Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

Discussion in 'US' started by gator, Feb 8, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5683681.ece

    It looks like Obama is starting the process to chickenshit out of Afghanistan, just like he plans to do in Iraq.

    It is believable seeing that he ran for President on a platform to cut and run from Iraq.
  2. If the yanks sack Afghanistan we have to follow.
  3. I would have thought it perfectly reasonable that the new President (and I'm no fan of his) asks what the plan is before sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
    Infact I would have said its quite a wise thing to do really.
  4. A few weeks ago we was getting critised for not being "commited" to the war in the stan. Now he's getting cold feet, it's a bit of a slap in the face for the families of soldiers who have died in the conflict.

    About time we get out of this pointless fckin war, it's not even our fight.
  5. Is it not a perfectly reasonable question? Obama has simply asked what the plan is. I think as President of the US it is a question he should be asking.
    Pouring tens of thousands of soldires into Afghanistan with no clear intention would be a lot more of a slap in the face would it not?

    Perhaps Obama is asking the questions that should have been asked years ago?
  6. Well we're there. If there is something the wasters in power want to achieve lets achieve it.

    If not and the boring line "War on Terror" is still being used lets just pull out and continue this as an air campaign to bomb any Taliban Camps back to... What came before the stone age?
  8. About 62 million dumbass Americans decided to "uncomitt" to the war on terror when they cast a vote for that ******** Obama.

    It is a slap in the face of every American that served and every one of our allies that served with us. It makes me ashamed.

    I don't blame you for wanting to say "**** it".

    Make no mistake about it; "review" is Democrat doublespeak for cut and run.

    Gates is the one that engineered the surge in the first place. For Obama to tell him to go back and come up with the right answer is a strong sign that Obama is going to cut and run.
  9. You are our closest military ally and like it or not we help each other fight wars.

    There were millions of Americans that questioned whether or not WWI was “America’s fight” but we did it and help to break the stalemate, which saved countless numbers of British lives.

    There were millions of Americans that questioned whether or not the war in Europe was “America’s fight” during WWII seeing that the people that attacked us December 7, 1941 were Japanese. Tens of thousands of Americans were put into concentration camps in Texas due to their opposition.

    There were millions of Americans that questioned the deployment of troops in Europe during the Cold War to counter the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union. I think you were glad we did it.

    We didn’t send troops but we provided significant support during your war in the Falklands although many Americans could not understand why we took sides in a conflict that had nothing to do with our own security.

    Most Americans have no clue why we joined the European nations to send troops to Bosnia.

    If we start complaining about fighting each other’s wars be careful because you could come out on the losing end of that discussion.
  10. Is General Richards saying that the UK should provide 3 battlegroups for Operation Herrick? :? It goes without saying that it would be virtually impossible for the armed forces to sustain 3 battlegroups (is that approximately 21 000 men and women?) in Afghanistan at the current level of manning and expenditure.

    Or am I misunderstanding something?
  11. Barry was always a harsh critic of the Iraq war but actually campaigned for a greater focus the Pashtun war, grandstanding he'd if necessary take the war into Pakistan to root out AQ regardless of Islamabad's objections. McCain upbraided him for going to far in this even though the weary Bush administration was quietly moving to a very similar adversarial stance with the nation it once boasted was its greatest ally in the GWOT.

    What was a useful bit of tough guy posturing now confronts harsh reality. What is the endgame is one question. Worryingly it's oddly passive Bush like one. It's the executive's job to set strategic goals. The Brass then figures out how best to attain them. Objectives have been very confused and there has been a dire lack of actual leadership. I'd question if even the very able Gates has a clear idea on how to proceed and suspect an inexperienced Barry is realizing how far out of his depth he is.

