TPMDC
« Recovery.gov is up. What Comes Next. | Home | Aerosmith to House GOP: Don't Use Our Song »

Anti-War Group Asks Obama: Are More Troops in Afghanistan 'Digging an Even Bigger Hole'?

As the Los Angeles Times' report yesterday observing liberals' frustration with President Obama echoes elsewhere in the mainstream media, it's worth noting that some groups on the left are maintaining a healthy independence from the administration.

One good example: Obama announced today that he will send upwards of 10,000 troops to Afghanistan before the conclusion of his internal strategy review on the state of the so-called "forgotten war" in South Asia.

Former Maine Democratic congressman Tom Andrews, now the chair of the Win Without War coalition, thoughtfully asked Obama today to consider whether adding more troops amounts to "digging an even bigger hole" in Afghanistan despite diplomatic urging to reconsider a military escalation. Here's Andrews' statement in full (followed by Obama's statement on the troop increase):

Clearly, U.S. policy in Afghanistan has failed, as numerous reports point to security conditions that have gone from bad to worse. That is why we applaud the president's decision to conduct a fundamental review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. But it is also why we are concerned that the deployment of additional combat troops is being announced at the outset of the review process and not at its conclusion.

The risks are significant--particularly in light of the warnings of several analysts that the presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important driving force in the resurgence of the Taliban. Reducing our military footprint could, therefore, be one of the most effective measures that can be taken to weaken the armed opposition.

We hope that the president will soon provide the nation with a comprehensive plan for Afghanistan and the region that is fundamentally different from the approach which led us to where we find ourselves now.

The first principle for someone who finds himself in a hole is to stop digging. The US policy 'hole' in Afghanistan is not of the new administration's making. But it is important for the president to consider if adding new U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan, without a new and comprehensive plan for U.S. policy there, might be digging an even bigger hole.

Obama's official statement on Afghanistan today:

This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan. I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. That is why I ordered a review of our policy upon taking office, so we have a comprehensive strategy and the necessary resources to meet clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region. This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review. Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan. As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.


43 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I'd rather have seen the strategic review done and a game plan first. Along with a prime time rollout about what in the f*ck we are going to do. Throwing more troops in without such a review and game plan is very troubling.

Also, what about the diplomatic offensive. Let's get some negotiations going on in the region between india and pakistan and pakistan and afghanistan. That should be the priority, not just sending in more troops.

Very, very troubling.

user-pic

Commanders on the ground have been asking for reinforcements for a while. A modest number of new troops 1/3 of the possible total increase) seems like a prudent tactical response while the strategic plan is being worked out.

Obama was pretty clear about his intentions in Afghanistan all during the campaign. How any one on the left or right didn't know this is beyond me.

user-pic

No, I know what he said during the campaign and that he was in favor of more troops. I just would have hoped that they would have a game plan in place before sending more. Don't you think that would be the way to go? Strategic review and game plan first? Also, they already diverted on additional combat brigade to afghanistan. Why authorize more without a game plan? That to me is a problem.

user-pic

Man, the MSM just luvs, luvs, luvs them some stories about attacks on Obama from the left, don't they?

And damn that Obama for not accomplishing all of his campaign promises within the first month of his Administration, anyway.

Jesus, the Internet has just completely whacked people's sense of time.

And yes, if the generals on the ground are telling you they can't do basic things A, B, and C for lack of troops--thinks, like, say, keeping the Taliban from blowing up the critical bridges that keep you supplied, you don't wait for "a strategic review" before you send more troops.

user-pic

1. That's not what they are saying about keeping troops supplied and protecting the american and nato forces. If that's what they need them for, than obviously the troops are necessary.

2. I am not against more troops. I am against more troops without a game plan. I think that after 8 years of bullsh*t that we are entitled to a game plan, whatever it is, before more troops are sent.

