Pres. Obama's War Plans

**Mikelus Trento** · December 02, 2009, 07:28 AM

Obama laid out his plans for Afghanistan last night in a speech from West Point. The venue was perfect, since many of the Army's future officers who listened will be going there shortly.

He laid out the history of the situation and mentioned, although not dramatically, the fact the Iraqi war was a costly diversion to the US's only legitimate reason to have combat troops in that area....to secure bin Ladin and dismantle Al Queda.

His plan is 3-pronged....add in 30k more troops to secure the most violent areas immediately and train the Afghan security forces to take over, develop the Afghani civilian economy by working through the local authorities and not the corrupt central government, and partner with Pakistan in securing the safe haven AQ and the Taliban enjoy in the border region of Pakistan.

He also announced 2 important dates....all the new boots on the ground would be in place by this summer, and all combat troops would be withdrawn by the following summer....a year and a half from now.

Although the plan seems sound enough, I am skeptical of the end date. It seems imporbable to me that the Afghan forces will be ready in 18 months to take over. I fear his words of "combat troops to be withdrawn by summer of 2011" will be aired over and over again in 2012 when we are likely, imo, to still be there.

If you took the time to listen to the speech, what are your thoughts?

**Farnan** · December 02, 2009, 07:30 AM

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011

He didn't say withdraw all combat troops, he says begin the transfer of forces, which can mean anything he wants it to mean. Could simply be that the surge will end by then.

Though I don't like him giving the date. The only way we could convince Pakistan to destroy the Taliban is convince them we won't leave A-Stan early.

**mrmouth** · December 02, 2009, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Future Redleg Officer

He didn't say withdraw all combat troops, he says begin the transfer of forces, which can mean anything he wants it to mean. Could simply be that the surge will end by then.

Though I don't like him giving the date. The only way we could convince Pakistan to destroy the Taliban is convince them we won't leave A-Stan early.

Agree wholeheartedly.

He couldn't make his case about how we absolutely need to it it right with this surge, and not give a timeline. Couldn't leave it open ended. And despite many people having missed it, he did say that any drawdown of forces was conditional, just as in Iraq. If the country is still a mess, it doesnt happen. The idea that giving this timeline was political, in all the ways it is more likely to not happen, is insane. Has nothing to do with politics.

Understand, that just this year, is the first time the military has felt itself being anywhere near a proper footing. Yes, its sucks that this far in, we are finally feeling we have the resources to actually do this, but it is what it is.

Some specifics from LWJ:

• The number of troops, 30,000 US soldiers and Marines plus an undetermined number of troops from NATO, is short of the 40,000 requested by General McChrystal, but close enough to what he requested to be acceptable to the military. My sources tell me this is about the maximum number that can be sustained given the current logistical constraints in Afghanistan anyway.

• Given the troop shortage, this indicates the US will depend on the tribal militias, called arbakai, to take control of areas. My sources tell me the program is having good success in Helmand and Kandahar, and in other areas as well. These units may be integrated into the police and Afghan National Army. A big question is whether this will be politically acceptable to the Karzai administration.

• The focus of the troops will be in the South and East. US/NATO Troops will largely be withdrawn from remote areas, then slowly be expanded outward to retake control of regions under Taliban control. This is reasonable from the military's standpoint, but endangers anyone in those areas who cooperated with ISAF or the Afghan government.

• There will be offensive operations to hit the Taliban in their strongholds. Marja and Bahgram in Helmand will be main targets, as will Haqqani Network bases in the East (Paktia, Paktika, and Khost). People seem to forget that a major reason the Iraqi "surge" succeeded was that US troops paired up with Iraqi forces to immediately take on al Qaeda in Iraq and allied Sunni insurgent groups, and the Mahdi Army in the "Baghdad Belts," the regions around the capital. Once these terror groups were smashed, there were sufficient Iraqi forces available to transition security. A similar effort is needed in Afghanistan, but it is unclear at the moment just how this will unfold.

**Poach** · December 02, 2009, 07:46 AM

Hopefully this increase in numbers will allow us to begin breaking the Taliban at its seams.

**hellheaven1987** · December 02, 2009, 07:51 AM

Interesting, so how Obama going to deal Iran's support of Taliban??

**Valiant Champion** · December 02, 2009, 08:33 AM

Actually if Obama is going to withdraw our troops from afganistan and write the country off a troop surge would be a good idea.

Erwin Rommel used this tactic many times in both world war 1 and 2 when having to execute a withdraw.

The technique goes like this. A powerful local attack is launched to knock the enemy off balance than you withdraw before the enemy can recover to continue his attack or pursuit giving you time to safely pull your units back.

