Detroit Has Its Hat Out Again  |   Home  |   Keep Calm and Carry On

Obama Sends Two More Brigades to Afghanistan

Couple thoughts...

President Barack Obama has authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, saying they are to “meet urgent security needs”.

Two brigades - one army and one marine - are to be sent, Mr Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

This first major troop deployment under Mr Obama comes as his administration reviews US policy in Afghanistan.

[...]

The additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan had originally been scheduled to go to Iraq.

I’m not going to argue against sending more troops to Afghanistan.  The Taliban has clearly regrouped and is on the offensive.  Given that this is a NATO operation now, I would like to see our allies step up and send more troops, but we know how that goes.

My greatest concern is that these brigades were intended for Iraq.  Up until a month ago, the military obviously saw the need for them in the Iraq theater.  Since conditions have not dramatically improved in Iraq in the past month, I am worried that the troops in Iraq will be stretched thin prematurely and left vulnerable. 

Time will tell.

Posted by Owen at 2146 hrs
Foreign Affairs + Military + Politics + Politics - General

1. So will the death count begin for the Obama Administration, as the MSM did disgracefully, during the Bush Administration?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 2209 hrs
   
   
   

2. I suppose it will just…continue.  Obama didn’t start either of these wars.  But since he’s continuing them, the count will continue, too.  Where’s the confusion?

   Posted by scott on February 17, 2009 at 2231 hrs
   
   
   

3. i dnt think obama is doing the wrong thing by sending the troops afghtan to help the people ther so i think the peole should just leave him alone and just let him run the country on his own

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 0115 hrs
   
   
   

4. You miss my point Scott.  The MSM treated the casualties as the fault of one misguided and evil man, as opposed to a national consensus based on the votes of Congress. In addition, the Iraq War was itself an escalation of policies already in place during the Clinton administration, or have you forgotten about our military jets controlling the skies over Iraq for many years prior to ground troops going in to enforce UN, that means INTERNATIONAL consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 0836 hrs
   
   
   

5. That’s rich, Marc-
   You really gonna stick with the Iraq war was just an escalation of Clinton policies schtick?  I’m not even sure you’re gonna get a lot of support here.  It is one thing to think Saddam was a bad guy, and quite another to say that belief is the natural precursor to the Bush admin policies post 9/11.  That’s just a fallacy.

   To Owen’s original post, my immediate thought was: Whack-the-mole much?  I don’t see an easy way out of this game.  We can quell insurgencies here and there, but everywhere?

   Posted by Mike on February 18, 2009 at 0851 hrs
   
   
   

6. When you, Mike, wish to refute someone’s opinion, it is important to quote and represent accurately that person’s statement. You inserted the word “just” into my opinion that is not there. It was a serious escalation but, as Scott stated that the Afghan War was not started by Obama, the Iraq War was not started by President Bush either. The vast majority of the Congress voted for War authorization. This was and is our country’s war. And my point stands unrefuted with facts that the Iraq War had its genesis in the Clinton administration and the UN. Which is always the case that new administrations always inherit the good and the bad of previous ones. Yet if Obama wishes to escalate the War in Afghanistan then he is responsible for those decisions.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 0945 hrs
   
   
   

7. The MSM treated the casualties as the fault of one misguided and evil man

   The media took turns giving the man hand jobs until well after the fall of Baghdad.  After it became clear that there were no WMD, a few shook themselves out of the stupor and started asking questions.  When it became impossible to deny an insurgency had risen to fight US forces, a few more woke up.  I’d like to say that eventually all media sources eventually broke the spell of jingoistic president worshipping and started doing their jobs. but unfortunately something else happened before that occurred—the media simply lost interest altogether.  The notion that Mr. Bush was fighting a hostile media for his entire presidency or even through the entire Iraq fiasco is nonsense and easily refutable. 

   As far as who is responsible for the casualties, I think we really have to admit that Bush did a very poor job of executing this war.  I think it’s fair to say that if he’d done a better job there would have been many fewer casualties.

   the Iraq War was itself an escalation of policies already in place during the Clinton administration

   You’re trying to muddy a very, very important distinction: Bush started a war—a war we weren’t in when Clinton was president.  Whatever the Clinton policies were, they weren’t war.

   have you forgotten about our military jets controlling the skies over Iraq for many years prior to ground troops going in to enforce UN, that means INTERNATIONAL consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.

