Recruiting Afghan Soldiers a Struggle

This could be America's best exit strategy: building a strong Afghan National Army that would be the key to bringing security and stability to the country.

"I know to have a country, you need an army," an Afghan recruit said. "I'm here to make Afghanistan."

Making Afghanistan will require a fighting force that can protect its people, take over from coalition forces and rid the country of widespread corruption, reports CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark.

"It is critical for us to ever leave here that we have a sustainable Afghan National Army," said Capt. Bill Spurlock.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal's plan calls for an increase in Afghan troops from the current level of 90,000 to 134,000 next year. McChrystal's ultimate aim is to have a force of 240,000. It's a recommendation that President Obama is still considering.

Here basic training lasts 8 weeks and this facility alone can graduate over 40,000 soldiers in a year, but training isn't the main challenge, it's finding the soldiers in the first place.

Some would-be recruits are hedging their bets on who will be here in the long-term - the Afghan Security Forces or the Taliban. For others, their tribe or ethnic group comes first, country second.

"Yes, people think about tribe first but this is wrong," a recruit said. "If we build our country, then we can protect our tribes."

U.S. trainers have also been frustrated by the fact that some recruits join the army in the winter only to switch over to the Taliban when the fighting really starts in the summer, simply because the Taliban pay more.

And it's not just soldiers. In an insurgent video, Afghan police are seen handing over guns and other weapons to the Taliban. Photographs triggered an investigation into whether cowardice or corruption was to blame. Cases like this one feed a growing skepticism about the quality of Afghan Security Forces and their training.

The one thing that's not in doubt is that Afghan forces will have to be in the forefront of the battle to win over the Afghan public and restore faith in the government.

[egresor]

it is insanity for us to be there!

insanity!

they talk about stopping terrorism by kicking out the taliban, when their own people were tolerating (at least) their rule? then inviting more by inciting the whole region to attack us?

the russians couldn't do it and we cannot also do it. get the heck out!

the people we always pick to run things almost always turn out to be corrupt (or we couldn't buy them) or some other cause that automatically disqualifies them from any such qualifications.

american cannot win a war in afghanistan. it is no simpler that than.

we cannot defeat the taliban and it supporters thru conventional means and we don't have the ability to do it by other means....so we are sunk.

we either jump off the tiger and take our chances or we ride it and have all our strength drained from the effort and eventually seccumb thru lack of strength.

so what's it to be american?

ride the tiger some more and have your economy drained to nothing but debt, have your sons (your soldiers)return to you dead

or

does maerica decide to be bold and finally say

"enough is enough---this is insanity!"

and jump off the tiger and put yourself (your own country) on guard in case the tiger turns back upon you.

i tend to think the tiger will withdraw into the jungle for healing time.

america needs to wake from it's insanity.....an insanity infected upon us by bush and cheney and rove.

;(

[Omni-Present101]

David Gregory Gets "Joltin" Joe Lieberman

On the High Cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq War Cost 12 trillion and its Not Paid For, or Budget Neutral and Additional Cost of 9 Trillion more Dollars added to the already 12 Trillion Dollars, we Owe Communist-Socialist China, with Interest.
_____________

MR. GREGORY: I just want to...

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I don't want to do that.

MR. GREGORY: Are you consistent on this matter? If you say you don't like a public option because of how it might influence the debt, will you apply that same standard to escalating the war in Afghanistan?

Should that be deficit-neutral, what we spend on Afghanistan?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Incidentally, over the years, back in the Bush administration, I put forward tax programs to pay for the wars because I, I don't know of another time in our history when we went to war and didn't pay for it.

That's part of why we have the enormous debt that we have now, [$12 Trillion] today, predicted to add [[$9 Trillion]] in the next 10 years.

MR. GREGORY: All right, so that's the question.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: It, it's going to...

MR. GREGORY: You, you would pay for escalation in Afghanistan? It would have to be paid for?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Absolutely.

Note: Lieberman is Giving Gregory Borderline Bull Spit and Gregory Knows it too.
_____________________

[egresor]

leiberman showed how honest he is!

why the dems have him a chairman of anything is utterly puzzling!

he's no democrat----he left the party and ran independent....so treat hom as an independent.

he has no business being a chairman of any committee under a democtratic congress.

why the democratic party caters to him is beyond me!

[Omni-Present101]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-david-obey-warns-president-obama-afghanistan-war/story?id=9126805

_____________

David Obey:

"There Ain't Gonna be No Money for Nothing if we Pour it All into Afghanistan,"

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Watch ABC News' exclusive interview with Rep. Obey here.

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said.

"But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
Related

_______________
Obey's opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision the White House says the President could make as early as November 30).

As Appropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for the war when the last war funding bill narrowly passed the House in June.

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.

The White House won't be able to count on Obey's support the next time the president seeks funding for the war.

"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC News. "I am no military strategist, but I don't believe we have the tools to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan because you have to have functioning, effective government and there isn't one in Afghanistan.

There isn't one in Pakistan either."
___________________

[Omni-Present101]

Reuters: http://lnk.ms/396sk

The U.S. To Leave Afghanistan By [[2017]] The Nation will be Bankrupt.

I Cannot Believe this..

I Cannot !!


Alright You Gung Ho Ho's...

I Can SEE the Damn Draft Coming...


Finally, All get to Participate in this High Cost Bankrupting War Campaign.
________


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obama prepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

After months of deliberation and fending off Republican charges that he was dithering on Afghanistan while violence there surged, Obama will address the nation on Tuesday on the way forward in the costly and unpopular eight-year war.

