Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, December 04, 2009

NATO leaders said Friday that 25 countries have pledged to back up the U.S. escalation in Afghanistan with 7,000 extra troops, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pressed American allies to firm up their commitments

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mmike

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

coalition of the willing


Thanks to Joe Biden and the Sock Puppet Messiah

Is Poland still part of this?

www.youforgotpoland.org

www.youtube.com

www.youforgotpoland.org

Though I was against any additional surge, it is reassuring to know that so many other countries are participating in this attempt to bring Afghanistan closer to the modern world. I hate feudalism.

they got paid

Until China, Russia and France get involved, it don't mean squat. Send the German military to Afghanistan. Give 'em six months. Kabul will be in better shape than Detroit.

7,000/25 = 280 soldiers per country. And they're all going to come with the usual restrictions on where they will be deployed and what they are allowed to do that will make most of them worthless. Say whatever you want about our relationship with our "allies" but we would never puff our chests out and say we are sending reinforcements when talking about 280 limited duty soldiers.

At this point the mission in Afghanistan has been fatally compromised by our inexplicable decision to engage in nation building so I can't even blame our "allies" for basically refusing to help.

But even right after 9/11 when the mission was to destroy the people who had been attacking us for years, our shitbag "allies" in NATO hemmed and hawed about living up to their legal obligation to help us. If anything, the war in Afghanistan has proven that NATO is one sided arrangement that we need to shed ASAP.

Obama pledged to never send troops into harm's way until it was absolutely necessary for the safety and security of America. What threat do wedding parties and guys on monkeybars present to America?

sully, in order to 'destroy the people who had been attacking us for years', we need to engage in nation building. its the lack of infrastructure and security that provides them a safe haven.

after the ME, it will be north/north-east africa. then probably central africa.

Those 7000 soldiers will all be working in the new PX thet're building in Kabul that will be based on the Mall of America theme. The plan is to teach those Taliban fucks how to shop and create a distraction so Obama can arrest them and give them a trial in NYC.

FW - you need to take your act to open mike night!

"sully, in order to 'destroy the people who had been attacking us for years', we need to engage in nation building. its the lack of infrastructure and security that provides them a safe haven."

Sorry, that just isn't true. Had we sent the proper number of troops to Afghanistan in the first place, rather than holding resources back for Iraq, we could have crushed most of the them at Tora Bora and then left. Then we could have left the Northern Alliance in charge (rather than screwing them over).

You have to be ignorant to thousands of years of history to think you can turn Afghanistan into a modern nation state. We've been at this for years now, where has it gone? Nowhere. The government is corrupt and weak and will be gone within months of our exit.

Plus, the assertion that Al Queda moved in because there was no security there is false. The Taliban had a tight grip on the area where Al Queda operated. Al Queda moved in because the governement there was like minded and in need of help fighting their Northern enemies.

"after the ME, it will be north/north-east africa. then probably central africa."

If we had killed the Taliban and Al Queda leadership when we knew where they were, it would have made the next warlord who is thinking about hosting a terror group think twice before doing so. Warlords aren't going to risk their own power and well being for terrorists.

Is Poland still part of this?

The Poles, who, as Dubya noted in 2004, saved the war in Iraq, are indeed sending 600-1000 more troops.

They'll be leaving from Sleevies, where the Polish traditionally keep their armies.

Ron-China can't spare the troops until after Christmas-Walmart still has orders to be filled. France has 3400 troops there and is considering more. And Russia? Think they got already burned enough in afghanistan.

This ain't the coalition of the willing, as much as the coalition of the agreeing to Oama's end game.

The government is corrupt and weak and will be gone within months of our exit.


Months???

LOL.... weeks, days or hours.... not "months".

Months???


LOL.... weeks, days or hours.... not "months".

He was talking about the total time for them to be tracked down and killed, not their efective governing time. Lots of places to hide in Afganistan.

He was talking about the total time for them to be tracked down and killed, not their efective governing time. Lots of places to hide in Afganistan.


He was talking about how long Karsick (for example) would have, countdown starting from the moment the last American plane takes off from the runway at Bagram.

