Afghanistan: No Good Options

Filed in International by on November 12, 2009

The Obama administration is weighing the options for Afghanistan. General McChrystal has recommended 40,000 new troops and the neocons, including Dick Cheney have been trying to pressure Obama to follow this recommendation. However recommendations for troop increases is not unanimous:

In an unexpected dissent at a critical moment, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has warned in classified cables against any further buildup of American forces in the country, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired general and former commander of U.S. forces in the country, said in two cables delivered to the State Department that additional troops would be unwise because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government, officials said.

The advice, sent last week, comes when most signs suggest that President Barack Obama soon will announce plans to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan in hopes of turning the tide against militants.

It also pits Eikenberry against a former military colleague, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, who has told Obama that more than 40,000 troops are needed to stabilize the country.

Yeah, I’d be hesitant too if Dick “wrong about everything” Cheney was the biggest booster of this strategy. Of course I’m still flabbergasted that anyone asks Dick Cheney or anyone else from the Bush administration what should be done about Afghanistan since they are the reason that Afghanistan is such a mess. Remember how they let Bin Laden get away so they could send troops to Iraq to look for weapons that didn’t exist?

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Let bin Laden get away? You mean Bill Clinton don’t you?

    The problem in Afghanistan is Obama is a poor leader and so is his buddy Karzai who is really the Mayor of Kabul and not much else. They are a perfect match.

    For those of you who are so uninformed Bin Laden was likely in Pakistan and did you favor an invasion of that country to get Bin Laden? No, you did not.

    The reason Afghanistan is a mess is the Afghans, if you not understand that fact you are hopeless.

    Mike Protack

  2. I guess in Republican-land Bill Clinton was president for 16 years?

    Bush let Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora, then he removed troops from Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the screw-ups in the Bush administration then ignored Afghanistan for the rest of their administration. If Cheney’s so hot to send troops there – why didn’t he do it when he was in power?

    As far as invading Pakistan, you do realize there are other ways to do things besides invasion and war, right?

  3. Scott says:

    Unless we develop a comprehensive South Asia strategy, the most we can hope for is a temporary peace in Afghanistan.

    What would such a strategy look like? Well, at the very least it requires some moderation of the strategic competition between India and Pakistan.

    Without attention to this aspect of the problem, we really are only playing around at the edges of the conflict.

    For more, see http://bit.ly/3vYHPk

  4. nemski says:

    What the hell Mike? I know some say that one can win a seat on New Castle County Council by blowing every tea bagger in northern Delaware. But really is that that way to go?

  5. Geezer says:

    “Let bin Laden get away? You mean Bill Clinton don’t you?”

    What happened, Mike? Cat got your tongue on that question about how you’re going to prevent tax increases in NCCo? Much easier to spout your bottomless ignorance on questions half a world away, isn’t it?

  6. lizard says:

    Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan (the good war/bad war lie)
    The previous Theater Commander requested additional troops (McPike?)
    Obama picked his own Theater Commander (McCrystal) who studdied the situation and asked for 40-80,000 more troops.

    and UI, troops levels in Afghanistan have never declined.

  7. Geezer says:

    “The previous Theater Commander requested additional troops”

    Please list for us all the theater commanders in US history who requested fewer troops.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Obama sent more troops in the spring (about 12K if I recall), which, frankly fulfulls the campaign promise. When he sent the additional 12K, he committed to a full review of the objectives and strategy here. Which is apparently what is going on now.

    Keep in mind that McChrystal asked for more troops based upon executing full scale COIN strategy, and that is not the only choice. Besides we don’t really have those troops to send. NPR this AM reported that the four options presented to Obama for strategy and troops in Afghanistan were rejected for more detail on clear goals and clear exist strategies.

  9. lizard says:

    The Obama Administration disowned the 14,000 troops sent, blaming it on Bush.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    No they have not disowned those troops. He pretty clearly ordered those deployments, but I understand it disrupts your silly narrative of not sending troops.

  11. anon says:

    The Obama Administration disowned the 14,000 troops sent, blaming it on Bush.

    And who the hell else is to blame that, seven years later, we are ramping up this occupation instead of winding it down?

  12. lizard says:

    Do you even reade the articles you link?

    “Months ago, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, requested more than 30,000 additional troops this year, and an initial 6,000 arrived last month under orders signed by the Bush administration. But a senior White House official said that no other deployment decisions will be made until the Obama administration completes a strategic review of the Afghan war in late March. “

  13. Geezer says:

    INstead of trolling, lizard, why not explain the mission in Afghanistan for us?

  14. cassandra_m says:

    Instead of trolling RICO, you could read the articles I link to:

    President Obama has ordered the first combat deployments of his presidency, saying yesterday that he had authorized an additional 17,000 U.S. troops “to stabilize a deteriorating situation” in Afghanistan.

    You tried to get the lie out there about Obama not sending more troops, when he already has. He did not send as many as the previous Commander said he wanted. But he did say there would be a comprehensive review of strategy and goals which is now ongoing. Then you wanted to lie again saying that they disowned the first round of troops, blaming it on Bush, which is pretty clearly not true. So basically the real effort here is to continue to counteract the fairly incessant lies you like to post up here.

    It really helps to follow the thread of the conversation. People like you are why the kids table was invented.