This blog is a place for us to give our Analysis and Opinions on important topics related to civics, government and politics.
Analysis is a clinical interpretation of items, issues, ideas, or events and an explanation of their impact on the future (i.e. something you think is going to happen).
Opinion is composed of your reactions, feelings, and beliefs on items, issues, ideas or events (i.e. something you would like to happen). Even though they are your opinions, they should be based in fact.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Analysis: What will the policy decision be regarding a new strategic plan in Afghanistan?
I think that if we want to win the war in Afghanistan we need to send more troops, but now that Obama has one the Nobel Peace Prize I don't believe he is going to consent to McChrystal's plan. I think he has no choice but to choose the peaceful option and "accelerate reconciliation with Taliban leaders and warlords."
Sending more troops to Afghanistan is almost the only option at this point for the United States. It is becoming obviously more apparent that withdrawing troops from the chaotic region would be like removing the parents from the Cheaper by the Dozen family; it would only lead to more turmoil with no "voice of reason," more or less, to help stay the course. I disagree that President Obama would not consent to sending more troops, because deep down--contrary to some of my other opinions--I do believe he has some common sense which tells him that if there's a fire, don't just sit and wait for it to put itself out. President Obama will do the right thing and send more troops to Afghanistan, even if he resents this resending.
As President Obama said, "The natural inclination is that if I have more I can do more, but the first question is, are we doing the right thing". The U.S entered the war in Afghanistan to go after al Qaeda. The U.S may have changed the Afghanistan government, but that was not the intended target. The only reason that 21,000 were sent in was to protect the election in Afghanistan so that they can control their own country. Despite the U.S's alleged "world protector" occupation, a withdrawl of troops will be put in place. The U.S does not need to control the Afghanistan government and therefore does not need to send in more troops. Though one may argue that upholding their government is fighting terrorism by repelling tyrannic leaders, we as a nation must respect the democratic process and let the nation take its own direction. With that in mind, policy will be towards a peaceful reconciliation and troops will be withdrawn. The Afghanistan war is a black hole towards the U.S and its economy. If the U.S does continue fighting, policy will be changed so that resources are not wasted on secondary objectives, and the battle against al Qaeda will once again become the top priority.
The Defense Council seems to be fairly confident that they can achieve what they're trying to do. More troops are needed, if that doesn't happen, we could risk losing our precious hold. This would come with a hefty soft power loss, which wouldn't be good, at all. The only way to maintain American hegemony is to send in the troops, congress probably knows this, and this is the decision they'll most likely make.
There really isn't that option for a peaceful removal of troops, it's simple, America must maintain influence. If it's perceived that we lost in Afghanistan, our status as a nation is weakened. No, what we must do is finish the fight.
At this point it isn't about winning or losing. Americans need to put their misplaced sense of nationalistic pride behind them. I do not believe it is possible to win a war because you lose by being involved in one in the first place. I want to see Obama earn that Nobel Peace Prize and get the troops out of Afghanistan. Obama has done nothing to deserve that award except present ideas. How about you start acting on your promises? America should not be the policeman for the whole world. It presents itself as a beacon for freedom and independence, but then forces other countries to rely on it. The Afghan people need to be the ones regaining power, not America. I respectfully *cough* disagree with klinka. Our status as a nation should not come between the lives of our soldiers and the Afghan people. I say bring them home. Or the American government will be headed for another Viet Nam. We already lost. It's not worth it to continue to destroy an area to save our reputation.
I definitely agree that Obama's recognition as a Nobel Peace Prize winner has the potential to affect the outcome of this decision. The issue will be whether peace will be established with not sending more troops, or with preventing the far from peaceful activities of al Qaeda and the Taliban. For the time being, I think Obama will try to balance both of these prospects by employing the "hybrid strategy" without sending more troops
In order to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to send more troops into battle. With the recent award given to president Obama, the nobel peace prize, I don't believe that he is going to agree McChrystal's plan. He has no choice now but to defend his award and try to come to reason with the Taliban officials.
"There really isn't that option for a peaceful removal of troops, it's simple, America must maintain influence. If it's perceived that we lost in Afghanistan, our status as a nation is weakened."
This is the stock arrogant conservative post. War, war, war. Losing a war in sense of words is irrelevant. Patriotism is also irrelevant (since we already have Christianity to trick our citizens to thinking they'll be transported to an afterlife after they die for their country). There's no reason to be patriotic anyways, we're still a 3rd world country as far as the industrialized world is concerened; War being our first reaction to our irrational fears(Iraq, war on drugs, etc), not socializing medicine, prostitution and safe (and somtimes NECESSARY for medication) drug illegalization, and our overblown religious-ness.
If we throw in 40,000 (now they're suggesting possibly more) more troops then we are sealing our fate to be heavily invested with money and American lives in Afghanistan for at least another 50years. What our goal should be is to stabalize the country whilst uniting all factions against Al Qaeda so THEY can mop them up, which is what the voice of reason has been saying all along.
