Comments on: That Word “Abandon”…

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:40:40 +0000

I do believe that the surge and COIN strategy for Afgha was placed in O’s desk drawer by the Bush Admin?

I don’t think so. Obama asked for a strategic review upon taking office, and the strategy and tactics grew out of that. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

And, again, if the Bush team thought it was such a great idea, why didn’t they do something about it? After all, Bush was president and all.

Above is a bit garbled! Could you clarify?

Point being, an “Iraq style Surge” would be hard considering all the extenuating circumstances that produced the positive – if possibly fleeting results – of reducing violence. Though not eliminating violence and conflict. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying each month even after the “success” of the Surge and the several other factors.

By: bb

bb — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:53:26 +0000

I do believe that the surge and COIN strategy for Afgha was placed in O’s desk drawer by the Bush Admin? And of course Bush pre-emptively appointed Petraeus to Centcom so that O wouldn’t be at risk of dithering about it.

“Also: How do we convince Moqtada al-Sadr to get the Taliban to disarm, and the Sunni Iraq tribes to convince less cohesive tribal factions in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda, and how do we benefit from prior ethnic/sectarian cleansing establishing demarcations?”

Above is a bit garbled! Could you clarify?

Also, did you read that ABC/BBC poll I posted earlier? The Afgha public opinion environment for US/UK/Nato operations is much more positive than Iraq. The Taliban have virtually no support – 6/7%.

On top of that, of course, the Pakistani govt and army has been taking to the Taliban for 9 months now. The nabbing of the Taliban 21C in conjunction with CIA very telling for the Taliban’s future prospects?

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:51:24 +0000

bb: I would have preferred a withdrawal based on a gradual timeline. If the surge is a precursor, then I can live with it. If it can inflict enough pain on the Taliban to make a power sharing agreement seem reasonable, then it would be a success of sorts. However, it is enormously expensive at a time when the US is in decline due to crumbling infrastructure, a dire employment situation, massive debt and foreign policy overreach. So, the sooner out the better.

PS: If the Bush admin recommended a surge in Afghanistan, why didn’t the Bush admin…surge in Afghanistan?

Also: How do we convince Moqtada al-Sadr to get the Taliban to disarm, and the Sunni Iraq tribes to convince less cohesive tribal factions in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda, and how do we benefit from prior ethnic/sectarian cleansing establishing demarcations?

By: Alexa

Alexa — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:44:03 +0000

we could have become a participant ourselves in Afghanistan’s post-Soviet conflict, or chosen a favored faction to participate in our stead.

By: bb

bb — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:10:56 +0000

“Little has changed in terms of the attractiveness and workability of the alternatives to what is called “abandonment” – at least in so much as “abandonment” is being used as a euphemism for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces en masse (there are means of military and non-military aid available as alternatives to wholesale abandonment).”

Eric, it would be helpful if you could be clear about your view on this question:

Should the Obama Admin be conducting a Bush admin recommended style Iraq “surge” in Afghanistan or not?