Afghan war options: Beating al-Qaida key yardstick

Afghan war options: Beating al-Qaida key yardstick

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, from pulling back to staying put to sending thousands more troops to fight the insurgency.

A look at the options and their implications for achieving Obama’s stated goal of defeating al-Qaida.

Full Story Here:
Afghan war options: Beating al-Qaida key yardstick

None of these options, as presented, are my writings, they are all from the original story. I am doing to opine on the options themselves, what I feel they may or may not accomplish in the Afghanistan campaign, and how these options will impact our troops, our economy and the United States.

GETTING OUT

A full, immediate withdrawal of American forces does not appear to be in the cards, not the least because U.S. allies in NATO share the view that abandoning Afghanistan now would hand a victory to Islamic extremist forces such as the Taliban that are aligned in some respects with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Some argue that because the al-Qaida figures who were run out of Afghanistan when U.S. troops invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks are now encamped across the border in Pakistan, there is no point to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. A related school of thought holds that the very presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan adds to the country’s instability and fuels its insurgency. Obama has taken a different view. Less than two months ago he said, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

OK, on 1st impression, that is a good paragraph over all, but consider this; Barack Obama knows the words, he knows the tune, but will he DO the dance or just talk? Talk is all we have seen from Obama to date. He is correct in this statement, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”, but it appears that Obama has been too preoccupied with Michelle, Oprah and their Excellent Adventure into failure by pandering the IOC instead of focusing on the most important matters at hand.

And in ALL fairness, it must be pointed out, if we walk away from Afghanistan, we look like foolish losers. We will have failed to win a decisive victory in a nation that is approximately the same size in land area as is the state of Texas. That is not the most confidence inspiring thing that this nation and our so-called leadership could do.

Also, not that I particularly care one way or the other, but if the USA walks away from the Afghans, Hamid Karzai is a dead man. No maybe in that statement, he is as good as gone.

Karzai was nothing more than the most well educated, and most easily acceptable war lord at our disposal after the initial actions against the Taliban following 9-11. He easily bent to our will, for a while. Then he became all too impressed with his own assumed importance and has blasted the USA for our unacceptable conduct in prosecuting the war. He is demanding things that are getting our troops killed, and our ultimately PC President is only too eager to grant Karzai his wishes.

If the USA is to maintain ANY degree of integrity in world standings, if we are to remain a respected member of world armies, Afghanistan is a MUST WIN for us. And in all truth, this war should have been over quite some time ago. But, we traipsed off to Iraq at the behest of George W. Bush…

SCALING BACK

A less drastic alternative to a full-scale retreat is a partial pullback. A reduced U.S. force would stay mainly to train and advise the Afghan national army and police. U.S. special operations forces would continue their hunt for most-wanted extremist leaders in Afghanistan. Pilotless drones such as the armed Predator would take out al-Qaida figures on the Pakistan side of the border. This would essentially end the counterinsurgency mission of U.S. and NATO forces. The reasoning is that the fight is not worth the cost in blood and treasure, and al-Qaida is a more urgent priority. This counterterror option would amount to a reversal of the strategy Obama endorsed in March. In the view of military analysts Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, who favor an expanded counterinsurgency campaign, a shift to only training and counterterror operations would be a big mistake. They argue that it would empower the Taliban and al-Qaida, endanger remaining U.S. troops and diplomats and allow Islamic extremists to portray the U.S. pullback as a defeat for the forces of moderation.

Cutting back is nothing less than suicide! The remaining troops are in much more danger, drones are NOT going to get the job done, not entirely and training the Afghan national army and police to engage the Taliban? They ARE the Taliban.

KABUL (AP) – An Afghan policeman on patrol with U.S. soldiers opened fire on the Americans, killing two of them before fleeing, officials said Saturday, raising questions about discipline in the ranks of the Afghan forces and possible infiltration by insurgents.

Full Story Here:
Afghan policeman fires on US troops, killing 2

If we scale back, this will no longer be the exception, it will be the rule, and many more Americans will die and we will be no closer to victory in Afghanistan than we are right now.

STAYING PUT

One of those advocating no short-term change in the size of the U.S. force in Afghanistan is Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He argues for putting greater emphasis on training the Afghan security forces and accelerating their growth. In this approach, the counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban would continue on course. Additional U.S. troops would be required for the training mission, but not for combat. The flow of equipment for the police and army would be expanded. More effort would be focused on persuading lower-level Taliban fighters to lay down their arms. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is calling for accelerated training of Afghan forces. But in his view, more combat troops also are required to retake the initiative from the Taliban, which now control or contest large parts of the country. Earlier efforts to speed up Afghan training stalled in part because of a lack of NATO trainers.

Sen. Levin is a moron. Staying put only results in MORE deaths for American troops. And just to remind anyone that may have forgotten, the equipment that the Taliban has in their hands right now, the equipment that they are fighting us with is, for the most part, OUR OWN equipment.

The Taliban is using leftovers from the Afghan/Soviet war, that is the equipment the Taliban uses, they got it when WE were supporting them, from back in the days when the Taliban was good, and called Mujahideen.

Saddam Hussein was once considered a friend by the USA, as were the Mujahideen, now we make, or have made war against both. The lesson I take from that is, you can never have an Islamic ally that is trustworthy.

RAMPING UP

This is the McChrystal plan, which he calls “a fundamentally new way of doing business.” In military parlance, it would be a classic counterinsurgency campaign that could last for years. It would mean sending more U.S. troops – perhaps as many as 40,000. The general says it would mean redefining the fight in ways that enable Afghans to regain control of their own country. McChrystal spelled out his reasoning in a report weeks ago to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who asked for a comprehensive assessment of the war effort when he removed McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, in May in search of “fresh thinking, fresh eyes.” McChrystal says there is no guarantee his approach will work. Critics worry that this escalation would only lead to others, creating a quagmire. But McChrystal argues that if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or is unable to counter international terrorist networks – then Afghanistan could again become a base for al-Qaida to launch an attack on the U.S. That’s just what Obama says must be avoided.

It is a given, we CAN kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, of course they won’t be gone, they will simply move to the Pakistan border regions and take up residence there while they regroup and prepare to launch a counter attack once the American SURGE is gone.

I don’t believe that the Afghans are capable of controlling their own country. Afghanistan is one of the most useless places on earth. The have NO infrastructure other than the production of poppy. Drugs. That’s it. At least Iraq has a viable resource, oil.

Gen. McChrystal is no fool, even he says there is no guarantee his approach will work. And again I point out, we are the USA, we are supposed to be the most powerful military force on earth. If we can’t get a handle on Afghanistan, just what exactly, does that say regarding our capabilities as far as the rest of the world, and particularly where radical Islam is concerned?

If the USA can’t fully control these cretins in their own environs, how in the hell can we stop them if they decide to go active here?

The answer to that lies within each and every REAL American. It won’t be our military or the U.S. government that stops them.