Days, I reckon.

And he can't hide. He won't be able to get out of Kabul.

US forces 100,000

average coalition force 280, but conditional on US bribe.

OK...lets recap....Bush kicks out the Talban in Afganistan and destroys the 911 trainging facilities. Then after multiple UN resolutions - and having the understanding that Saddam was kicking up WMD production - goes in after him as well. We kick the military in Iraq and populace rejoices.

Sunni's are pissed because we took away thier power - then we screw the pooch by removing anyone in the Bath party from the government and disbanding the military.

Now there are thousands of trained military types with no job - so they start aligning with the insurgents that are being paid by Iran.

We further screw up by bunkering down instead of creating our own coalitions.

Bush fires the generals - institutes a new plan called the SURGE.

OBAMA et. al. ...and everyone on this web site screams that we have "lost Iraq"...its a "Quagmire" Harry Reid waves the white flag. Obama and Biden say the Surge is not working BEFORE any troops actually arrive in Theater.

Flash forward....Obama is now president - Iraq is stable - the surge worked....now Obama is going to do the same thing in Afganistan...but trying to do it on the cheap (30K vrs 40K) and annouces a WITHDRAW date (which we went through in Iraq and explained how that was detrimental)

(if Osama stood up and had a press conference and said "The Taliban and Al Queda will be leaving Afganistan by 2012" We would be claiming VICTORY!...don't you think that is EXACTLY what the other side is now doing?)

And do I see a PEEP on this side? Where is SPUD and NORTH spewing forth on how this will not work? Where is Danni saying "Obama lied and thousands will die"? Or NBC,ABC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Huffington - Kos or any others?

Guess it must have been a good policy after all. Guess Bush must have been right?

'we could have crushed most of the them at Tora Bora and then left. Then we could have left the Northern Alliance in charge (rather than screwing them over).'

are you asserting that the northern alliance could have taken control and kept stability? but that since we were late in sending the right amount of troops they can't? that because we were a few years behind in proper support, the gov and afghan military goes from being able to 'take charge' to being skrewed over, weak and corrupt?

how can that time lapse change the scenario from doable to impossible?

'You have to be ignorant to thousands of years of history to think you can turn Afghanistan into a modern nation state. We've been at this for years now, where has it gone? Nowhere. The government is corrupt and weak and will be gone within months of our exit.'

so is the country better off now and heading in a better direction than it was before any US troops were on the ground? has there been no changes in your belief? i'm not saying we turn it into a modern nation state, but that we provide the security and direction for it to be able to eventually realize that potential. or we can simply give up and pull out. thats what many wanted, including obama, to do in iraq a few years back no?

'Plus, the assertion that Al Queda moved in because there was no security there is false. The Taliban had a tight grip on the area where Al Queda operated. Al Queda moved in because the governement there was like minded and in need of help fighting their Northern enemies.'

when idiots in pick up trucks carrying ak 47's constitutes 'a tight grip' in a country, then by definition, it's not a secure country. a more secure country, saudistan, kicked there asses out. because they could. do you think the taliban would re-neg on their agreement to give bin laden and cronies a safe haven had they known what was to come? do you think they would give up al queda now if they were told it would get the US out? of course they would. but they can't. they don't have a tight grip on shit. but since it is shit that they have their grip on, it's not difficult to remain in that position.

'If we had killed the Taliban and Al Queda leadership when we knew where they were, it would have made the next warlord who is thinking about hosting a terror group think twice before doing so. Warlords aren't going to risk their own power and well being for terrorists.'

but dropping 100k plus troops into the country to fight the 'warlord' doesn't dissuade a future warlord of hosting said terrorists? that math doesn't add up. many of these 'warlords' in africa have even less of a grip on the country as did the taliban. hence, the reason al queda cronies move there. they thrive on the instability and lack of connectivity with the outside world. hence, in order to rid them of all future safe havens, we will eventually have to connect the entire world, so that security and stability reign. don't worry, the chinese will be helping us out with africa. and they'll be supplying more than 230. that ball is already rolling...