Its pretty obvious we arent going to defeat the insurgency. Pakistan can't even beat them and they threw a huge proportion of their forces at them. We got soldiers over there who are trained to fight and not win hearts and minds. I saw some recent youtube videos where soldiers played tricks on Afgan children and adult civilians for laughs. Every time they do this they make more enemies. I even watched one where they taught an afgan soldier to say a bunch of american curse words without even knowing what he was saying.

**Katsumoto** · December 02, 2009, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Valiant Champion

I saw some recent youtube videos where soldiers played tricks on Afgan children and adult civilians for laughs. Every time they do this they make more enemies. I even watched one where they taught an afgan soldier to say a bunch of american curse words without even knowing what he was saying.

They're just having a bit of fun with the locals, if anything that would improve their relationship. I fail to see how teaching Afghans a few swear words will result in them becoming enemies.

**Valiant Champion** · December 02, 2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Katsumoto

They're just having a bit of fun with the locals, if anything that would improve their relationship. I fail to see how teaching Afghans a few swear words will result in them becoming enemies.

If this is the attitude of a soldier or a supporter of our soldiers than I rest my case.

Put yourself in their shoes and imagine America or England under foreign occupation and watching your children have pranks pulled on them by foreign soldiers. Believe me it will have a lasting impression on you and your children.

As for the swear words it may be that some religiously dedicated muslims may not believe in swearing thus it is an offense to them if they are tricked into swearing in an unknown language.

**B5C** · December 02, 2009, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Valiant Champion

Actually if Obama is going to withdraw our troops from afganistan and write the country off a troop surge would be a good idea.

Erwin Rommel used this tactic many times in both world war 1 and 2 when having to execute a withdraw.

The technique goes like this. A powerful local attack is launched to knock the enemy off balance than you withdraw before the enemy can recover to continue his attack or pursuit giving you time to safely pull your units back.

Not bad idea, but Rommel never told the allies the date he was withdrawing.

**Farnan** · December 02, 2009, 08:34 AM

Pakistan doesn't want to beat them. Big difference.

**hellheaven1987** · December 02, 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Future Redleg Officer

Pakistan doesn't want to beat them. Big difference.

Or Pakistan simply powerless to maintain the peace; remember that, Pakistan also forms by different tribes.

It seems the current situation of Afghanistan is similar as China in 1920s - tribual sensation is above anything. No woder West cannot fully understand this since Europe was out of this phase for 200 years, and US never even experiences such bazard political situation.

**Farnan** · December 02, 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

Or Pakistan simply powerless to maintain the peace; remember that, Pakistan also forms by different tribes.

No it wasn't. Has multiple ethnic groups, but Punjabis and Sindhs haven't been tribal in centuries. Pashtuns and Balochs are on the coast but they aren't everyone, or even the majority.

And Pakistani Intelligence protects Mullah Omar. Seeing that shows they don't have a desire to crush the Taliban.

**Katsumoto** · December 02, 2009, 08:54 AM

What pranks? I havent heard of any tricks pulled on children, please share what you know.

Oh and please, you would know you were being taught something rude if the guys telling you what to say started laughing every time you spoke. They are Afghans, not retards.

**~~The Devil's Sergeant~~** · December 02, 2009, 10:38 AM

What the hell is up with his pronounciation of Taliban and Pakistan? Is he trying to sound smart?

**Mikelus Trento** · December 02, 2009, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by The Devil's Sergeant

What the hell is up with his pronounciation of Taliban and Pakistan? Is he trying to sound smart?

roflmao

Other than that you agreed?

**Gaidin** · December 02, 2009, 03:41 PM

How did he pronounce them?

**~~BlackPirate~~** · December 02, 2009, 04:32 PM

Pakistan has lost since 2004 around 3000 soldiers fighting Taliban.It is not a matter of will but a matter of capability.Taliban have strong and powerfull friends in North Pakistan.You cannot beat them instantly.Remember though how situation had deteriorated in April when Taliban moved only 90 km from Pakistani capital and how now they are cornered in Waziristan and some other rural areas.To me its a proof that Pakistan wants to defeat them but its a plan that needs time.As for Iran i am not convinced they help Taliban.Perhaps they give some assistance but 99% of the help still comes from Pakistan

**Heinz Guderian** · December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM

the thing i dont understand is when Pakistan started pushing into Waziristan on their side of the border, the Americans started withdrawing from outposts on the Afghan side of the border and concentrating on the main urban centres. Surely this is gonna allow them (the "brave Taliban" to quote s.rwitt)to stroll into A-Stan and recoup before going back into Pakistan.