3. You know I have been defending him concerning expectations and timing. Of course, its only been a month, but I would expect a game plan prior to an escalation. I don't want this bullsh*t to keep on going on when we keep sending kids into harms way without some type of strategy. Enough is enough.

user-pic

The ideal game plan: don't invade Iraq.
After 7 years with negligible progress, any good outcomes aren't feasible within a generational timeframe. I'm conflating good for the USA with good for Afghanis here, admittedly, but I think that cessation of violence(political, religious and business) and widespread civil stability can be reasonably considered "good" in this case.


user-pic

You realize for eight gd years we have been shoveling troops into iraq and afghanistan and I have yet to hear a gd game plan. I know it was obviously the king, but I think the american people are entitled to know what the f*ck we are going to do and what the plan is. That's the point.

user-pic

I don't have much of a problem with sending in some troops while you're working on the plan. The assumption is that you already know you're going to need more, and that it's likely you're going to need still more once you've finished the plan, so why wait to get started.

Of course the difference with GWB is that they NEVER HAD a plan. In this case I think we can be reasonably confident that there is a plan in progress, and it won't be super-double-secret.

user-pic

Ok, it still pisses me off. What is the f'n plan? I know it's only been a month, but why announce a troop build-up without a gd plan? That really is annoying. Get our diplomatic team over there and start knocking some heads together if you want to start the ball rolling, not announcing the sending of more troops into a freaking quagmire at this point.

The country is huge and desolate. As Jonze said, its basically in the stone age. Dumbsfeld famously said there were no targets in afghanistan, so he wanted to attack another country. Sending 17,000 more troops without a plan is meaningless, except putting more of our kids in the line of fire. For what?

Ugh, it just pisses me off.

user-pic

Just because they haven't announced a plan doesn't mean there isn't one. It's just not complete, so they're not announcing it yet. Apparently it's complete enough to know they need more troops. Patience. The adults are back in charge.

user-pic

Ok, I have to keep reminding myself of that. I'm used to the last 8 years I guess. I hope that you are right. I am really tired of the death and destruction and american kids dying for nothing and civilian men, women and children in other countries. We just need a gd game plan. There is no reason for having tens of thousands of troops stationed in a war zone for years and years on end. It totally makes absolutely no sense. Get in and get out, one way or the other.

By the way, if I see another picture of a purple finger, I will hurl. Jonze may be right and a dictator may be the way to go in afghanistan until the situation is stabilized. People want to live, not be killed, and raise their kids in a semi-stable environment. I really don't think they give two sh*ts about a purple finger in these countries at this point. They are more worried about survival. Karzi is the mayor of kabul and that's it. The situation is totally f*cked up and 17,000, or even 100,000 more troops probably won't make a difference.

I can't wait to hear the game plan.

user-pic

I think you were right the first time - Obama has been talking about more troops for Afghanistan since the election - you would think something of a bare plan at minimum would have formed by now. You don't just send soldiers off to "reinforce" (i.e. possibly die in a war zone) without a f*in plan. We've been down this road quite a lot lately.

user-pic

Extra troops to Afg doesn't bother me at this point.  Any negative impact on the situtation there will come from what they do, not how many there are.

Decreased morale among the troops resulting from lengthened tours is the only down-side I see here.

And don't conflate Afghanistan with Iraq.  Afg is where the Taliban, bin Laden, and 9/11 came from; Iraq was not.

That said, the situation there is hugely complex.  It'll involve a lot of nation building (much ridiculed by the neocons, except, of course, for Iraq).  Can the Karzai gov't be cleaned up?  Can they govern Afg?  Can the Taliban be rooted out? Etc, etc, very much more etc...

user-pic

Yeah, I know. I just want a plan. Is that too much to ask? I know its hugely complex and presumably even the 17,000 additional troops won't make a difference one way or the other. That's why I would like to know the game plan.

user-pic

"Decreased morale among the troops resulting from lengthened tours is the only down-side I see here."

Yeah, and the suicides that go with them, the RECORD number of suicides.

user-pic

But, it's a mistake to completely disassociate Afghanistan and Iraq - Afghanistan was put on a back burner to focus on Iraq.
Which has led to the situation we have there now.
We can't say for sure that committing the personnel, materiels and other resources to Afghanistan that were sent to Iraq would have led to a better outcome than we have.
It's probable, but we can only say with certainty that what we did instead has led to where we are.

user-pic

I don't think anyone is saying it's a surprise, but that doesn't mean people have to be happy about it.

