PDA

View Full Version : Why Obama's Afghan War is Different



Cruelbreed
07-05-2009, 01:50 PM
Why Obama's Afghan War is Different

By Aryn Baker / KABUL

So far, so good in the first major offensive of President Barack Obama's war in Afghanistan. For the past four days, 4,000 U.S. Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers have been fighting their way into the southern reaches of Afghanistan's Helmand River Valley, hoping to clear out insurgents there. But other than one limited area of fierce resistance, the fighting has generally been limited to small-scale skirmishes in which few Taliban have been killed, because most of the insurgents appear to have slipped away — as guerrillas tend to do when confronted by overwhelming firepower. More important to U.S. goals, however, is that no civilians have been hurt, because the purpose of the operation is to secure the local population against the Taliban.
Even though he says it's too early to predict success, General Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is satisfied that the Helmand mission is moving in the right direction. "The operations are not aimed at the enemy force; they are aimed at taking away the population from the enemy," he told TIME. "What we are trying to do is change the dynamics in the area where we are operating." In order to do that, Marines are leaving their armored Humvees and sitting down with village elders and tribal leaders to assess their needs, and assuring them that this time, the Americans will be sticking around. (See pictures of the new U.S. offensive.) (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1908500,00.html)
Operation Khanjar — Pashto for "dagger" — is the first test of the Obama Administration's new strategy for Afghanistan. No longer treated as a secondary concern to Iraq, the Afghanistan theater will have been by 17,000 more American soldiers by this fall. And under McChrystal, they'll be waging a different kind of war. Limited troop availability in the past meant that while NATO forces could clear an area of insurgents, they had been unable to hold the terrain. Now, the plan is for the Marines to set up combat posts in villages to provide the residents with lasting security. Still, some Afghans are skeptical. "I hope this operation gives a positive result," says Haji Nimatullah, a businessman in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, by telephone. "But I am not optimistic. [These] operations are like the cat-and-mouse cartoon where the mouse escapes when the cat attacks, but when the cat is gone the mouse comes back and starts again." (See pictures of challenges British troops were facing in Helmand in 2008.) (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1817558,00.html)
But the U.S. forces are aware of the danger cited by Nimatullah. "What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert, and the fact that where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," said Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, the Marine Commander, in a statement.
So far, only one Marine has been killed, and several have been wounded. (In eastern Afghanistan a U.S. soldier appears to have been captured by the Taliban, in an event unrelated to the Helmand operation.) Casualty figures are likely to rise, however, because the Taliban, having declined to go toe-to-toe with the Marines and instead melted into the civilian population, are likely to resort to asymmetrical warfare tactics such as Improvised Explosive Devices. On Saturday an IED strike killed two U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan, while another on Thursday killed two British troops elsewhere in Helmand. Stationing the Marines among the local population will increase the risk of such attacks, until the U.S. forces are able to win over residents through providing development aid and security. To do so, they will have to overcome deeply entrenched suspicions of American aims in the region, and resentment over civilian casualties inflicted during previous U.S. operations. "This operation will cause even more insecurity," says Joma Khan, a 32-year old unemployed man in Lashkar Gah. "Because when people lose their family members or their houses gets destroyed, then they join Taliban." (Read "Diplomatic Surge: Can Obama's Team Tame the Taliban?") (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1890262,00.html)
Aware of the danger, McChrystal has made the protection of civilians the central tenet of his new approach to fighting the Taliban, even going so far as to limit the use of aerial bombardment to the most extreme circumstances — a turnabout for U.S. ground forces that have grown dependent on air support. McChrystal has also declared in a soon-to-be-released tactical directive that soldiers should hold their fire if there is even the slightest risk of a civilian presence in the target zone. "Suppose the insurgent occupies an enemy home or village and engages you from there, with the clear idea that when you respond you are going to create collateral damage," explains McChrystal. "He's going to blame that on you. Even if you kill the insurgents, what happens is you have made the insurgency wider. You are going to run into more IEDs. You are going to run into more insurgents, [and] at the end of the day you are going to suffer more casualties."
The new directive will certainly make the fight harder in the short term, but already it is winning kudos from Afghans. "Already I am hearing a lot of positive feedback [about the Helmand operation]," says Afghanistan's Interior Minister, Hanif Atmar. "What was actually very well received and welcomed by the Afghan people was that [McChrystal] placed a bench mark for his success: He would like to measure his success in terms of how much he has protected the population, how much security he is providing them."
The Marines, however, are a temporary solution. They will remain in Helmand at least through the Afghan presidential elections slated for August 20, where they will assist the Afghan security forces secure polling places in anticipation of Taliban attacks. What happens beyond that, however, remains a question. "The military can help set the conditions for success but it is not sufficient for success," U.S. Ambassador, and former ISAF commander, Karl Eikenberry told TIME. "The military can help deliver security, but the military in and of itself cannot deliver a lasting peace, cannot deliver an accountable respected government, cannot deliver the necessary set of social services and sustainable economy that only the civilian side can provide for."
The next step in the new Afghan war will be a comprehensive strategy that helps the Afghan government deliver the stability that comes from economic opportunity and a working justice system that allows Afghans to benefit from those opportunities. That kind of strategy, however, takes far more time than a military operation and requires patience — both for Afghans and the U.S. administration that is footing the bill.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1908724,00.html

