Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed. ·
Jun 21, 2011 at 6:29am
The White House is floating how many troops it plans to bring home from Afghanistan by the end of 2012. They say they want flexibility as they bring troops home.
The plan is expected to be the removal of 30,000 "surge" forces. There are about 100,000 troops serving there now. We'll get details when President Barack Obama gives a speech tomorrow.
In the meantime, how many would you like to see brought home and by when? I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more dramatic. If it is only 30,000 troops, will this become an issue for GOP contenders to differentiate over? We're beginning to see a division between those who want us to be leaving and those who want to continue having all these troops there.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
I guess I would have to ask why the 30,000 were sent in the first place and if they accomplished what they set out to do....
also why we're there at all.....
May '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
They'll be redeployed to Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood can thank us later.
Jul '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Every last soldier. By tomorrow.
Then Hamid Karzai can stop grousing about the "occupiers".
Feb '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
As a part time resident of Arizona, I would like to see all the troops in Afghanistan, Korea and Europe redeployed on the Mexican border.
Mar '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Withdrawal of the 30,000 "surge" troops is a bad compromise. The "surge," misnamed since it was really more like "barely adequate ground forces for the first time," has had some success, but has not been in place long enough to have a lasting effect, nor has it been accompanied by any local change in attitude of the poulation, as made all the difference in Iraq.
Either keep the troops in place and increase efforts or withdraw virtually all the combat and support formations as soon as practicable. I prefer the latter alternative, in any case, as we have spent far too much national effort in Afghanistan.
I think the real secret to why Afghanistan has never been conquered is that, after looking around awhile, everyone from Alexander the Great to the Brits to the Russians and eventually to the Americans, says "What are we doing in this hell-hole??" and leaves.
Jan '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
I read Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars only a couple weeks ago, so that narrative is still fresh in my mind. It strikes me that the Afghan surge policy was always a half-hearted commitment, and now that it's only worked half-heartedly, it delivered what Obama wanted - an excuse to leave.
The farce begins with Obama demanding three "options" for what to do in Afghanistan, and then whining that the military is "forcing him" into one option. Well, sorry, workable options don't grow on trees. What the military was trying to tell Obama was that the conditions made it lucky for them to find any solution, never mind come up with three.
And then, in a stroke of arrogance and amateurism, Obama decided to craft his own policy, and then imposed it without discussion.
Woodward's book is essentially about a dysfunctional bureaucratic review process, long drawn out with endless debates, fueled by a lack of trust and openness ... at the end of which, Obama ignored it all anyway and made up his own plan, which wasn't based on what Afghanistan needed but what worked for him politically.
How Not To Lead, Course 101.
May '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
IF I had any idea what our objective was, I might offer an intelligent reply towards that goal. Since no objective has been communicated, I assume there is none. Also, since Afghans feel obliged to put to death those who choose our religion over their own, I assume we are neither needed nor wanted.
Based on the above assumptions: bring them all home manana.
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
I think they should all be pulled out. I could see changing my mind if someone could explain how the presence of our troops there is tied to the security of our rights.
Jul '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
It's increasingly clear that the problem, all along, wasn't Afghanistan - it was Pakistan.
And that's a sack of rats we don't even begin to want to open.
Jan '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
It's a heartbreaker - lots of lost blood & treasure. Part of me doesn't want to see this one go down as a 'loss' for us but let's face it, these people are hopeless. I think it was Jonah Goldberg that wrote a few years ago (in regards to Iraq) that if this thing goes down the toilet, it really isn't our fault but theirs. They were presented a golden oppourtunity and they muffed it.
In choosing between the upside and the downside, it's hard to see how much better a 'win' is rather than a loss. I think they just need to understand they'll pay dearly if they let the terrorists open shop there again.
Aug '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
I have not seen or heard of anyone who can succintly define what a "win" in Afganistan looks like, beyond us being there for another 10-15 years which is unacceptable in my view.
Tha Taliban are evil, nasty people and the government is hopelessly corrupt. Bring our troops home now and tell the Taliban on the way out that if they insist on facilitating Al Queda type terrorism we will rain bombs on them until they stop.
May '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
We weren't willing to do what we needed to do at the beginning (go in fast and hard, kill everyone who needed to be killed, make sure whatever tribal leaders were left understood They. Did. Not. Want. Us. Back., and leave).
We're not going to do that now.
We need to get out as quickly as we can consistent with doing it in good order. Let Hamid Karzai fend for himself.
BTW I have one son in Afghanistan now, and probably another on the way in a couple of months.
Jul '10
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Nick Stuart: We weren't willing to do what we needed to do at the beginning (go in fast and hard, kill everyone who needed to be killed, make sure whatever tribal leaders were left understood They. Did. Not. Want. Us. Back., and leave).
We're not going to do that now.
We need to get out as quickly as we can consistent with doing it in good order. Let Hamid Karzai fend for himself.
BTW I have one son in Afghanistan now, and probably another on the way in a couple of months. · Jun 21 at 3:21pm
Totally agree. And I just said a prayer for the safety of your sons. Please give them my thanks for their service.
May '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Lots of interesting points and questions by y'all.
What about Karzai?
What constitutes victory?
What about Pakistan?
What does Afghanistan have to do with securing the United States?
________________________
Karzai should never have been put in power. Through some neocon dream we believed that the Afghan people would rise up and become Americans if just allowed to vote. This has proven to be nonsense. First defeat the enemy, THEN create a government, if we want to, but defeat must come first.
What constitutes victory? To me, victory is when the people in Afghanistan no longer support terrorists, either through lack of will or lack of ability. I'm fine with either one.
Pakistan should be treated as any other nation that is harboring Al Qaeda. They should be quaking in their boots in fear that any Al Qaeda will be found in their borders. The areas of Pakistan that Al Qaeda has seized from them should no longer be considered part of their country because they have ceded sovereignty there.
May '11
Re: Afghanistan Troop Removal: Too Much? Too Little? Just Right?
Afghanistan has nothing to do with the United States except that they attacked us. There is no long term interest of our here, it is a desolate and worthless area with no economic value to anyone at this time. So long as they no longer have the will or ability to attack us again, we should ignore them. This is why the war should be more punitive than it is rehabilitative. We will never get a return on investment. If they wish to make something of themselves, I'm fine with that, but I don't see them being able to do that and we certainly can't lead them into becoming civilized.
We should start getting serious about this war, and then end it. Rather than reduce the already pathetically low number of men here, we should bring ten times as many here, make the Afghans very sorry, and then leave. We'd save a lot of money on the rent in Germany that way, too.