« | »

NATO Wants More Troops For Afghanistan

From an unfazed Associated Press:

NATO asks for more troops for Afghanistan

By Christopher Bodeen, Associated Press Writer
September 6, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan – The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for 2,000 more soldiers to join the 140,000-strong international force here, NATO officials said Monday. It was unclear how many would be Americans

Given NATO’s track record, they will almost all be American.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the issue with media, said the NATO-led command had been asking for the troops even before Gen. David Petraeus assumed command here in July.

Funny how this is the first we have heard about it.

Petraeus recently renewed that request with the NATO command in Brussels. The alliance has had trouble raising more troops for the war effort, with at least 450 training slots still unfilled after more than a year

Lest we forget, it was the left who demanded that we get NATO involved. This is the kind of war they wanted. And this is exactly why.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, September 6th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “NATO Wants More Troops For Afghanistan”

  1. proreason says:

    The movement that is going to sweep the ruling class into the gutters will hopefully give us a leader who will actually listen to what Petraeus has to say.

    I doubt Afghanistan is winnable in any conventional sense at this point in American history, even if our political leadership was committed to it.

    There simply isn’t the will in this country to crush an opponent, particularly an annoying but tiny one. And the Afghans cannot be defeated unless they are crushed. At least, it hasn’t happened since Alexander the Great, so I don’t know why we would think that we can, even if we want to.

    What is really needed is a 3rd way between a crushing military dominance and withdrawl. I don’t know what that is or even if one is possible, but the natural resources that have recently been “discovered” might be part of a solution. Petraeus, if anywone, would know.

    imho, Afghanistan has also become a microcosm of the existential war with Islam. The only difference is that Afghanistan will never become a major problem, whereas Islam already is. At some point, I beleive either we win, or we lose. All we are doing right now is marking time. I just don’t see the overall conflict as another Cold War with a single enemy that if sufficiently demoralized, will crumble. Islam is not a centralized opponent. If the only viable strategy is to contain the threat and hope that eventually the maniacs will come to their senses, then President Pawlenty should tell the country so we can prepare for 50 years of intermittant warfare.

    and oh yes, Iran going nuclear doesn’t appear to be a way to improve the situation, unless you view a few cities disappearing from history as a good thing. Some of those few might be American cities,

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      The answer to this conflict does rely in resources, IMO. The way to win this without utter destruction of the entire region is relatively simple, although it may take a bit more stomach than we have right now. Just like the real way to quickly rap it up in Iraq was through oil (and avenue we quickly abandoned due to the “no blood for oil” crowd), the answer here lies in opium. If we eliminate every single opium crop, and any other pesky agricultural items we encounter, and assure the population that they will not grow so much as dandelion until all support for taliban/al qaeda forces are stopped. We then give a list to the local cheiftans, particularly the pashtun tribes of the paki/afghan border, of all the people we want in US custody. Pretty soon we have our objective secured and they can go back to growing opium.

      The only way to acheive any semblance of allegiance from a muslim country, particualry the arab ones, but any of them, is to assure them that A: there is money in it if they cooperate with us, and B: once we have what we want they will be left unmolested, and as long as they reciprocate in the future, there will be no need for further warfare. At the end of the day, the overwhelming support of the civilian population, the actual citizens with “skin in the game” so to speak, is the best possible solution. This can be acheived by either threats of financial loss or can be done the old fashioned way, IE Dresden and Hiroshima. I think we can avoid that terrible option if we let good old fashioned money do the talking. UNfortunately, we are instead pouring money into a weak and corrupt government, and letting the activities of our enemies go unpunished while we kiss their collective behinds. This cannot be construed as an effective tactic.

      Remember the left calling this another vietnam. Well, that has become a self fulfilling prophecy by their actions, and I hope that history remembers that.

    • proreason says:

      Acorn, yes opium might be a pathway, but it’s just another avenue we aren’t willing to pursue, or rather our leader ruderless-ship isn’t willing to pursue. That option has been an option from the beginning, even with dubya in charge, so I don’t see it changing soon.

      Unless of course, we see REAL change in power in this country

    • tranquil.night says:

      Pro, very astute calling it an existential war because it truly is. The Cold War certainly was existential in its cataclysmic possibilities of Mutually Assured Destruction, but that is a policy now defunct because the Islamist nations like Iran likely have no problem (or are in completely zealous denial) with that outcome. Where does that leave us except to have to fight for complete ideological and military victory? It could be that you’re right and our efforts are better placed elsewhere like aiding Israel than fighting in Afghanistan now, but we shouldn’t be conceding the effort until better leadership returns and gives the military some rules with which they can try and win this.

      That opium strategy is pretty clever Acorn, hadn’t heard it before. I doubt the bonds of Muslim Brotherhood are very strong while the brethren are suffering from massive withdrawls.

      Long term stability depends on so many factors at this point, only the Afghans can truly achieve it. I don’t think it’s a feasible mission anymore because the Middle East has only continued to radicalize within its growing sphere of influence since we went there (good going anti-war movement). The COIN strategy was developed at a time when we assumed that there weren’t forces within our own country and abroad in the world who were going to sabotage us and aid the enemy by proxy.

      According to Michelle, Geroge Soros’ anti-Israel, anti-America, Human Rights Watch just got showered with $100 million in new directives and witch-hunting capabilities. Sadly, I don’t think they’d consider your strategy fair play in the battlefield, Acorn.

  2. AcornsRNutz says:

    Long term stability in a muslim country is a pipe dream, and a strategy we (under W.) adopted when the public perception and congressional backstabbers began to lose their guts. The opium thing would work to a point, but everything is situational to where the theater of operations finds itself.

    We need to take strategy like that and use it, but also need to revisit our endstate goals. Take those with the resources to hurt us and our allies and remove them from the playing feild. They do not care about geographic boundaries, and they are not afraid to die. We have to meet them on that playing field with that in mind. It is a modern day crusade, sorry if that offends the PC people, but the line was drawn along religious lines hundreds of years ago, and we are just now getting that message (albeit slowly in this pc intellectual vacuum we currently have in charge of the country).

    The long term key is that islam is the fastest GROWING religion, but it is spread by violence and fear. That means that the submissive non violent muslims that won’t fight or speak against the fatwahs and the jihad as a whole are generally oppressed into this way of life. They may buy into the religious aspect of it, or they may just care about their opium, goats, rugs, or whatever it is that they do. The long term strategy is to tear down the political, economic, scientific and legal aspects of sharia. OF course, leaving the religious aspect alone is not going to be possible in some of that strategy, but so be it.

    Sorry to ramble, but I am a self proclaimed tactical whizz, and have been refining my strategic mind throughout my military career, so the whole thing is something I have given a lot of thought to as a bit of an academic exercise for me. I won’t rant anymore for now.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »