When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
-Rudyard Kipling
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. This Administration has overextended our military.
-Barack Obama
Tonight, during a primetime speech at the Military Academy at West Point, President Obama will announce that the United States will send an additional 30,000 troops (or more) to Afghanistan. The purpose of this is to try and put an end to the insurgency in Afghanistan that has recently regained momentum. Obama is expected to announce the troop increase, along with certain conditions and limits on US spending.
The plan, as reported by CNN, calls for US reinforcements to arrive no later then six months from now. The President will also include specific details and plans for withdrawal.
This increase will bring the total amount of US troops involved in the war in Afghanistan to over 100,000. NATO has an additional 45,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan.
Obama had already sent more then 20,000 troops into Afghanistan early this year, along with an increase in NATO forces, but that apparently was not enough.
This plan is not official, but it has been reported by CNN, Fox News and other biased media outlets as being the real deal. I am sure that Obama will get into more specifics regarding the financing related to this proposal and many other details during his speech.
As with all military adventures, the amount of troops is far smaller then the total amount of personnel that will be involved. But I would be shocked if this information would be revealed, or if this information is even known.
Obama has a tough decision to make and it seems like he is, again, siding with his conservative opposition on this matter. We are engaged in failed policy in both of these countries (Neo-Con democracy building policy and preemptive warfare policy) and it is time for these policies to end. In Iraq we have a firm date set for withdrawal (end of 2011) but our war in Afghanistan is (so-far) open-ended.
It is clear that we failed as a country to challenge the Bush strategies and doctrines. We should not have let him take our country and military in the direction that has led us to our present challenges. Because of these decisions by Bush, we must do right by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe it to them to stabilize their countries.
I doubt if this will be enough of an increase to win this war, but I am hoping we can finally defeat the fundamentalism that has existed in Afghanistan for a long time.
I am also a firm believer that history will repeat itself. In 1985, when Gorbachev took control of the Soviet Union, he increased their forces to 108,800 troops. This increase led to the bloodiest year of combat for both sides of the Soviet-Afghan war. The Soviets withdrew from the country in 1989. The debt that was created from this war led to the fail of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
The fact is that we shouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. It is because of the failures of the previous administrations that Al-Qaeda exists, 9/11 happened and we invaded Iraq. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we would have more money and troops for Afghanistan. If we hadn’t of supported Bin Laden and friends in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, they wouldn’t have (supposedly) attacked the US on 9-11-2001.
We are in a position that no one envies. We have high unemployment, two unpopular wars, and are in the midst of economic failure mixed with government takeovers. Let’s just hope that history will not repeat itself this time around.
So far, more then 900 Americans and 600 NATO (allied) troops have died as a result of Bush’s decision to wage war against the people of Afghanistan.
Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won’t do. Not this time. Not this year. We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing.
It’s a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that’s why they won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.
It’s a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That’s what happens when the American worker doesn’t have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that’s why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard.
It’s a game where Democrats and Republicans fail to come together year after year after year, while another mother goes without health care for her sick child. That’s why we have to put an end to the division and distraction in Washington, so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose, a higher purpose.
It’s a game where the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting and voting like Bush-McCain Republicans, while our troops are sent to fight tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and should’ve never been waged. That’s what happens when we use 9/11 to scare up votes, and that’s why we need to do more than end a war – we need to end the mindset that got us into war.
Barack Obama
Madison, WI | February 12, 2008
Loading ...
Whoa… whoa… whoa…
“So far, more then 900 Americans and 600 NATO (allied) troops have died as a result of Bush’s decision to wage war against the people of Afghanistan.”
Last time I checked this was not -Bush’s decision- but a vote by congress of A LOT to 1, even Obama cited this in his recent speech at West Point. I also want to point out that the words you use like -war agasint the people of Afganistan- is also misleading. This is a war against the Terrorists… if you want to argue what constitues a terrorists well thats another topic for discussion.
Carefull how you word your posts!
I finnally decided to comment on something couldnt let this one slide.
I understand where you are coming from on this. Your observations are correct. You are also right about the decision, “The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists,” was only voted down by one person, Democrat Barbara Lee.
The reason I say “Bush’s decision” and not “the decision of Congress” is because I wanted to stress the fact that these decisions were made by the Bush Administration. But, the Clinton administration also played a part in that. I could’ve gone either way, but, because I am not a journalist I do not need to be unbiased. My opinion is that this was Bush’s decision, (he also could have vetoed the resolution), and that the Taliban do constitute people of Afghanistan.
We were preparing to get rid of the Taliban years before September 11th. In august of 2001, we had CIA in Afghanistan and we threatened to use military force against them. According to the bi-lateral 9-11 commission, on 9-10-2001 the Bush administration had already finalized plans to use force against the Taliban if they refused to hand over Bin Laden.
So, if we didn’t threaten the Taliban over Bin Laden and the Oil Pipeline, then there might have been a chance 9-11 wouldn’t have happened. But, that is dealing in hypotheticals, I am sorry to do that and will stop.
I didn’t mean to mislead anyone by stating this was Bush’ decision, my intent was to highlight that this is not Obama’s decision. We attacked Afghanistan under Bush and are still in this war because of his decision to invade Iraq.
Next, me saying “War against the people of Afghanistan” versus, “War against afghanistan” or “War against the insurgency in Afghanistan” are all the same thing.
I could argue that it is misleading to say, “War against the Taliban” or “war against the insurgency.” The fact is that in war there will be propaganda that is prevalent on both sides, we are just inundated with the US version.
We need to be in Afghanistan at this point, but we need to realize who we are fighting. I would consider a farmer or rural person to be in the “people of afghanistan” area, yes, they may represent a belief that we consider extreme, inhumane or terroristic, but they are still people.
To finalize my position, I am not disagreeing with you at all. In fact, by me saying “Bush’s decision” and “people of Afghanistan” I am misleading people. But it is done intentionally and to encourage people to think for themselves, instead of the propaganda we see everyday in the mainstream media.