I'm not sure what Obama's take will be on the strategic plan in Afghanistan because of his Nobel Peace Prize, but I do agree that it will effect his descision in some way, and he might have to take the alternative plan being negotiated in consideration. However, I don't think that will be the right choice. It's idealistic to say we're going to pull the troops from a part of the world where a conflict has been occuring for such a long time. I think it would be Peace Prize worthy if Obama actually did come to reason with Taliban officials, however considering they aren't very reasonable people, I find this highly unlikely.
The need for more troops is evident. Even though it may be against what he wants or against his image after winning the award, President Obama needs to strongly consider the option of more troops. Sometimes in need, the president needs to do what is best for the country even if it isn't exactly what he wants to do. More troops will hopefully ensure less time that we will have to be there overall.
I am in agreement with Pminor. Eventhough he is against sending more troops, it would be more beneficial in the long run.He will most likely send more troops to help because it is what is needed.
In my oppinion, there is no easy way to totally remove the troops for Afghanistan. Even though many people don't believe this is the right option;I think sending more troops is the only way to sucessfully end the war.
I am not sure how Obama will stand on this issue. If he wants to reamin true to his promises that won him the presidency, then yes he will send more troops in. However, I personally belive there is no need for more troops now. We have spent the last eight years in Afghanistan and have yet to reach our goal of going there in the first place. I think Obama doesn't want to pull troops out because it would be another Vietnam. But in the long run, if more troops were to be going there, it would be wasting American lives, and money.
I believe President Obama will choose the "hybrid" policy. This gives a specific time line of one year to accomplish what the need. I think this will be chosen because it also entails keeping U.S. military there to ensure that there is no possibility of al Qaeda returning. Over 100,000 troops are already directly involved and I believe President Obama realizes how large this amount of people really is and that this war has been going on for over 8 years now and something needs to change. Obviously, the previous plan has not been working so well, so trying something new seems to be a viable option.
I agree with nsomers that the nobel peace prize will keep Obama from sending more troops to Afghanistan, now that the US has been recognized as a peacekeeping organization. sending more troops would contradict with President Obama's original plan to exit the war in the middle east, but to please the republicans, he will send more troops and go with a hybrid policy, meaning this may be our last year in the middle east.
I agree with jmarczewski about that president Obama is not just going to sit back and wait for things to fix themselves. Things that are as big as the war in Afghanistan are things that need to be addressed right away, and i believe that by sending more troops to Afghanistan, that it will help to make the war end faster than it would rather than if Obama just sat back and did nothing. Sending more troops means more equipment and fresh troops. Ones that aren't as worn out as the ones that have been there for awhile. So i believe that Obama will eventually cave in and agree to send more troops into Afghanistan.
I believe the troops who are in Afghanistan wouldn't be happy to hear they're own president won't send in more troops to thelp them out. Sending more troops to Afghanistan is the only way to "win" the war. I don't see a direct way to win but there are ways to help our troops who are currently stationed in Afghanistan. I hope Obama see's this and sends more troops to assist our troops.
I agree that a hybrid policy is a possible answer for Obama. It is the only logical way for him to keep his image after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, while being productive
It sounds like Obama will be sending more troops over to Afghanistan. He is said to adress the public this coming Tuesday and it is going to cost our country billions. I think that other countries should aid us in fighting this war. It is a war to end terrorism that would benefit not only our country but other countries as well.
20 comments:
I think that if we want to win the war in Afghanistan we need to send more troops, but now that Obama has one the Nobel Peace Prize I don't believe he is going to consent to McChrystal's plan. I think he has no choice but to choose the peaceful option and "accelerate reconciliation with Taliban leaders and warlords."
Sending more troops to Afghanistan is almost the only option at this point for the United States. It is becoming obviously more apparent that withdrawing troops from the chaotic region would be like removing the parents from the Cheaper by the Dozen family; it would only lead to more turmoil with no "voice of reason," more or less, to help stay the course. I disagree that President Obama would not consent to sending more troops, because deep down--contrary to some of my other opinions--I do believe he has some common sense which tells him that if there's a fire, don't just sit and wait for it to put itself out. President Obama will do the right thing and send more troops to Afghanistan, even if he resents this resending.
As President Obama said, "The natural inclination is that if I have more I can do more, but the first question is, are we doing the right thing". The U.S entered the war in Afghanistan to go after al Qaeda. The U.S may have changed the Afghanistan government, but that was not the intended target. The only reason that 21,000 were sent in was to protect the election in Afghanistan so that they can control their own country. Despite the U.S's alleged "world protector" occupation, a withdrawl of troops will be put in place. The U.S does not need to control the Afghanistan government and therefore does not need to send in more troops. Though one may argue that upholding their government is fighting terrorism by repelling tyrannic leaders, we as a nation must respect the democratic process and let the nation take its own direction.
With that in mind, policy will be towards a peaceful reconciliation and troops will be withdrawn. The Afghanistan war is a black hole towards the U.S and its economy. If the U.S does continue fighting, policy will be changed so that resources are not wasted on secondary objectives, and the battle against al Qaeda will once again become the top priority.