Personally, I think it's too little too late. Bush blew the chance to make a difference there years ago when he illegally funneled $700 million in funding intended for Afghanistan to start prepping for the war on Iraq, a war he swore at the time in late 2002 that he didn't want.

When we could have accomplished a lot of public works good there, and hence won some hearts and minds, we bought into Bush's hype about Saddam nuking the US. Once again (like after the Soviets pulled out) we largely ignored the welfare of the Afghanis and now it's simply too late. I wish is weren't so, but I have next to zero faith that more troops now will do anything but escalate the tensions.

user-pic

The disconnect between keyboard-banging "progressives" and people who are actually doing charitable work for NGOs in Afghanistan couldn't be more stark. A few months ago, Bill Moyers had a woman on who was running, I believe, an educational program for Afghan girls and he tried to bait her tut-tutting Obama's plans for bolstering the troop presence. Her response? NGOs and charitable workers need more protection if they're going to get anything done. It's already the case that leaving Kabul is a matter of risking death and it's getting to the point where humanitarian workers in the capital are at constant risk as well.

user-pic

Incidentally, it's 17,000 troops, not 10,000.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan

user-pic

Get in, drop the hammer and then get out. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, you can't even try to rebuild it, they're still in the stone age and their main export is heroin.

The best the US can do there is the Pakistani approach - special forces, covert ops and drone missiles. Anytime an extremist training camp crops up - death from above. They should also poison the heroin trade well - fields that grow poppies should be made barren. Monsanto must have some experimental herbicide that they'd like to field test.

Karzai is a combination of corrupt and inept. You can't build a democracy from nothing. Afghanistan needs a dictator to bring law and order, and only after that is established, decades from now, can they start thinking about democracy.

user-pic

Another country that we can do little for without the UN or a Middle East bloc helping out. They need security and education and decades to become viable.

Not to be isolationist, but we've got some itty bitty problems of our own that we need to take care of. I don't mind helping out, and even having a force there, but it can't be just us. That place just sucks up resources with little benefit--just ask Russia. If they had a tradition of civilization and had just fallen on hard times, that's one thing. But Afghanistan has been just warring tribes for a long long time.

user-pic
The best the US can do there is the Pakistani approach
Uh, Jonze, the Pakistani approach was to create the Taliban, and to arm and fund other extremist groups. One could argue it was similar to or modeled upon the US funding anti-Soviet forces in the 80s. The only reason the US and NATO are there at all right now is because that turned out to be a bad fucking idea in the long run.
user-pic

And to follow on, if the US had made a good faith effort at rebuilding, they might have got the Bronze Age by the 2006 mid-terms. We had a couple years where the Afghanis trusted us to try - after we blew that, well, you could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

user-pic

If you're genuinely worried about "narco-terrorism", you should be promoting decriminalization or legalization. At the very least get them growing cannabis again and exporting hashish instead of heroin.

user-pic

Obama campaigned on putting more troops into Afghanistan so this should be news to anybody.

user-pic

No good! Now it's Obama's war!

Obviously this is not the real Obama but the Obama under the control of the Pentagon.

Let's be clear--our rulers want to rule the world. They will fight "evil-doers" (aka women and children) until someone puts a stake in their collective hearts.

Stop for rich from running/ruining the world!

user-pic

We're fighting women and children? Gee, I thought we were fighting violent, theocratic fundamentalists who represent the opposite of everything progressives claim to value.

Oh well, no problem. Those "women and children" have been kicking our ass pretty good for the last two years.

user-pic

And, the suggestion that the Taliban is just a some nondescript nationalist resistance group that's only reacting to our presence and that it will grow weaker if we just blow them some kisses and go back home (because, after all, what did they do to us?) is asinine.

Governing on the basis of nonexistent facts fantasized into existence because they comport with your dogmatic political views and the actual facts do not? Yeah, sure, why not? That worked out great for us from 2001-2008.

user-pic

Hey, I love the shameless Taliban apologism. It clearly separates the crazies/disingenuous-complainers from people who are, uh, actually interested in human rights.

