Blog powered by Typepad

« Thank God for Nick Griffin! | Main | The Jocks are as thick as their porridge! »

Friday, 13 November 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Whether this is the model to come or not, can't say.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-dutch13-2009nov13,0,1314326.story

But (and I think Hank would concur) some or all of the 40,000 troops McChrystal advises is simply not up to the task.

Dutch dollops!

JK

I assume you mean that in the long run 40,000 troops is not enough, not that the troops are not up to doing the job in fon=nt of them.


Some one should give the President a Susan B Anthony dollar and tell him to flip it. Heads we reinforce tails we retreat. Not making a decision in the near future is the worst possible choice.

Well Hank, actually I don't think that 40,000 or even 80,000 is enough. As for flipping that coin, perhaps you'd agree that General Petraeus should be well enough qualified to make a call about any notion of "dithering?"

http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56689

And, I'd only add, over nine months elapsed between the time Petraeus "suggested" the Iraqi Surge and it's implementation.

Hank,

I do want you to know that I am not, repeat not, one of those "Pollyannas" even remotely hinting that abandoning Afghanistan would, in any scenario be wise. In fact I believe nothing short of achieving realistic goals (preferably victory) even if it's to be a Korean sort of victory, suits long-term US strategic margins of security.

And I would never want anyone to believe I lack the least bit of confidence in the abilities and capabilities of our (US) Armed Forces to win each and every battle. After all, we beat the hell out of the Commies at Ia Drang (nope, I'm not making the comparison you might think).

However, as Petraeus notes in the above link, Afghanistan is not Iraq. (Heck just look at the near-horizon geopolitical environment). And even if Obama commits to the full 40,000 we both know that at least half will be logistics/support units.

You might be surprised at this but, actually I believe we can "win" in Afghanistan, at least we can do a "Denial of Area" for Al-Q to operate out of - but they're likely in Yemen and East Africa by now anyway. Whether the US can retain the support of the public is another matter.

I don't know Hank, on the one hand I'm optimistic ... and yet...

JK

i Think 40,000 is what can be put in without a major logics upgrade, and what will become availble as units rotate out of Iraq, retrain in the US and go back to Afganistan. But in the long run it will take a lot more.

I agree we can win if we are looking a low level achivent like restoring peace not building a major economy.


I don't know JKon the one hand I'm optimistic ... and yet...
If the President were using the time to build concensus to support a long tern support for a decison he had made I could see it. But he has not made a decision. In stead he is off globe trotting.

The comments to this entry are closed.