   Remember?  How could anyone forget.  Especially since now we all know that these measures were quite containing Hussein and any threat he might pose to anyone.  And by the way, those jets were protecting Kurdish Iraqis not “the world.”

   Posted by scott on February 18, 2009 at 1015 hrs
   
   
   

8. It shows how history can be changed by simple repetition. “Bush started the War”. Will that just continue to be the mantra in the face of all factual evidence. The United States, as defined by its Congress and President, voted to authorize this War. Period. You cannot change that by mere mindless repetition. Was WWII Roosevelt’s War? Of course not. You certainly have the right to argue the execution, but it is way too easy to do a 20/20 hindsight thing on any War. Could Eisenhower have handled the War in Europe better. Yes. All wars could have been handled better in hindsight. The War in Iraq has been successful as of now, that is why it isn’t on the front pages anymore.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 1032 hrs
   
   
   

9. The United States, as defined by its Congress and President, voted to authorize this War. Period.

   I don’t think anyone’s trying to deny the role of congress in the Iraq war.  But it’s a fact that Bush wanted this war, his administration sold it to the American people and to congress.  AND he was responsible for how that war was conducted (poorly).

   The War in Iraq has been successful as of now, that is why it isn’t on the front pages anymore.

   I think the surge has been meaningfully effective—if only militarily.  And that’s why our lazy media isn’t covering it anymore.

   Posted by scott on February 18, 2009 at 1132 hrs
   
   
   

10. Well, then why do you and so many others use the term “Bush’s War”? Repeating, WWII is never referred to as Roosevelt’s War. It wouldn’t be politically convenient would it? Moreover, Bush didn’t want this war anymore than Obama doesn’t want to send more troops to Afghanistan. He feels it is important for the country to do so. There is no President who has wanted War.  That is a gross mischaracterization of any President. We do not have dictators running our country.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 1159 hrs
    
    
    

11. Fine.  Substitute “wanted this war” in my comments above with “was convinced that war was the best option available to us.”  Happy?

    And to the extent that it ever became known as “Bush’s war,” I think that happened well after it was started.  Around the time that he and his administration were the only people championing it publicly anymore.

    Posted by scott on February 18, 2009 at 1205 hrs
    
    
    

12. Marc-
    I wasn’t, in fact, quoting you.  The “just” you refer to should be read as a comment by me about your assertion.  That’s how I meant it to be read. As Scott’s subsequent comments adequately point out, in retrospect, it is evident that the administration was out front on the push to war with Iraq.  I don’t know about calling it Bush’s war.  It’s not a phrase I’d use.  But I do know that implying it is his predecessor’s war is wrong. The Bush administration’s policies were not a solely continuation of Clinton’s. I give the administration enough credit to recognize original input into world affairs.r

    Posted by Mike on February 18, 2009 at 1214 hrs
    
    
    

13. So will the death count begin for the Obama Administration, as the MSM did disgracefully, during the Bush Administration?

    I certainly hope so.

    Perhaps you would prefer the deceit that was practiced during Johnson’s War in Vietnam? Or was that JFK’s War?

    The MSM treated the casualties as the fault of one misguided and evil man, as opposed to a national consensus based on the votes of Congress.

    I don’t know about evil, but the run up to the invasion and the initial strategy/expectations were textbook definitions of misguided.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2009 at 1345 hrs
    
    
    

14. the run up to the invasion and the initial strategy/expectations were textbook definitions of misguided.

    The problem with the media during this time was that they weren’t critical enough of the Bush administration.

    Posted by scott on February 18, 2009 at 1400 hrs
    
    
    

15. The problem with the media during this time was that they weren’t critical enough of the Bush administration.

    In fact the NYT public editor documented how far his publication was in the pocket of the administration.  The publication (as an indicator of the MSM) did a poor job of seeking sources outside the sphere of influence of the administration in the lead-up to the war.  In short, they only got corroborating views from folks who were likely bound to give corroborating views by nature of their close association with the administration.  A real failure on the part of the press, and likely a contributing factor to the acquiescence of congress.

    Posted by Mike on February 18, 2009 at 1436 hrs
    
    
    

16. Yes, they even issued a formal mea culpa in the op/ed page, if I recall.

    Posted by scott on February 18, 2009 at 1511 hrs
    
    
    

17. Caught in the shock and awe of September 11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neo-conservative imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending?

    Do tell?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2009 at 1603 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.