# CBS is Reporting 40K Troops On the Way



## Amsel (Nov 9, 2009)

> (CBS) Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.
> 
> The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.
> 
> ...


Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops - CBS News


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 9, 2009)

I just read this on Yahoo. Said it may not be the 40,000, but will still be 10's of thousands. I thought one of Obama's anti-Bush speeches was to get the troops out of the middle east.

Hmmmmm.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 9, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> I just read this on Yahoo. Said it may not be the 40,000, but will still be 10's of thousands. I thought one of Obama's anti-Bush speeches was to get the troops out of the middle east.
> 
> Hmmmmm.



Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians, it's a cliche.

I'm glad a decision was reached finally. In my mind the United States should fight to win or get the hell out of there.


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 9, 2009)

Vassili said it best.... 

I had said "How do you not follow your own advice?" 

Vassili said "Become a politician."


----------



## RabidAlien (Nov 9, 2009)

No big surprise there. He hasn't done one thing except bring change. Which, of course, he never promised would be for the better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2009)

Actually in defense (somewhat) of OB1, he did say he wanted all troops out of Iraq and more emphasis on A-stan. This should of been done a long time ago. Eradicate the last pockets of Al Qaeda, weaken the Taliban (we're never going to remove them) then get the hell out of there. Have armed Predators flying around 24-7 just in case some one gets collective amnesia.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2009)

Heh...all I get from my paycheck these days, is change...

Good deal on the troops though...that's what's been needed for quite some time.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 9, 2009)

At least Obama is listening to his generals. Amsel is right, fight to win or get out, doing it half assed will get us nowhere. Thanks Harrison!


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 9, 2009)

Well its the complete truth!


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 9, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians, it's a cliche.
> 
> I'm glad a decision was reached finally. In my mind the United States should fight to win or get the hell out of there.



Completely agree



FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually in defense (somewhat) of OB1, he did say he wanted all troops out of Iraq and more emphasis on A-stan.



I didn't know that part......


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 9, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> Well its the complete truth!



No big man, just flattered my words mean something.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 9, 2009)

> Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s national security adviser dismissed reports that the administration has reached a decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.
> 
> Obama hasn’t received final options that he has requested, neither has he reviewed those alternatives with his national security team, said National Security Adviser James Jones, responding to reports by the Associated Press and CBS News. The AP reported Obama would add “tens of thousands more forces,” while CBS said he plans to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops.
> 
> “Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false,” Jones said in a e-mailed statement today. “Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”


Obama Adviser Dismisses Reports of Afghanistan Troop Decision - Bloomberg.com


----------



## timshatz (Nov 10, 2009)

If he does send 40K to A-stan, does that mean he has to give back his Nobel Peace Prize? 

Would be a riot if he decides to send 40K to A-stan the day before he goes over to pick it up.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 10, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Obama Adviser Dismisses Reports of Afghanistan Troop Decision - Bloomberg.com


figures.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 10, 2009)

Obama did fulfill two promises from his campaign. Buy his kids a dog, and go on a vacation.

Obama made a bunch of promises when he was campaigning, without being privy to any top secret knowledge. When he was elected, he finally got into some "Big Boy" top secret meetings and was brought up to speed on things, and learned some stuff that he promised he would not be able to implement. He has paid the price on some issues. Wire tapping is one that comes to mind.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Nov 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Obama Adviser Dismisses Reports of Afghanistan Troop Decision - Bloomberg.com



Well, I should be shocked, but frankly, I'm not. I know we should give Obama a chance, but so far, he's just a typical politician. Lord help us if he turns out to be a waffle, like Kerry. 
I just don't see the logic of not listening to your generals on the ground. I mean, their there to win the war, not the vote. And I think McChrystal knows a lot more about this kind of situation than did Westmorland in Vietnam, and that its not just a numbers game in this kind of war. 
Amsel is right, though. We either have to go in all the way, or not go in at all. We can't do halfsies. It didn't work last time, and it sure won't work in now. God, I miss the days of Reagan and Truman.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 12, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Well, I should be shocked, but frankly, I'm not. I know we should give Obama a chance, but so far, he's just a typical politician. Lord help us if he turns out to be a waffle, like Kerry.
> I just don't see the logic of not listening to your generals on the ground. I mean, their there to win the war, not the vote. And I think McChrystal knows a lot more about this kind of situation than did Westmorland in Vietnam, and that its not just a numbers game in this kind of war.
> Amsel is right, though. We either have to go in all the way, or not go in at all. We can't do halfsies. It didn't work last time, and it sure won't work in now. God, I miss the days of Reagan and Truman.


Westmoreland knew that too. It was LBJ that wanted to stick to a "containment" policy.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Nov 13, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Westmoreland knew that too. It was LBJ that wanted to stick to a "containment" policy.



Oh, woops. Thanks Clay. Wow, I'm not really surprised about that. Yep, the general in charge is telling the president what needs to be done, and the president ignores him. Uhh, times sure have changed.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 13, 2009)

But he is listening . the Ambassador to Afghanistan is Karl Eikenberry . this guy commanded the troops in Afghanistan up until 2007 he is now US ambassador to same and he is the one advising against a surge .


----------



## RabidAlien (Nov 13, 2009)

I can't help but think of these guys when I read the title of this thread.....sorry for the divergence, but one or two of these guys couldn't hurt!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> But he is listening . the Ambassador to Afghanistan is Karl Eikenberry . this guy commanded the troops in Afghanistan up until 2007 he is now US ambassador to same and he is the one advising against a surge .


perhaps not wanting the other guy to do better than he did.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 15, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> perhaps not wanting the other guy to do better than he did.



Both sides to the debate have valid points. If we are to continue to fight this fight then Afghanistan is the place to do it. If we do not have the heart to fight, then we need to find an exit strategy and implement it quickly. 

Counterinsurgency operations take many years to complete. This war is winnable but it will take anywhere from 2-15 more years. Do we have the strength as a nation to see this through?

The surge strategy is a very good one. The Afghan people want security. The elders will not commit to helping the Coalition until some security can be maintained. The troop surge can and will increase security which will lead to a higher cooperation from the Afghan elders and warlords. 

Corruption must be fought against in the new Afghan government. The major factor in the communist victory in S. Vietnam was that the people would not commit to helping the highly corrupt government in Saigon. The military must fight corruption within the new Afghan government or the Taliban will be able to continue to use corruption as a recruiting tool just like the VC did.

I think the war against Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and muslim extremists is a just and winnable war. It will take time and strategy to win.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 15, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Both sides to the debate have valid points. If we are to continue to fight this fight then Afghanistan is the place to do it. If we do not have the heart to fight, then we need to find an exit strategy and implement it quickly.
> 
> Counterinsurgency operations take many years to complete. This war is winnable but it will take anywhere from 2-15 more years. Do we have the strength as a nation to see this through?
> 
> ...


I agree with all of that. Either play to win or go home. This typical democrat "middle road" strategy where we do neither makes no sense.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 15, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I agree with all of that. Either play to win or go home. This typical democrat "middle road" strategy where we do neither makes no sense.



thats crap it was the former administration that went to Afghanistan with moral cause that did not back the mission so now we find ourselves in this position.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> thats crap it was the former administration that went to Afghanistan with moral cause that did not back the mission so now we find ourselves in this position.


I could give you an hour's lecture on how many reasons I hate Donald Rummsfeld. He is by far the biggest reason for the crap we are in right now. So, yeah, both sides do stupid things with the military, often making military decisions for political reasons (always a mistake). Still, it was LBJ that ran this country and the way we look at our military off the road in vietnam, so I still think of it as democratic behavior.


----------