ghost
07-05-2009, 02:51 PM
Very interesting article. Thanks for the post.

bobdina
07-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Why is Pres. Obama's war different-because in the media's eyes he can do no wrong ,I don't know what happened to journalism since the elections but most have become his unpaid P.R. firm. Can you imagine what would have happened to any other president who took over a company (G.M.) and made the taxpayers shareholders whether we want to be or not . There are now over 20 so called czars looking over everything from banking to the auto industry . I thought free enterprise was just that you do good you get profits without outside help ,you do bad you fail ,well now you fail you get a bailout and a czar. My god I had hopes for this guy but I've lost all confidence. In my paper today there were 2 examples of owners of GM dealerships who lost it due to restructuring ,they went crying to their senators/representatives and they got their dealerships back and no this isn't that false rumor that went around they actually talked to a dealer who kept his dealership and he spilled the beans. Off the top of my head I can only remember one and democrat and thats Barney Frank What is fair about that .These czars were not elected they were appointed and who do they report to? You guessed it the President where's democracy there. Where were the media complaining when he took a trip to see a play on our dime, now if the economy was better I could care less, or when mainstream media report every time he goes out for a burger Jesus they're not the unbiased media they're supposed to be they've turned into paparazzi
Transcript of speech made in congress
And I'm very concerned again about these motor takeovers from the Federal Government. One thing that I am very concerned about, a story came out today where there's been approximately 1,500 letters that have gone out to GM dealerships.

One story that came out today, there is a dealership that I know of that applied to their Democrat Senator to appeal for help so that they could stay open. That Senator was able to arrange a meeting between the dealer and the officials at GM. We all know GM is now Government Motors because it's owned by the American people. It's been nationalized. There is no private corporations the way we used to think of GM. Now, the main stockholder is the American Government. So this Democrat Senator who
was applied to for help was able to secure a meeting with General Motors and a car dealership, and they were able to get their dealership back.

[Time: 21:30]


Well, that's great, that's wonderful.

There is also another article I saw today where a constituent had contacted one of the representatives, a Democrat representative here in this Chamber, Representative Barney Frank. Barney Frank was able to go and talk to the right people and get this dealership back open. Is that what we have come to in this country, that rather than a private business with a private contract with another private corporation, they're no longer able to work out their agreements because, as columnist Michael
Barone has called, he said, Now we've moved into the realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their local--hopefully well politically connected--Congressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future?

When I was on the phone today for over an hour with one of my local dealers, the very first thing out of her mouth was this, she said, This is the most un-American thing I have ever seen in my life. I can't believe that I lived to see the day that my country would come to this point where, having my dealership for 90 years, I get a letter FedExed to me that tells me I have until Friday to sign this document to not only give up my company that was made worthless--worth $15 million, made worthless
overnight--now GM is demanding that she hand over her customer list, her service customer list to GM. Why? GM most likely will use those customer lists, they will give it to her former competitors. What is she getting for this? What is her remuneration? She had the rug pulled out from her and from her husband. They virtually lost everything overnight to what? To what Michael Barone calls a gangster government.

We need to call this for what this is, my colleagues. We need to call this for what this is. Call it out. The American people need to get outraged and figure out that it could be them next. No business is safe when you see the administration appoint czars--car czars, wage czars--there's over 20 czars that have been appointed. And what do those czars do? They bypass the Congress. We are the people's elected representatives; we have been bypassed.

We now have an imperial presidency where the President has appointed various czars reporting directly to him. And now he is reaching into the confines of private businesses and overnight rendering them virtually worthless--unless, unless they have a special tug, a political tie to a local Democrat Congressman. Is that what we've come to? And I yield back. And I'm done ranting I will stay on military topics from now on

Cruelbreed
07-05-2009, 07:46 PM
Why the hell are we calling this Obama's war anyway?

I'm not so in tune with this kind of subject but. Regarding one of the final points. This dealer business has failed and lost 15 million. What are the options even if the government did not get involved?

