What do you think the Obama Administration will do in and about Afghanistan?

[branders seine]

I'm not finding a clear message. One week it's escalate. The next it's scale back. Then we're old-school freedom-loving Americans again. Then we say we need to kill more Taliban.

:shrug:

[lisa58]

1. he's out to make us (US) safer....that's what he'll at least try to do

[ZombieHorde]

2. Good question, K&R.

[BlooInBloo]

3. I have no idea.

[PretzelWarrior]

4. it is a healthy debate about pros/cons happening inside the administration

I know you're not used to seeing that from the White House in quite some time. Better to spend a couple of months delibrating and settling on a real course of action than to just jump from one thing to the next hoping something sticks like Herr Bush and Herr Rumsfeld.

[Jennicut]

5. I think he went with escalation first as it was thought that by not paying enough

attention to Afghanistan we let it slide into a mess. But of course, just throwing more troops at the problem did not help it. Many are coming to the conclusion that there is no "winning" this war. I saw Michael Ware on CNN say that we should finish training the Afghan police and get out of there...that there were no good options. A counter insurgency as McChrystal is advocating requires a lot of troops, more time and money and might not really do any good there. Some in the administration are opposed to that. Some are for it. We have to see what happens...I think personally its time to pare down the operations there and focus on targeting certain Al Qaeda cells. And there is also the issue that they are in Pakistan, not really Afghanistan any more.

[SpartanDem]

6. You need more than training you need a lot more of them

otherwise you run the risk of the Taliban slowly over the country again and that leads to AQ coming back. One the flip slide I wonder if the government so corrupt and incompetent that no about help will make to be able to do this on their own. I don't know what he'll do, but don't envy him having to make this decision.

[Jennicut]

11. Rampant corruption.

This is why some in the WH are thinking that a counter insurgency is impossible. Karzai will do nothing or can do nothing to be a partner in this. And I agree, you need more of police. It is a very tough decision Bush left Obama with.

[bigendian]

7. two options with alot ot risks

Counterinsurgency vs. Conterterrorism.

According to the NYT today, Biden wants to continue striking at AQ with predators and special ops and not add more troops. He is reportedly fed up with the corrupt Bush-installed government and expects them to be a hindrance.
McChrystal wants to protect the civilians from the taliban and the provincial governors who are also part of the corruption.

I say we stay until the Afghan National Army can take over. They are supposed to be good fighters. And hell, after all, Afghanistan has a history as a nation unlike that place George obsessed over.

[Life Long Dem]

8. The answer is hidden somewhere out there...

Until they tell us who we are actually fighting...

One week the Afghan's are supplying drugs for weapons, and the next week there's no Al-Qaida to supply drugs to?

Add the media's spin on this somewhere and yes... :shrug:

[moondust]

9. Hillary: "...al-Qaida would be back..."

~snip~

MARGARET WARNER: Fewer troops?

HILLARY CLINTON: Who knows? I mean what we're looking at though are the goals that we have. Our goal is to protect the United States of America, our allies, our friends around the world from what is the epicenter of terrorism, namely the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. I mean just today we have this announcement in New York about a very important terrorism investigation involving people from Afghanistan. Some people say, "well al-Qaida's no longer in Afghanistan." If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast al-Qaida would be back in Afghanistan. So we have to be really clear-eyed about this, and what I'm very grateful for is that we're not coming in with any ideological, you know, presuppositions. We're not coming in wedded to the past. What we try to do in this administration is to sort out all of the different factors and come to the resolution based on the best information we have, and then as soon as we do that we keep going at it. We don't say, "OK, fine, now we're set for the next five years." That's not the way the president works, that's not the way that any of us work.

~more~

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/09/hillary_clinton_15/

Hillary is convinced that the Taliban cannot be allowed to retake control of the Afghan gov't. That would seem to suggest that the fight will go on, probably with more troops if her assessment prevails. Situation still being evaluated.

[vaberella]

10. Obama said he's looking until all data is in for reevaluation.

Then he'll propose what to do. Your basing most everything on the media and their spinning or the different pundits who are depending on more media. However, Obama clearly stated he's reevaluating the situation to find out the future game plan. Nothing is in stone. That's the end of it, so far.

[Engineer4Obama]

12. I know I've forgetten what it looks like when someone

thinks about a decision as important as troop deployments and war strategy rather than just doing what ever they feel in their gut.

A clear message is not important here getting the right policy is.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

13. I'd guess he's going to agree to send troops, but as many as requested.

[LWolf]

14. The war on terror will continue for years. nt

[branders seine]

15. "war"?

"terror"?

:puke:

[LWolf]

16. While I find the bullshit "war on terror"

to be puke-inducing myself, I don't know why you would question those terms.

That's why we're in Afghanistan, after all.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Our hard-pressed troops are dying and suffering in Afghanistan while Obama consults with the gods

Let's not forget that it was Obama himself who called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" and send additional troops of Afghanistan just a handful of months ago.

[Vidar]

18. Continue to squander lives & money.

[quiller4]

19. I think he'll go with the recommendation of 40,000 additional

troops but they won't start arriving "in country" until the fighting season starts in April-May. I think there will be strict scrutiny of the Karzai government and he will quietly be put on notice to clean up his act or risk losing all US and NATO aid. This isn't necessarily a good option but I think it is the only one Obama can exercise now.