdrawal to proceed, and then take advantage of superior intelligence and the ability to disrupt the Afghan forces internally to launch the Taliban offensives.

The Western solution is not to prevent Taliban sympathizers from penetrating the Afghan army. Rather, the solution is penetrating the Taliban. In Vietnam, the United States used signals intelligence extensively. The NVA came to understand this and minimized radio communications, accepting inefficient central command and control in return for operational security. The solution to this problem lay in placing South Vietnamese into the NVA. There were many cases in which this worked, but on balance, the NVA had a huge advantage in the length of time it had spent penetrating the ARVN versus U.S. and ARVN counteractions. The intelligence war on the whole went to the North Vietnamese. The United States won almost all engagements, but the NVA made certain that it avoided most engagements until it was ready.

In the case of Afghanistan, the United States has far more sophisticated intelligence-gathering tools than it did in Vietnam. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: An intelligence tool can be understood, taken into account and evaded. By contrast, deep penetration on multiple levels by human intelligence cannot be avoided.

Pakistan’s Role
Obama mentioned Pakistan’s critical role. Clearly, he understands the lessons of Vietnam regarding sanctuary, and so he made it clear that he expects Pakistan to engage and destroy Taliban forces on its territory and to deny Afghan Taliban supplies, replacements and refuge. He cited the Swat and South Waziristan offensives as examples of the Pakistanis’ growing effectiveness. While this is a significant piece of his strategy, the Pakistanis must play another role with regard to intelligence.

The heart of Obama’s strategy lies not in the surge, but rather in turning the war over to the Afghans. As in Vietnam, any simplistic model of loyalties doesn’t work. There are Afghans sufficiently motivated to form the core of an effective army. As in Vietnam, the problem is that this army will contain large numbers of Taliban sympathizers; there is no way to prevent this. The Taliban is not stupid: It has and will continue to move its people into as many key positions as possible.

The challenge lies in leveling the playing field by inserting operatives into the Taliban. Since the Afghan intelligence services are inherently insecure, they can’t carry out such missions. American personnel bring technical intelligence to bear, but that does not compensate for human intelligence. The only entity that could conceivably penetrate the Taliban and remain secure is the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This would give the Americans and Afghans knowledge of Taliban plans and deployments. This would diminish the ability of the Taliban to evade attacks, and although penetrated as well, the Afghan army would enjoy a chance ARVN never had.

But only the ISI could do this, and thinking of the ISI as secure is hard to do from a historical point of view. The ISI worked closely with the Taliban during the Afghan civil war that brought it to power and afterwards, and the ISI had many Taliban sympathizers. The ISI underwent significant purging and restructuring to eliminate these elements over recent years, but no one knows how successful these efforts were.

The ISI remains the center of gravity of the entire problem. If the war is about creating an Afghan army, and if we accept that the Taliban will penetrate this army heavily no matter what, then the only counter is to penetrate the Taliban equally.
"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"


Unfortunately, that degree of HUMINT activity is well beyond US capability. And given Pakistan-Indian animousity, it is certainly not going to help that the US is also attempting to build tighter relations with India.
 
....to respond (links to Voice of Jihad English, and PDF at non-terrorist site).

Main messages:  "Wrong answer, Mr. President," and "You send more troops?  We have more targets!"

A couple of excerpts:
The American President Obama  has announced his strategy after months of dithering. The essence of the strategy shows that the needs and wants of the American people have been overlooked during the framing of this strategy and it has been formulated under the pressure of (army)  generals of Pentagon, the American  Neo-conservatives and the wealthiest fews of America and for the protection of their interests.  Hence it is a strategy of colonialism aimed at securing interests of the American capitalists and it  seems America has vast and protracted but wicked and hostile plans not only for Afghanistan but for the whole region.

The reinforcement of the American troops and other tactics will not have impact on the status quo.  But the reinforcement will provide better opportunity for the Mujahideen to launch offensives. On the other hand, it will deepen the crisis of the American economy which is already in shambles ....  The Obama’s assertion to increase and train more soldiers and police for the Kabul Administration is pointless and not result-oriented .... Such schemes have already resulted into bringing in losses to the invaders. The Afghans and the public of the world saw that the more they increased the number of troops and sped up training the forces, the more the Mujahideen gained strength and spread their influence into the ranks of the (surrogate) forces. Furthermore, the people’s support with the Mujahideen has increased in parallel.
 
Technoviking said:
Typical double speak.  It took him three months to come up with this???


PS: Though his focus was on Iraq, I really do miss G.W. Bush at times.  This is one of them.

Seems interesting. I think Obama has alot of pressure on himself to show what the United States needed badly, A leader! Thanks Techno for your post, and everyone else, very insightful.
 
matt101pwn said:
I think Obama has alot of pressure on himself to show what the United States needed badly, A leader!