He is expected to announce he is sending about 30,000 more troops as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy that will place greater emphasis on accelerating the training of Afghan security forces so that U.S. soldiers can eventually withdraw.

It appears highly unlikely Obama will offer a specific troop withdrawal timetable, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president would stress that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was not open-ended.

"We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited and that is important for people to understand," he said.

He said Obama would use his prime-time televised speech to stress the "sheer cost" of the war, explain to Americans why their military was still in Afghanistan, and press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to improve governance after being re-elected in a fraud-tainted vote in August.

"The American people are going to want to know why we are here, they are going to want to know what our interests are," Gibbs said.

The White House has estimated it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier sent to Afghanistan. With the U.S. deficit hitting $1.4 trillion and fueling Americans' concerns about high government spending, sending more troops to Afghanistan could be a politically risky move for Obama.

Obama's fellow Democrats, who control the U.S. Congress, face potentially difficult midterm elections in November 2010, with Republicans eager to exploit Americans' unease about the country's ballooning deficit and high unemployment.

Two veteran Democratic lawmakers have already called for imposing a "war tax" to pay for the troop increase.

"VERY, VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE"

[Omni-Present101]

The ChickenHawk Republican Talk Machine are in Support of the High A!! Cost Afghanistan Occupation.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Praeger, Majority of Republican Talk Radio Pundits and their Legion of Fans & Fox News are all for this War.

"Listen to the Generals on the Ground"

Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and All the other Fox News Numbskulls, Chant this Sad Refrain, Over & Over Again.

They won't be able to Get Away from their Statements. That is Exactly why, President Obama should Listen to his VOICE and CONSCIENCE and Withdraw. This War, is Too Costly in Lives, To Costly In Time and Too Costly to the USA,

Its "Generational Theft and Generational Debt"

If President Obama Pulled Troops out in 2011 along with the Iraq Withdrawal, People would See the Logic. Let them Defend their Own Land, so We can Defend Ours here in the [[USA]]
_______________

I Love President Obama, But He Caters to the Republican Right, Too Much on the War and on Health Care, Cowtowing to Olympia Snowe, One Republican Vote, when all he has to do, is have Cloture and Reconciliation and Do what's Best in Resolving the Health Care Problems of this Nation.

He Now CowTows to the Republicans who will Hate Him Anyway, as you can See on this Thread, whether he Sends 35,000 or 100,000 US Soldiers, they will Not Like Him, Vote for Him or Favor Him, No Matter what he does to Appease them and she Shouldn't Appease them at all.

Bush used Reconciliation in 2001, 2003 and 2005.

Regarding Reconciliation 51 Vote Majority Rules:

Republican Judd Gregg stated ..

"If You're the Majority, You Win]

___________________

[finkfurst]

by RedWings_ninety_one November 25, 2009 9:01 AM EST
The army will get rid of the source of the corruption, Al Queda and the Taliban. We do know what we're doing, we're using force to prove our point and save a nation. Not to mention 9/11.
-----------------------
You think that shows that you know what you're doing???????? You Yanks are so amazingly stupid I find it hard to believe sometimes. You're going to lose YET ANOTHER WAR, do you know that?

Here are a few clues for you, as you are obviously having grave difficulty understanding reality:
1) Al Qaeda is virtually absent from Afghanistan. Take a look at Saudi Arabia instead!
2) The Taliban were there for decades before the current corrupt government was installed, so how can they be to blame?
3) ..... guess who installed and still supports this corrupt government???

[streatboy]

We went to Afghanistan because they hosted the A--holes who attacked our country. The Taliban wouldn't give them up so we went in and started to kick their buts. But recently the Taliban realized that the reason we were there was because Al-Qaeda was there. Through Saudi Arabia it's reported that the Taliban has broken ties with the terrorist thats' why they move to Pakistan. We did not go there to create a nation. Our arrogance of thinking that our way is the only way will be our undoing. We are a nation of christians that read every book except the word of their GOD. We would learn that there is only one GOD, the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob, and anyone who prays to this GOD prays to the same God that we Christians clam. Let them be as long as they don't host or support terrorist cause they will fight until Allah tells them enough.

[babooph]

I guess goat herding is better than being a stooge....

[RedWings_ninety_one]

I'm speaking about America, not any other country, when I say that if there were any trouble with a group invading America, we wouldn't need the National Guard. Every redneck in the country would be ready with their shotguns and hunting rifles, ready to protect their land, and our country at the same time. As for the tanks and armored vehicles, rednecks are good with mechanical things. Even if it's sabotoge.

[Empire-George]

by RedWings_ninety_one November 25, 2009 9:06 AM EST

Some excellent comments from you today...thank you.

Funny how this story is not a headline on CBS

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist....

for busting the lip of some terrorist...this is what we get, and I was very outraged at Bush for allowing the Haditha Marines to be falsely accused....this is more evidence of tying the hands of the soldiers, specifically the Navy Seals.

[finkfurst]

"Making Afghanistan will require a fighting force that can..... rid the country of widespread corruption, reports CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark."

What? How the hell is an army going to do that??? You idiot Yanks don't have the faintest idea what you're doing, do you?

[RedWings_ninety_one]

The army will get rid of the source of the corruption, Al Queda and the Taliban. We do know what we're doing, we're using force to prove our point and save a nation. Not to mention 9/11.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

krmopilci,
The problem with that thoery is that, the terrorists who did 9/11 didn't like America's beliefs and thus they attacked. They belive a suicide bombing will get them 72 virgins in heaven, and what better way to get that than to attack the place you dislike the most. Instead they are probably burning in Hell.