Guess it must have been a good policy after all. Guess Bush must have been right?

#18 | Posted by foshaffer

not really. he tried to have his cake and eat it too. he should have focused on afghanistan first and foremost. neither he or rummie considered the length and adaptation that it would take to fight this asymmetrical war.

he tried to have his cake and eat it too. he should have focused on afghanistan first and foremost. neither he or rummie considered the length and adaptation that it would take to fight this asymmetrical war.

I thought they knew it was a waste of time, they just pushed it on to enrich both defense contractors and oil company cronies?

Send the German military to Afghanistan.
#6 | Posted by Ron_Karate

....they have troops in Afghanistan, but they are just there for rebuilding and support, not fighting......

....one of their fighter jets did crash some months ago killing the pilot......

.....so far only the Brits, Canadians and Dutch have been in the "active" war zones.......


.....for some reason though, the American press hardly ever covers fighting done by other Nato troops......

Now there are thousands of trained military types with no job - so they start aligning with the insurgents that are being paid by Iran.

No Foshaffer, the ex-army cum terrorists were sunni, not shia and were working with and for saudistanis. Bemner disbanded the Iraqi military on instructions from Tehran's man in Baghdad, Achmed Chalibi, the guy Republicans like Bush and McCain called Iraq'a George Washington.

www.nytimes.com

www.telegraph.co.uk

pajamasmedia.com

And others...Thought they were Sunni and Shia...when they needed money SOME were a gun for hire.

And NORTH ..why are not screaming about how the Afgan surge will not work?

I can pull up all your old posts when Bush was president where you said that...If you have memory problems like your buddy Obama

And NORTH ..why are not screaming about how the Afgan surge will not work?

Okay. The afghan surge will not work!

Feel better?

Best case it will buy time and allow Obama and karsick to "succeed" the way the Bush surge did- buy the taliban off like Bush did the sunni. Unfortunately, unlike in Iraq, there is no massive shia militia force or shia controlled government to threaten to slaughter the taliban the way the shia and kurds did the sunni, if they didn't behave themselves. If you remember, the kurds offered to "deal" with the sunnis in about 2 or 3 weeks, before Cheney got beckoned to saudistan where he was told to protect the sunni jihadists, or saudistan would. Would have been a tad embarrassing having to fight Bush's beloved saudis as well as al queda, not that there's really a difference.
Maybe the Northern Alliance could step in. Where the fuck did they go after 2002? The ran about 2/3 of afghanistan before the invasion, why did they stop fighting the taliban after november 2001? If everthing is as sweetness and light as everybody claims outside Khandahar, surely they could send some bodies into the south.

Oh...so the Bush Surge DID work...but the Obama Surge will not....because Afgan and Iraq are different.

OK...got it. So Bush is right ..but Obama is wrong..that REALLY has to stick in your craw

Actually the Bush surge was wrong and the Obama surge will be. I realize consistency of position is rare, but it is vital.

Oh...so the Bush Surge DID work...

If you consider paying protection money a success yeah Bush and the store owner under the Mafia's thumb are both succesful.

Just can't admit it can you...:)


Well, looking at the numbers, it looks like the average UN member Country knows the deal about Afghanistan a lot better than The United States Of Ameritard.

Let us do a little math. 7000/25=280. Well, the politicians in those countries know that thier goose is cooked if they send LOTS of folks to the USA'S mess in the middle east. So it does'nt suprise me that the average contribution of troops is LESS THAN 300. Above and beyond politics, these countries must agree with George Will's statement "this is not going to end good".

The only reasons these guys send troops is probably two fold, 1. Don't want to lose the welfare they get from the USA 2. Don't want to piss of a country as large and stupid as the USA by not participating in the war on evildooers.

it's interesting that when the reichwing does something it's 'national interests', but when others do it's appeasement.

Most of the rest of the world lost enthusiasm for involvement in afghanistan when they realized they were just filling in for US troops invading Iraq.

And Fo-Bush's surge was every bit as successful as Nixon's Peace with Honorable Mention. Just delayed the inevitable but faced saving for the President.

Is Poland still part of this?