I just hope someone keeps a list to make sure none of these hacks complain about a lack of action in Darfur.

user-pic

There are no "Taliban apologists" except in your sick, ignorant mind.

user-pic

At the height of an earlier war in Afghanistan, I believe there were 300,000 Soviet troops and 250,000 Afghani government troops on the ground. Why forsake Barack sending in a few more American troops to fight his war?

I agree with others who have stated they're not surprised. Indeed, and by George (the king), Barack will prove that he can stick to his guns (a pun) as well as ... as well as George (the Lesser).

Barack has much to learn from Afghanistan. As do many Americans. Afghanistan, "where empires go to die."

user-pic

Not to worry. Unlike healthcare, infrastructure, public safety, and education, war is free.

user-pic

Not if you're buying the bullets.

user-pic

Bullets are free just like aircraft carriers and missile systems.

user-pic

Kill them all and let god do the judging. YEEHAH!

user-pic

IDK. The troops there are stretched thin. It's putting on them unreasonable expectations. These guys get put into forward observation bases for extremely long times because they don't have enough troops in country to relieve them.

They are in dire need of more troops. The mountain ranges are now thawing and al-qaeda will be on the move again. Having these small groups of troops being left out for these long amounts of time isn't right.

I'm all for more troops. They need them from what I gather. Not allowing more to go would be denying those in these remote posts the needed relief they need.

user-pic

The relief they need is to come home. Our presence is accomplishing less than nothing- less, because it's destabilizing (nuclear-armed) Pakistan.

user-pic
user-pic

End the lies, end the wars.

MARCH ON THE PENTAGON
SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 2009
On the 6th Anniversary of the Iraq War

From Iraq to Afghanistan to Palestine,
OCCUPATION IS A CRIME
We Need Jobs & Education - Not Wars & Occupation

ENDORSE the March 21 March on the Pentagon:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=_I-RyXq31aLVtuLKGcAkqw..

Sign up to be a TRANSPORTATION Organizing Center:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=AFyMfEyq4HxZba-rt9Xh1A..


The ANSWER Coalition is joining with other coalitions, organizations, and networks in a March 21 National Coalition to bring people from all walks of life and from all cities across the United States to take part in a March on the Pentagon on the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war: Saturday, March 21.

More than 1,000 organizations and individuals have now endorsed the March 21, 2009, March on the Pentagon to say "Bring the Troops Home NOW!" on the sixth anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq.

The thousands who march will demand "From Iraq to Afghanistan to Palestine, Occupation is a Crime" and "We Need Jobs and Education, Not Wars and Occupation." They will insist on an end to the war threats and economic sanctions against Iran. They will say no to the illegal U.S. program of detention and torture.

user-pic

Its going to be interesting to watch this senario play itself out one more time...if something isn't working its because you are not doing enough of it. I've heard this word somewhere before...deep in my memory ...'escalation'. Let them have the friggin place. Let the Chicoms figure it out; or better yet, let the Isrealis do it. I'm sure those boys have a 'plan'.

user-pic

Actually, we were doing quite well until the entire operation was gutted in the name of Iraq.

user-pic

That's purely delusional. "We" in fact weren't doing much of anything, it was a (temprorary) coalition of unsavory warlords who threw out the Taliban. Who promptly took refuge in the mountains of Pakistan preparing to fight another day. Nothing was accomplished. Nothing will be accomplished, nothing has EVER been accomplished by outside powers trying to remake Afghanistan. (Unless you consider the CIA's creation of al Qaeda an "accomplishment".)

If there was one campaign promise Obama SHOULD have broken, this was it. A very unfortunate decision.

user-pic
Nothing will be accomplished, nothing has EVER been accomplished by outside powers trying to remake Afghanistan. (Unless you consider the CIA's creation of al Qaeda an "accomplishment".)
You need to be more specific, and say "Nothing positive and enduring ..." Lots has been accomplished by outside powers, just in this century! Consider: - small and medium arms delivered to the country - proliferation(further) of landmines - proliferation(further) of unexploded ordnance other than landmines(cluster bomblets, bombs, grenades, etc) - Afghani casualties - dwellings and other buildings deconstructed - etc.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address