Obama commits another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan
CBS News has the exclusive:
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.
I support the decision – either there had to be many more troops to stabilise the country, or NATO had to get out. I’m glad Obama went for the second option. This will put the total number of troops there to over 100,000. I now wish the rest of NATO would get its act together and also commit some serious resources to stabilise Afghanistan.
[hat-tip plutoniumpage]
Update: It’s now being denied by the administration. Hmmm…
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, South Asia
As George Galloway said:
““The war is doomed, it cannot be won. No one has successfully occupied Afghanistan, not even Alexander the Great, and Bob Ainsworth definitely isn’t Alexander the Great. No matter how many soldiers they pour in there, they’ll never pour as many in as the former Soviet Union did. That occupation failed as this one is bound to.”
You may hate the man, but he has a point.
But a lot of Afghanis do prefer the Americans over the Taliban. Not sure they did that with the Soviets.
Testing the comments system.
I tend to listen to what this guy Rorry Stewart says, and he thinks the policy is flawed.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/prof...
He says a smaller force over a longer time is needed. As the large NATO force is not sustainable over the long term. We don't want the ''Charlie Wilson's War'' strategy of ''boom and bust'' he says.
Click on the video link and have a listen to him on the Bill Moyers show.
I hope the things happening in Afghan stabilises soon ..
Galloway wasn't correct. Alexander the Great found it difficult to conquer Afghanistan but he did eventually manage to do it; his successors took control of the region as Alexander's empire fragmented after his death, and founded the Seleucid Empire. The Greek influence in the region lasted for centuries. Large areas of the southern half of Afghanistan also became part of the (Indian) Mauryan Empire, most famously under Emperor Ashoka.
More recently (relatively speaking), the Mughals also successfully conquered and annexed most of Afghanistan.
Let me get this straight, Mr Hundal: the supposed voice of a “progressive British Asian generation” is supporting the decision to send yet more troops into Afghanistan… hmmm… *itches hairy chin*
People fail to grasp that unlike the Soviets or Alexandar the Great, NATO's mission is to secure Afghanistan so that it can be run by Afghanis, not by the invaders.
I hope that Obama doesn't cut and run and leave the country to ruins, I am hoping he may go ahead with the 40,000 troops, but I think it's likelier it will be 20,000
This is well worth a read on the subject Afghanistan could turn into Vietnam. Let's hope so.
You think it's a good thing that power in Afghanistan will return to the bloodied hands of the likes of the Taleban and those remnants of al-Qaeda who are tearing apart the very fabric of the Pathans livelihoods?
Riiiiight…
Time for India to send troops to Afghanistan as a a faithful junior partner/client of the US. Indian troops so far have only been used to control their own people. Half a million have occupied Kashmir for over 15 years and killed thousands. Another lot are stationed in the North-East to keep the local groups in line and another brigade ot two is preparing for an assault against Maoists in the tribal areas in the East (Operation Greenhunt it is called).
Time for the army to face an external enemy. China will be tough to confront but an Afghanistan stint should be manageable.
Hate this repeated reification of Afghans into some timeless Other. The Afghanistan of 2009 is different to the Afghanistan of the 1990s and 70s, let alone 300BCE.
Here's this from the excellent Ghosts of Alexander blog:
“…references to Alexander the Great in “Afghanistan.” You would think with the way that people bring this up that perhaps his army made it’s way through Afghanistan somewhere in between the First and Second Anglo-Afghan Wars. Apparently, Alexander was “defeated” by “Afghans.” If you don’t know why this view is eye-rolling, it’s because he suffered set-backs, but was not defeated. Check out the history of the Seleucids and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The invaders stayed for a while,” just a little” in terms of centuries. And it is quite a stretch to refer to the people as “Afghans,” unless one if a fan of primordialism or subscribes to the extreme end of that whole Soviet ethnoses thing.
And then, in popular discourse, history “disappears” between Alexander and 1839. Parthians, Scythians, Kushans, Huns, Hephthalites, Arabs, Ghaznavids, Mongols, Seljuks, Ghorids, Ilkhans, Timurids, Babur, Safavis, etc… all had a role in what Afghanistan is today.
…
Yet writers and commentators only want to go to Alexander and the British. It’s “European” and it’s familiar. And quite often they don’t even get it right. There are further misuses of history. Just one example: many say that Afghanistan has never been a state that could exercise effective control over the peripheries. They should probably read about Abdur Rahman Khan and Daoud Khan in order to qualify that claim. I could go on ad naseum.”
Or perhaps Joshua Foust on a recent piece using a similar analogy:
“…this is a sterling example of the worst instincts of analogy, comparison, and a burning lust for ignoring all the important details that make wars distinct from each other. And for not being able to tell the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. That one is pretty basic, especially considering the fact that Alexander the Great died in Baghdad, but not in Afghanistan (and not from “tribalism,” either).”
Edsa, although I agree that the Indian military tendency has been to pretty much oppress their own citizens, it would be the height of stupidity for them to go sticking their nose in this Afghani debacle.
They should leave that mess for the white folk and their minions. What western Europe needs desperately is a bloody, drawn out war that brings them to their knees. If they are lucky this will hopefully cause them to engage in some serious reflection and possibly dampen the unhealthy habit of interfering in non-white countries they have developed over the last few centuries.
Edsa, although I agree that the Indian military tendency has been to pretty much oppress their own citizens, it would be the height of stupidity for them to go sticking their nose in this Afghani debacle.