What I severely dislike the UAW involvement in this, as they were a huge reason GM could not remain competitive in the first place.

It's hard for me to really form an opinion because I feel that without a bail out GM would have most likely been bought out by a foreign company, possibly a Chinese company. How un-American would that be? General Motors bought out by a foreign country? What happens with all these factories say god forbid they're needed for other purposes of national importance in the future?

GM under the government can probably shed itself of more clout that it could have ever done under American privatization. I think our Auto industry is of OBVIOUS importance and there are MUCH worse things that could have happened.

The unfair dealership situation is I suppose a two way street. Some people are getting unfair treatment through the U.S. of congress men and women. Others are signing over their failed businesses that are already in debt I assume? I'm not aware of dealership businesses but it's sounds to me like the one's in Peril, the ones part of the Clout are the ones facing immediate closure AKA signing the business away.

I don't know Bob, it seems to me many people are in a tough predicament and losing their businesses nationwide.

People have an apparent disregard for Obama. I've met many who call him a socialist and just flat out dislike the man. Tough times call for tough measures even as un-american as we think them to be. This isn't the first time we've nationalized companies, it has happened since world war I. I just hope GM succeeds.

A short history of nationalization http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/02/business/main5056132.shtml

I'm by no means any expert, i'm as worried as you are.

Cruelbreed
07-05-2009, 07:48 PM
See this is the shit I HATE

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/02/business/main5056189.shtml?tag=related;wc5049887

Then again I think these cars are garbage so perhaps it's a good thing lol

bobdina
07-05-2009, 08:23 PM
The options if the government did not get involved is what it always was go out of business for running a shitty company, I also can't stand the UAW, if factories are on U.S. soil they can be nationalized in times of emergency like ww1 or ww2 , Ford is still out there and I'm sorry I don't see the auto industry as of vital importance enough that were all paying for it as it's not like in the past when they produced our tanks and fighting vehicles as for the dealerships in peril being cut actually there were at least one big money making dealership in my area that was cut maybe that was an aberration , yes we are in a bad situation but we've been in worse before it's not something new, look at the double digit interest rates of the 70's and gas rationing , not to mention the great depression , as for Pres. Obama I always give the new commander in chief the utmost respect until they loose it from me even if I didn't vote for them , as for the government taking over business's since WW1 except for the financial institutes that the FDIC is supposed to do if they are in trouble the other ones were during time of all out war or the airlines because of the terrorism but in none of those cases except the TSA and that was a safety issue did the government keep control ,they were short term fixes . Now the taxpayers actually own 60% of G.M. And believe it or not I still hold out hope for the President I hope he's just getting bad advise because he's trying to do too much at once instead of taking care of one thing correctly and moving on instead of these short term fixes which haven't fixed anything.

nastyleg
07-05-2009, 08:33 PM
Cruelbreed like many American you outraged for good reason.
1. Government take over of PRIVATE industry.
2. Obama's unpressadented "positive" news coverage.I say positive because bias is too easy of a term
3. Cap and trde policy. More gangster polotics coming from D.C.
4. How much longer can Obama blame Bush. Bush left office with 1 trillion in debt. Obama is now at 5 Trillion........not even a year in office and has by surpassed Bush's out of control spendin.
5. Democrat controlled congress since '06 has spent trillions of dollars but blamed Republicans. Who were not fiscally responsible as well.
6. Forced universal health care in the US if passed. Each person who does not participate have to pay $1,000 USD. Not per household but per person!
7. Obama's proposal to put Gitmo detainees here in the US with full citizenship.
8. America's liberal left that call anyone who does not agree with them Bigots
9. America's youth be retarded as fuck and blinded by words and not focusing on actions.
10. Faith under attack by people who want to force thier beliefs on religions by forcing them to marry gay people.
11. Lack of understanding from the general population, and politicians aboutthe needs of veterans.....not just here in the US but world wide.

Cruelbreed
07-05-2009, 08:43 PM
Obama has said this is a short term deal with GM. We will see. The question is what is the standard we measure by when we talk about "Short term." 2-3-4-5-6-20 years?

bobdina
07-05-2009, 09:06 PM
Obama has said this is a short term deal with GM. We will see. The question is what is the standard we measure by when we talk about "Short term." 2-3-4-5-6-20 years?

Should be no term i want nothing to do with taxpayer money going to this. Now if there had been a vote by the people and it was decided by that vote to do it I wouldn't be saying shit ,but no there's a czar appointed by the President who only answers to the President in charge of it . Where's the oversight?

ghost
07-06-2009, 09:45 AM
Damn. I wish I had something to say. But this shit is over my head. *SWOOSH!*