What ?

I'm with Viking......Can i have President Bush back.
 
CDN Aviator said:
I'm with Viking......Can i have President Bush back.

Or better yet, Bush Senior!
 
  Yeah lets have Bush back.... tell me again under what administration did Afghanistan start deteriorating in and was for the most part ignored?   

  And I love when ever something Obama does comes up the word socialism has to be dropped in just for that extra ummph.

  Edited cause I want to say, Good on Obama, those 30,000 troops are needed on the ground.

Incomming doggypile. 
 
TheHead said:
  Yeah lets have Bush back.... tell me again under what administration did Afghanistan start deteriorating in and was for the most part ignored?   

  And I love when ever something Obama does comes up the word socialism has to be dropped in just for that extra ummph.

  Edited cause I want to say, Good on Obama, those 30,000 troops are needed on the ground.

Incomming doggypile.
No doggypile.  I agree that the 30,000 troops are needed.  I also wish to point out that the request came 3 months (or so) ago, and we are only getting the answer now.  Pres Bush focused on Iraq, I get that; however, he cannot possibly do anything than give direction to his subordinates based on their recommendations to him.  If his commanders had been barking around for more troops in any time under his period (to the current extent), then I'm sure he would have rendered a decision sooner.  That's what I mean.



Oh, I forgot: SOCIALISM  >:D
 
Technoviking said:
No doggypile.  I agree that the 30,000 troops are needed.  I also wish to point out that the request came 3 months (or so) ago, and we are only getting the answer now.  Pres Bush focused on Iraq, I get that; however, he cannot possibly do anything than give direction to his subordinates based on their recommendations to him.  If his commanders had been barking around for more troops in any time under his period (to the current extent), then I'm sure he would have rendered a decision sooner.  That's what I mean.



Oh, I forgot: SOCIALISM  >:D

I agree that he did took longer than expected to deploy much needed troops. Obama did fufill his promise though that he wouldn't send more Americans into harms way without a complete assesment of the situation.  The 2011 timetable I believe is being taken out of context I think.  The security situation must improve by 2011 before those surge troops are sent home is the intent I think.  Regardless this plan has General Petraeus's backing and I havn't seen that man go wrong yet, so I'll support it.
 
This action and the further action to withdraw some troops in 2011 hasn't been decided to win support from the left,it's being done to give a huge wakeup to the Afghans that the US isn't going to be there forever,and if they want to be free from Taliban rule that they're going to have to get their shit together and fight for themselves.

I hope this means that Canada's combat mission will continue beyond 2011.
 
A column at Spiegel Online thinks the president laid an egg:

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate...

Ouch! And I tend to agree.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Obama's delay killed any good he would have gotten out of this....if he had agreed to McCristal's request within 2 weeks it would have shown decisiveness, instead it showed he couldn't make a tough decision....

The MSM is dumping all over this, so there goes the boost in the polls....

The end date......just dumb..... ::)
 
MarkOttawa said:
A column at Spiegel Online thinks the president laid an egg:

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Ouch! And I tend to agree.

Mark
Ottawa

Very intresting. Obama has had to make some tough decisions but I believe with the support of Usa citizens on the war he may be able to pull thru. He will have alot to deal with, just like Bush did but this is going to show if he is a good leader or not.

P.S Give Obama till 2011 to prove himself, or bring back Bush
 
matt101pwn said:
Give Obama till 2011 to prove himself, or bring back Bush

I think the twenty-second Amendment might get in the way of that. Bush Sr. could run, but he would be 87 years old. That still leaves Florida Governor Jeb Bush for President, with G.W. as his running mate for V.P. Dick Cheney gave Jeb a semi-endorsement. Or, could you imagine an Obama versus Dick Cheney match?
Or, perhaps Sarah Palin will make a run for the Big Job, or again as V.P.
And maybe Rush Limbaugh White House Press Secretary. ( Just kidding )
 
Aha, very true. Bush has served his time to the max. Being a Canadian I have no say who becomes president, but I don't believe Sarah Palin would do the trick to be honest.
 
mariomike said:
I think the twenty-second Amendment might get in the way of that. Bush Sr. could run, but he would be 87 years old. That still leaves Florida Governor Jeb Bush for President, with G.W. as his running mate for V.P. Dick Cheney gave Jeb a semi-endorsement. Or, could you imagine an Obama versus Dick Cheney match?
Or, perhaps Sarah Palin will make a run for the Big Job, or again as V.P.
And maybe Rush Limbaugh White House Press Secretary. ( Just kidding )

Yeah Sara Palin did such a great job as a running mate for Mccain  :-X 
 
I personally think before she even attempts to run for president, she needs to get her act together.
 
Back
Top