need to add title here

Obama: Afghanistan

September 13, 2009 5:00 PM

The President faces some tough choices in Afghanistan.

Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment
by rickferry October 12, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
The idea that we simply leave the NATO alliance and cease operations in Iraq will result in world peace and everyone will love us is an incredible assumption regardles what methods and swag you use. No one notices that terrorist operations are also monitired by a great many other countries since they know striking America can result in non-violent and violent consequences. Or worse, they have to clean up after suicide bombers. We were attacked on 9/11/01. We will most likely be attacked again no matter what we do in Afghanistan or Iraq.
All we can do is make the consequences more unbearable than anyone can tolerate for attacking America. That we are at war in a new sense of warfare will not change regardless of what United Nations, NATO, our Military and Government does. The only way to stop all war is put the people declaring war and planning it in the field. Maybe pulling the trigger will be less easy for all involved.
Reply to this comment
by origtartuffe October 11, 2009 8:50 PM EDT
Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani?s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don?t get it. It?s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.

Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.

As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we?re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.

Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of ?Second, Do no (more) harm!? The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we?re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?

Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.

Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.

Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.

Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:

Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.

Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr
Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr
Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr
Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr

These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ?vanquished? 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.

Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years
Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years

Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.

Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don?t, they don?t. DUH!

Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they?ll own it.

Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.

WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!

So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!
Reply to this comment
by Luis1958 October 1, 2009 9:27 PM EDT
Perhaps the reason he's only spoken once is two-fold. First, the good general knows his commander-in-chief's intent and second, there something in the military called "the chain of command." The good General McChrystal is a combatant commander and not the person responsible for directly advising the President on military matters anywhere, including Afghanistan. That job is ultimately the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The Chairman of the JCS is the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces and the principal military adviser to the President. "He may seek the advice of and consult with the other JCS members and combatant commanders. When he presents his advice, he presents the range of advice and opinions he has received, along with any individual comments of the other JCS members" (http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=8). Afghanistan is a complex web and the President will need the best and most honest assessment he can from the commander "on the ground", his JCS, and his national security advisers. Don't expect miracles after eight years of mismanagement by the prior political leaders. Afghanistan isn't Panama or St. George, and neither is it Iraq for that matter. We've got a good combatant commander on the ground. We have a smart President in the White House. And we have a bad reality in Afghanistan. Skip the American cookie cutter, microwave, and instant gratification approach to solving complex geopolitical (and national) problems around the globe and focus on smart war-fighting. This is not your grandpa's war. I believe that's what we have on the ground and in the White House. It beats eight years of Cheney and Bush anytime!
Reply to this comment
by KatWalk65 September 28, 2009 9:32 PM EDT
Why has our president only talked to the general who videoconferences with so many people on a regular basis only ONCE? Who is holding our Executive Branch accountable?
Reply to this comment
  • The Deadliest Weapon The Deadliest Weapon

    12:11 November 15, 2009

  • Web Extra: An Ancient Craft Web Extra: An Ancient Craft

    0:59 November 15, 2009

  • Web Extra: Bomb Squad Training Web Extra: Bomb Squad Training

    3:15 November 15, 2009

  • Web Extra: Water World Web Extra: Water World

    0:49 November 15, 2009

  • Web Extra: The Deadliest Job Web Extra: The Deadliest Job

    2:01 November 15, 2009

  • Web Extra: 5 Bombs in Two Days Web Extra: 5 Bombs in Two Days

    1:21 November 15, 2009