- Home
- Business & Marketing (829)
- Editorials (658)
- Entertainment (2032)
- Fashion (1030)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2873)
- Humor (946)
- Music (5215)
- Need to Know (2207)
- News (2048)
- Podcasts (4)
- ARCHIVE
Thursday, November 12, 2009 | 6:56am
SOUND OFF: What Should Obama Do About Afghanistan?
Seems like any decision he makes will be met with a huge amount of criticism. So what should he do?
First off let me say Happy Belated Veteran’s Day to all the Highbrid Nation vets out there. If you are like me, you were out taking advantage of all those free meals being offered to servicemen yesterday. 
Speaking of Veteran’s Day, President Obama is dealing with a serious issue in regards to the war in Afghanistan. Should he send more troops or not? On one hand if he sends more troops it will take that much longer to remove them, thus ensuring that the war goes on for several more years. It may also delay the Afghan government from doing what they need to to make sure they are able to secure their own country. On the other hand adding more troops was successful in Iraq. The idea is that you would overrun the Taliban with more troops in key areas, run them out or kill them, then the war is over (of course that is much easier in theory).
Word has it that Obama has narrowed his options for troop levels to four options which range from adding no more troops to adding up to 40,000 soldiers and marines with various ranges of combat troops and troops sent just for the purpose of training Afghan police.
The pressure is on Obama because every day that he waits will likely result in more American deaths as the violence in Afghanistan has been increasing in recent months.
So Sound Off Highbrid Nation. What should he do and why? I’d especially like to hear from the Nation members that are military personal as Obama’s decision may have great consequences for them.
FILED IN News
Well it seems that the president has rejected all the suggestions made by his national-security team and seems to be taking the advice of former secratary of state Colin Powell.
He’s demanding clarifications on when the U.S. troops would turn over the country to the Afghan government. I think its smart because he’s taking a finite approach. He’s saying this is help we’re offering to secure this region but its not open ended. We need a plan and need to stick to it. What are these troops going to do and for how long.
.
I think the fact that he’s taking his time speaks volumes about how seriously he feels about our country, their country and his presidency. I can’t argue with his approach at all.
.
It may be frustrating and a cause of criticism from the right wing but any good decision is not made hastily without the facts.
I think the President would be well-served to ignore the advice of his generals and trust his own instincts.
.
The problem is (of course) that for the generals, the solution is ALWAYS ‘add more troops’. During the civil war, General George McClellan kept refusing to attack without more troops. Over and over again he asked for (and received) troops, but still no attack.
.
During the Vietnam war, there was a constant call for more troops. If we add 100,000 more here, and 50,000 more there (we were told) we could win this war. A bottomless pit of troops. A call for ever more troops … with no real plan on how these troops would change anything.
.
The REAL problem (in my opinion) is that no one has come up with a workable strategy for fighting a war against insurgents. If you have a hard target (buildings, armies, etc) then our military is more than capable of addressing the problem. But what can you do when the enemy is hidden among a thousand civilians? When they pop their head up long enough to attack, and then go to ground again?
.
In a case like this, large armies on the ground are actually a disadvantage.
.
It’s the same lesson that countless armies have been taught throughout history. It’s the lesson we should have learned in Vietnam; it’s a lesson we taught the British in the early days of our own revolutionary war. It is a lesson that we need to learn today.
.
Instead of more troops, I say the answer is NO troops. Instead of maintaining a constant presence on the ground, where are troops are simply targets, I think we need to entirely rethink our method of fighting wars against an insurgent enemy.
.
In the old days of war, the key was to controlling the terrain. You fought to ‘take the hill’, you fought to control real estate. When you controlled your enemies capital, you ‘won’. But today is different. It’s not about controlling real estate, it’s about destroying your enemies will and ability to fight.
.
I think the best method would be what I would call ‘a death by a thousand cuts’. Pull all troops off the ground, but keep our drones and air support flying in the sky.
.
Instead of giving our enemy targets they can hit, give them no targets while leaving them as targets.
.
You have a group of terrorists training in the hills… drop a missile on them. You have a key terrorist leader standing in a crowd of innocent civilians, use our new laser weapons to bore a hole through his head while leaving the innocent civilians untouched.
.
During the early days of the Afghanistan war, we were winning hands down because there were targets: buildings, infrastructure, armies. But now that the hard targets are all destroyed, and we’re fighting gnomes, the only real solution is to rethink our entire war-making philosophy.
What should Obama do? Do what the Russians did: GET OUT! Right now, it’s a pride thing. Go tell widows, orphans and mothers of dead soldiers about pride. How did their husband, father, son’s death on the other side of the earth help to make us safer here?
he cant really do anything bc its above his pay grade. his wallet and bank account size. but keep his head outta the sand and just do the best he can with what he has to wrk with. i wish him well.
But, i must say that i LOVE that salute! That shit is rigid, ya heard?!
What should Obama do?! The same thing any president should do in a war situation. All or nothing. We can occupy Iraq at the risk of upsetting the Muslim world but we can’t do the same in Afghanistan?! The real lesson of the Vietnam war and Russia’s “Vietnam” which was Afghanistan is that you can not fight a guerrilla war on foreign land. It didn’t work for the British in America, either. We would have to occupy Afghanistan and establish rule there in order to do what truly needs to be done, but we obviously won’t because we could’ve done that already, for reasons I’m not completely sure off, so the answer is to stop fighting half-ass wars and get out. Because it’s not a half-ass risk of life for the soldiers that are over there.