They sent some submarines to the region, but forgot to close the screen windows.

A few FACTS about the "SURGE" in iraqnam.....


Though the rwrs all tout it as a success, it truly wasn't and here's why.

From Feb 07 thru Aug 07, the surge created DOUBLED US troop casualties.....over the same months for all years before it.

ONLY after a TRUCE (read diplomacy) was reached with Al Sadr on Aug 29th,2007, did those casualties begin to dwindle back down and continue dropping to the point where US troops could then be replaced by the other "surge" of 100,000 iraqi police/military that had been being trained.


Remind me, who stated that removal of US troops from iraqnam would require DIPLOMACY during the 04 potus debates, and was shouted down by the neocons that "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? Apparently, the neocons did, eh?


Oh yes, the proof of my assertions:

www.icasualties.org


2nd table down


Note how quickly US casualties were cut immediately after the truce in Sept and by Oct were cut by more than half over the year before, as well as the preceding months.....

One other thingy for those who would say that Obama is following bush's path.

No, he isn't, Obama is using diplomacy WITH the US troops increases to provide training.

Your homework: WHO brokered the truce with Al Sadr in Aug 07?

hint: same folks attempting to broker a truce with the taleban in Afghanistan.

extra credit: which "axis of evil" country then convinced al sadr to continue the truce beyond 6 months?

Finally, maybe some folks would do well to also note HOW MANY US TROOPS DIED AFTER the 04 election and until diplomacy was finally used on Aug 29, 07......

Stay the Course, eh?

Pelosi Discovers Her Inner Fiscal Hawk
Nancy Pelosi insists: "We have to look at that war with a green eyeshade on." She is talking about the war in Afghanistan--with anticipation that President Obama will increase resources for the war effort. Increased troops to fight our enemies in Afghanistan will require more money for this effort, of course. And Pelosi and her comrades (especially, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey) want to raise taxes to pay for this. Look who all of a sudden has become a fiscal hawk!

Here are preliminary details:


Obey and several other senior Democrats have proposed a graduated surtax, beginning in 2011, to pay for the war. Their bill would impose a 1% surtax on people earning less than $150,000. The tax hike would be higher for people earning between $150,000 and $250,000 a year, and double that for people with higher incomes. The bill does not give exact figures for what upper surtax rates would be, but says that they would be high enough to cover the previous year's war costs.


On a certain level, this makes perfect sense, right? This Democratic led congress and administration are spending money like drunken sailors. And, at a certain point, funds need to be raised from somewhere.

But let me go ahead and call this nonsense. The Democrats are playing politics.

First, they aim to politicize the entire war effort. The threat to raise taxes to pay for the war serves to weaken support for the troops. When people have to pay directly for something, it increases the likelihood that they will say no. That's why the Democrats are trying to levy direct taxes on the small percentage of Americans who make more than $100,000 to pay for health care (which they support), but are proposing to make a much larger percentage of Americans pay for the war (which they oppose).

And, second, have Democrats lost sight of priorities? They throw away money for a phony stimulus plan at a cost of $787 billion; they insist on a health care plan conservatively estimated to cost more than $2 trillion over 10 years; they have grown the deficit to $1.4 trillion -- during October 2009 alone we fell another $176.4 billion in the hole . But no--money can't be found to support this "war of necessity" without increasing taxes. (By the way, Time estimates the increased cost to be "$30 billion annually for 30,000 more troops. Not chump change, to be sure, but pennies by comparison to the rest of the federal budget.)

Pelosi, and the rest of the House Democrats, need to take off the shades and see reality. America, foremost, faces a national security threat. We must defeat the enemy--no matter the cost.

www.weeklystandard.com

"The threat to raise taxes to pay for the war serves to weaken support for the troops."

Exactly. What's the point of having a war if you actually have to pay for it?

Leave that for the kids & grandkids.

so far only the Brits, Canadians and Dutch have been in the "active" war zones

Man, that's news to me. Then I wonder what the aussies, french and other members are doing next to me here in Kandahar in combat?

I love it when armchair military types try to make statements that they think are facts..

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable