| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Obama's Afghanistan strategy marks shift |
| 2008-11-11 |
| Military advisers to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama favor taking a regional approach to the war in Afghanistan, including engaging Iran, sources say. Obama's advisers, in a sharp break with the policies of President George Bush, advocate dropping ideological barriers to talking to Iran about Afghanistan, which neither country wants to see controlled by the Sunni Arab extremists of the Taliban, unnamed transition team officials told The Washington Post. And in an idea advocated by many of the United States' NATO allies, Obama's military aides also reportedly look favorably on opening a dialogue with "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban. The Post's sources also indicated Obama is planning on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan even as he puts a renewed emphasis on targeting al-Qaida both there and in the neighboring tribal areas of Pakistan. The newspaper said Obama's Afghanistan approach would mark a sharp contrast to the Bush administration by dropping its "unrealistic commitment" of building a modern democracy around the President Hamid Karzai and focus instead on maintaining stability. NATO allies also seem more likely to be willing to put troops into combat under an Obama administration, sources told the Post. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #16 "Afghanistan is a waste of our men, our money and our equipment. There is no way that this is a sustainable operation, given that we have to resupply through enemy-held Pakistan." Well, that was D'oh-bama's idea, isn't it? |
| Posted by: cingold 2008-11-11 22:43 |
| #15 What is the real issue of Afghanistan? We went in there to destroy and deny a base to Al Q. The taliban and a whole bunch of tribes got big money to host Binny and his Merry Men. Now they are doing the same thing in the frontier provinces. In the meantime, Pakistan is trying to find its schitzophrentic way. Basically we want to deny the enemy a base. The only reason that we are playing footsie with the Paks is for Afghanistan logistics and to keep Pak nukes from falling into the wrong hands. I see nation building a great thing on a local basis, but nationally, this is a tribal society, based on alliances, kinship, you know Anthropology 101. We have not the resources for nation building. We are fighting our wars on borrowed money from our adversaries. So the issue boils down to denying the enemy a base and Pak nukes. That means that achieve those goals is the one to go for. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-11 21:49 |
| #14 Believe me, the Talivan no likie strategic bombing. Not even a little bit. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-11-11 19:40 |
| #13 We can do what we need to do in Afghanistan and the tribal belt using airpower and a whole lot of iron bombs. That will make the point rather eloquently. Using ground troops there is a waste. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-11-11 19:21 |
| #12 Either win in Afghanistan or be prepared to revisit 9/11 all over again, and worse. Be it Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, or any other failed state where Al Qaida is able to function, we allow that at our peril. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2008-11-11 19:09 |
| #11 Afghanistan is unwinnable. GWB's point above has been made. The Taliban have been kicked out of government. Afghanistan is of no geopolitical significance to the West, let the local powers fight over it. That's a feature by the way. And as for the drug problem, that's mostly Europe's problem. Let them do something about it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-11 16:50 |
| #10 "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001 Surrender in Afghanistan, and that's what Obama is doing if that report is correct, will set a dangerous precedent: An attack on the continental US is not a deadly mistake but a winning move. American threats are just words. The next 4 years will be interesting indeed. As for combat troops from allies: I'm a German living in Germany. Merkel is spending considerable political capital merely maintaining the token Bundeswehr presence. A large majority of Germans (left, right and centrist) is against any form of engagement. I predict a substantial, perhaps total withdrawal of these forces before the German elections in September 09. Combat troops from Germany is something that just won't happen. |
| Posted by: Flereter Stalin5356 2008-11-11 15:55 |
| #9 lotp, limit the expansion of Iran and Pakistan??? Iran's Shia government would have only limited influence inside Afghanistan. As soon as they stepped in, they would be stepping in muck up to their necks (and they wouldn't have those necks for too long). As for Pakistan, they can't even extend control over their own territory. Sure, the ISI will re-install some puppet Taliban government next door, but wouldn't that just further weaken Islamabad's already non-existent/tenuous grasp on the tribal belt? Things have changed a whole lot in the last 10 years, and not to the good for Islamabad. And I think the Paks would know only too well that if Al Q set up shop in Afghanistan again and created a narco terror state there, we would glass the place should they ever hit us again. Probably hit the tribal areas too. Neither would be good for the Paks. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-11-11 15:25 |
| #8 "This needs to be #1 on the conservative agenda for the future, with leaving the UN (and the UN leaving NY City) #2." I can't agree with that, OP. Kicking out, and getting out of, the UN is definitely #1. "NATO allies also seem more likely to be willing to put troops into combat under an Obama administration" What troops? What combat? We don't have any combat that stops as 5 pm on weekdays and takes weekends and holidays off. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-11-11 14:49 |
| #7 The purpose for being in Afghanistan is to limit the expansion / influence of Iran and Pakistan. Obama's surrendering to Iran on both the Iraq & Afghan fronts. That will cost use big time in the future. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-11-11 14:22 |
| #6 Looks like OBambi has fallen for his own rhetoric. He's in for a very rude awakening. I curse those members of the military that support such a surrender as Obambi advocates. As for NATO, I think it's time to leave, and this just strengthens those views. If the other members of NATO cannot accept working with our president just because he's a conservative, there's no reason for our continued involvement. This needs to be #1 on the conservative agenda for the future, with leaving the UN (and the UN leaving NY City) #2. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-11-11 14:11 |
| #5 Afghanistan is a waste of our men, our money and our equipment. There is no way that this is a sustainable operation, given that we have to resupply through enemy-held Pakistan. The society is far removed from anything we would consider modern. The geography inhibits the development of a national conciousness, but instead maintains the local tribal focus. Our Europena allies are going to be little help, with the exception of a few. They don't want to waste their resources on this country either. Sadly, Afghanistan itself may be worth saving. The tribal belt of Pakistan, not so much. But it is that tribal belt that is the most significant impediment to our success in A-stan. If we need to negotiate with the Talib, so be it. Likewise with the Iranians. Lets leave with the very clear message that if anyone decides to attempt to extend their influence beyond the dirt hole in which they live, then we will come back with aircraft only...lots of them. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-11-11 13:54 |
| #4 I predict Barry will succumb to the radical elements of the left early in his first year. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-11-11 13:33 |
| #3 I wanna bring the boys home from Afghanistan. I have yet to see any evidence that Bambi has what it takes to keep them from becoming hostages. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-11 13:12 |
| #2 Whose military advisers? |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2008-11-11 13:04 |
| #1 "NATO allies also seem more likely to be willing to put troops into combat under an Obama administration, sources told the Post." ! |
| Posted by: Lagom 2008-11-11 12:59 |