Comments on: Examining Obama’s Afghan Plan, Part II: A ‘Surge’ in Soldiers and Civilians

By: Praveen

Praveen — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:27:22 +0000

Another complicated issue is that Afghanistan is one of the most hostile battlefields on earth. There is no infrastructure. You just can’t roll-in the tanks. Add to that the fact that Taliban are very familiar with the terrain. Its classic guerrilla warfare. And then there is presence of drug traffickers (mafia or warlords depends on what you want to call them). There is no sense of a country among Afghans. Allegiance is to the provider and protector.

I believe there should be efforts to disrupt the financing and support for Al Qaeda and Taliban (via Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s ISI and army). Unless those vital links are broken its going to be very hard if not impossible to win.

As for media and talking heads…. Example of Napolean and Russians will be trumpeted… No war is un-winnable if there is a strategy and is executed properly.

I don’t think there has been a comprehensive strategy. At least not until now.

Sadly President Obama has shown no signs of playing to win for America.

btw… right series at the right time.

By: vettepilot

vettepilot — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:53:16 +0000

how long until the history revisionists declare (again) that the “surge” in Iraq must have also been a failure, simply on the basis that the “same” strategy failed for the Chosen One in Afghanistan?

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:58:12 +0000

Unless you consider Axelrod or Emanuel the commander in chief.

If the administration continues to mouth platitudes about the strategy along with the usual lack of transparency about the goals of the military, then there will doubtless be a lack of planning for success. I can’t see this president ever formulating a way to secure our nation independently of securing his electoral chances. Never. Going. To. Happen.

By: rbstratford - Quick Daily Insights

rbstratford - Quick Daily Insights — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:48:05 +0000

“If Obama’s ’surge’ ends up being less than an overwhelming success, even if it is due to a failure to implement a new, winning strategy for those troops to deploy in support of, it is likely that the calls for a mass withdrawal from the war-torn area and the key front in the War on Terror will escalate. Part of the stated rationale for this renewed call for surrender will be the claim that we tried “exactly what worked in Iraq,” and because of the fact that it didn’t work, the war in Afghanistan must be “unwinnable.” ”

This is spot on. A simple “surge”– more troops — means nothing in and of itself. The difference in the terrain alone sets the two arenas (Iraq and Afghanistan) worlds apart.

In due time, Obama will have to withdraw or send the troops his commanders required. Even they might not be enough. I’ve said it befor — Afghanistan is far more likely to resemble Vietnam than Iraq ever did.

– RB Stratford

By: Old_Crow

Old_Crow — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:04:12 +0000

on a part-time basis, I’m concerned about one particular development. There is a strong recruitment effort underway for foreign former military personnel. Most the former US military contractors are upstanding and follow the rules. Sure there are some aggressive Blackwater/Xe/Triple Canopy types, but they are a minority. Many of the foreign contractors, on the other hand, are a strange lot and are involved in various black market operations and unofficial side agreements. The involvement of foreign contractors also muddles the chain of accountability and liability.