They should leave that mess for the white folk and their minions. What western Europe needs desperately is a bloody, drawn out war that brings them to their knees. If they are lucky this will hopefully cause them to engage in some serious reflection and possibly dampen the unhealthy habit of interfering in non-white countries they have developed over the last few centuries.
Dalbir
That is as bad as a BNP troll.
Should also add that Spencer Ackerman expects a formal announcement to be on Monday, and the figure to be closer to 34,000
Shamit
This is actually for their own good. They need to jerk themselves out of their “St. George and the dragon” complex before they cause even more serious problems around the globe. You know it's true.
If Brits concentrated on the problems at home instead of trying to resurrect their 'empire glory days', it would be a boon for all of us, including the ever whining WWC.
Spend the money on improving hospitals and education without it being siphoned off by higher management. Also invest in manufacture or something to make Britain's WC productive and occupied. Proper apprentice schemes for the construction sector for the disgruntled plus heavy investment in R&D for ways to improve all industries in relation to achieving optimal climate change proofing. Then sell the technology abroad to help them reduce carbon emissions.
Anything better than ill conceived invasions probably inspired by the excessive reading of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman books.
As for India. It has to grow military balls again. But not as a pawn in a white supremacist agenda. Central government could start by treating Punjab a bit better and making moves to invest in the region as well as giving a show of goodwill by punishing those involved in organised mass killings in the system.
It's late, I'm just letting a few ideas flow out in an unstructured fashion.
Dalbir
Dalbir:
Youze ma negga.
And where's that little punk bitch who tried to slay me verbally?
You know who you are- come on out, coward… I'm waiting…
I like many of your articles Sunny but unfortunately you are one of that significant group of pro-war liberals who still, in the face of all the deaths and the mutilations and the displacement of populations and the wrecking of infrastructure in countries that have never threatened us, believes we and our “allies” can send our soldiers to occupy and “sort out” the problems of far away lands.
It is a delusion. Our occupation of Afghanistan is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Stop being such a pindustani Fojee.
Dalbir:
I'm not being funny but sometimes in life you have to be “bad” to people to be good to them.
These bandhars don't understand that they are ignorant and that by believing so heartily in their erroneous ways they actually do more harm than good.
Koi na koi samjauna, nah?
None of us are perfect but at least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong… *itches even hairier chin*
You lost me Fojee. What are you talking about EXACTLY?
Dalbir:
What I mean to say is that today the voice of the current generation of British Asians, whilst perhaps having good intentions, actually does more harm than good for our communities be you Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or whatever because those who supposedly speak on our behalf and claim to represent our interests are, in fact, only doing so for themselves and their own ideals.
In my opinion, of course.
Yes but if others can publically agree/disagree/rebutt etc. then what is the problem? This is a forum and yes, one person may set the subject. Following this though, (ideally) the strength of your argument (or otherwise) should dictate how seriously it should be taken.
But seriously, like the establishment really give a flying bhund about what 'British Asians' think anyway.
I didn't know Sunny was representing me for the record, I thought he was just saying his own piece. Right now though, I would rather there was a Sunny than no Sunny.
You know what they say. “If it had the ability to seriously change things, the would be falling over themselves to shut it down.”
Dalbir:
The problem comes when someone like Sunny Hundal takes to the soapbox and has a blog where he vents his own opinions then subtitles it by describing his own blog- albeit with some external contribution- as the “voice of a progressive generation”.
What grinds my gears is that he appears to be talking on the behaf of no one but himself!
British Asians are an integral part of this country and if you look at the composition of the judicial, executive and legislative arms of the British government- the contribution we make to the British economy notwithstanding- then I think you'll actually find that the establishment does, in fact, give a flying one about what we think.
He sees himself as a part of a progressive, liberal movement within from within the 'ajun community' I imagine. Hence what he says reps that, (to his mind). I myself, in contrast, am liberal about some things and straight pendu about others.
I haven't got a clue if white people think he is a spokesman for all 'Asians'. If they do, they would be morons. The word 'Asian' itself is one that needs serious qualification in my eyes. I would prefer a more honest label like 'brown folk', which is what they really mean. I think we are one big monolithic brown blob for some people.
Anyway, only someone really dense would think Sunny's views are generally representative of the outlook for swathes of 2nd/3rd generation asians given the diversity in this group. The truth is that the 'system' will only allow someone they find acceptable to be given a continual platform. I can't imagine them ever caring about the opinion of an average brown guy from say Manor Park, who drives a bus. To be honest though, these days I don't even think I could tell you know what an average, everday ajun is any more, let alone find a spokeperson for them.
I mean who does represent 'us' here, if such a thing as 'us' exists? Nirpal Dhaliwal? Hardeep Kohli? Parminder Nagra? Or none of the above?
I can't see how that proves anything myself? An asian barrister would still get told 'paki – go back home' in many white areas today. Don't forget the fact that we are hated by increasingly large sections of the white community these days, incase you never noticed.
British Ajuns huh!
Well, Ignoramus, you've decided to lump all Asians together- we are not a heterogenous group as within the British Asian umbrella we are split amongst religous, cultural and linguistic lines.
Second point: you're doing nothing but exposing your own insecurities here when you say people white people are inherently racist.
In my personal experience, the establishment in this country is far more progressive and accepting than in other parts of the world simply due to the power of the buck- no one cares if you're brown when you shit green backs all day long, capisce?
Oh wait… no… hold on… the white man wants to put my people down maaaaan… let's all sit around and complain about how The Man is racist, maaaaan… then we can all avoid getting real jobs because we're lazy and instead start our own blogs so the rest of the world can hear our “visions”, maaaaan… yeah, maaaaan…
You f@cking donut.