    Truth is things on the frontier have drastically deteriorated. Shifting resources there might have been a smart move a couple of years back but now has to be reconsidered. Pakistan itself is sliding towards chaos and that considerably widens the problem and inherent risks of escalation. It may be as Islamabad's Brass say: militarily defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan carries to high a price down South. If so the POTUS better get to work on redefining what victory should look like.
  12. Actually, Gator, I think the reason the US sent troops to Europe during WWII was because Hitler declared war on you just after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't I'm quite sure you'd never have shown up on the other side of the Atlantic. After all, not one of your several million Jewish citizens ever volunteered to come over and fight the Nazis, did they?

    Oh, and the reason you intervened in WWI was because the British and the French had borrowed so much American money you couldn't afford to see them defeated.

    And, of course your massive corporate investments in Europe would have gone down the gurgler if the Russians had taken the place over. And could you really have sat back and let Moscow create a united European-Asiatic power bloc which would have totally outnumbered and out resourced the USA?

    As for the average American's understanding of foreign affairs, I'd guess it's about on par with the average Briton's knowledge of tectonic plate movements. And we're both about as interested in each subject.
  13. Hitler declared war on us because we were arming and supplying his enemy (you and the Soviets). We were sending all kinds of aid to your country to fight Germany long before Hitler declared war.

    There was actually a very strong pro Germany, anti interventionist movement in the country prior to WWII.

    We can talk about this all day long but the point I was trying to make is that over the years the US has lost about a half million of our finest young men fighting your European wars, which benefited your country greatly, even if it was not an American fight. If you want to play the game of not supporting your closest military ally in a war on terror then be careful of the consequences.

    Had London been hit on 911 instead of New York and Washington America would have sent tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands troops to support you and I think you know that as good as I do. Thousands of American troops would have died to avenge the attack.

    Like it or not we are brothers. We may get annoyed at each other from time to time but we will always support our family members against outsiders.

    I cannot justify the war in Iraq. I have no clue why we felt it was necessary to remove Saddam from power when the guys that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabians who bosses lived in Afghanistan. I do think the war in Afghanistan is a just war and one that needs to be fought.

    However, be careful of Obama’s rhetoric. The asshole will complain that NATO is not doing enough. He will want you and others to send many more troops. When you don’t do it (rightfully) he will use this as an excuse to pull out American because we are not being supported.
  14. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Note the underlined text.:

    The next time you visit Europe, particularly Normandy, visit some of the American military cemeteries there and note how many 'Star of David' grave markers that you see there. Your statement sort of marks you as an anti-semite IMO.

    Also, since you are an Aussie, I would think you might have a little more respect for the USA considering our role in saving your Country from a Japanese invasion, etc., during WWII. Most Australians I have met seem to know this.

    As for the jews serving in WW II check this website.:


    Or the Jews who were awarded the MOH.:

  15. A coherent strategy in Afghanistan means facing up to the role of Pakistan (and possibly Iran) in this war.

    Nobody really wants to do that.......

    To beat the Taliban means occupying and holding ground; all the way to the border. Even if the manpower and resources were found to do this, one possible outcome would be that Afghanistan becomes a base for the war in Pakistan.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the politicians are casting around as we speak, for a quick and dishonourable exit strategy.

    With the present govt in power it seems like Afghanistan is a lose/lose situation for the British army. Either the politicians and spooks will do a dirty deal and pull the troops out without a victory, or they will assign greater tasks (which the lads will attempt, but can't cope with on the present budget and manning levels) and break the army.

    It doesn't matter how superbly the troops are performing at a tactical level, how bravely they are fighting, how savagely they maul the Taliban....The fact is that most of NATO isn't interested in helping, and the British army is too small and under resourced to hold the ground necessary to decisively defeat the Taliban.

    Brown and Co are manifestly incompetent (and don't care anyway) so unless Obama pulls something seriously good out of the hat, we will be remembered as an army that failed. Or the war will just drag on for years - an ongoing low level meatgrinder that wastes lives and consumes resources.

    If we don't win decisively, Central Asia may become seriously destabilised in coming years, and what credibility we still have left, will be gone.