The Defense Council seems to be fairly confident that they can achieve what they're trying to do. More troops are needed, if that doesn't happen, we could risk losing our precious hold. This would come with a hefty soft power loss, which wouldn't be good, at all. The only way to maintain American hegemony is to send in the troops, congress probably knows this, and this is the decision they'll most likely make.
There really isn't that option for a peaceful removal of troops, it's simple, America must maintain influence. If it's perceived that we lost in Afghanistan, our status as a nation is weakened. No, what we must do is finish the fight.
At this point it isn't about winning or losing. Americans need to put their misplaced sense of nationalistic pride behind them. I do not believe it is possible to win a war because you lose by being involved in one in the first place. I want to see Obama earn that Nobel Peace Prize and get the troops out of Afghanistan. Obama has done nothing to deserve that award except present ideas. How about you start acting on your promises?
America should not be the policeman for the whole world. It presents itself as a beacon for freedom and independence, but then forces other countries to rely on it. The Afghan people need to be the ones regaining power, not America.
I respectfully *cough* disagree with klinka. Our status as a nation should not come between the lives of our soldiers and the Afghan people. I say bring them home. Or the American government will be headed for another Viet Nam.
We already lost. It's not worth it to continue to destroy an area to save our reputation.
I definitely agree that Obama's recognition as a Nobel Peace Prize winner has the potential to affect the outcome of this decision. The issue will be whether peace will be established with not sending more troops, or with preventing the far from peaceful activities of al Qaeda and the Taliban. For the time being, I think Obama will try to balance both of these prospects by employing the "hybrid strategy" without sending more troops
In order to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to send more troops into battle. With the recent award given to president Obama, the nobel peace prize, I don't believe that he is going to agree McChrystal's plan. He has no choice now but to defend his award and try to come to reason with the Taliban officials.
"There really isn't that option for a peaceful removal of troops, it's simple, America must maintain influence. If it's perceived that we lost in Afghanistan, our status as a nation is weakened."
This is the stock arrogant conservative post. War, war, war. Losing a war in sense of words is irrelevant. Patriotism is also irrelevant (since we already have Christianity to trick our citizens to thinking they'll be transported to an afterlife after they die for their country). There's no reason to be patriotic anyways, we're still a 3rd world country as far as the industrialized world is concerened; War being our first reaction to our irrational fears(Iraq, war on drugs, etc), not socializing medicine, prostitution and safe (and somtimes NECESSARY for medication) drug illegalization, and our overblown religious-ness.
If we throw in 40,000 (now they're suggesting possibly more) more troops then we are sealing our fate to be heavily invested with money and American lives in Afghanistan for at least another 50years. What our goal should be is to stabalize the country whilst uniting all factions against Al Qaeda so THEY can mop them up, which is what the voice of reason has been saying all along.
I'm not sure what Obama's take will be on the strategic plan in Afghanistan because of his Nobel Peace Prize, but I do agree that it will effect his descision in some way, and he might have to take the alternative plan being negotiated in consideration. However, I don't think that will be the right choice. It's idealistic to say we're going to pull the troops from a part of the world where a conflict has been occuring for such a long time. I think it would be Peace Prize worthy if Obama actually did come to reason with Taliban officials, however considering they aren't very reasonable people, I find this highly unlikely.
The need for more troops is evident. Even though it may be against what he wants or against his image after winning the award, President Obama needs to strongly consider the option of more troops. Sometimes in need, the president needs to do what is best for the country even if it isn't exactly what he wants to do.
More troops will hopefully ensure less time that we will have to be there overall.
I am in agreement with Pminor. Eventhough he is against sending more troops, it would be more beneficial in the long run.He will most likely send more troops to help because it is what is needed.
In my oppinion, there is no easy way to totally remove the troops for Afghanistan. Even though many people don't believe this is the right option;I think sending more troops is the only way to sucessfully end the war.
I am not sure how Obama will stand on this issue. If he wants to reamin true to his promises that won him the presidency, then yes he will send more troops in. However, I personally belive there is no need for more troops now. We have spent the last eight years in Afghanistan and have yet to reach our goal of going there in the first place. I think Obama doesn't want to pull troops out because it would be another Vietnam. But in the long run, if more troops were to be going there, it would be wasting American lives, and money.
I believe President Obama will choose the "hybrid" policy. This gives a specific time line of one year to accomplish what the need. I think this will be chosen because it also entails keeping U.S. military there to ensure that there is no possibility of al Qaeda returning. Over 100,000 troops are already directly involved and I believe President Obama realizes how large this amount of people really is and that this war has been going on for over 8 years now and something needs to change. Obviously, the previous plan has not been working so well, so trying something new seems to be a viable option.
I agree with nsomers that the nobel peace prize will keep Obama from sending more troops to Afghanistan, now that the US has been recognized as a peacekeeping organization. sending more troops would contradict with President Obama's original plan to exit the war in the middle east, but to please the republicans, he will send more troops and go with a hybrid policy, meaning this may be our last year in the middle east.
I agree with jmarczewski about that president Obama is not just going to sit back and wait for things to fix themselves. Things that are as big as the war in Afghanistan are things that need to be addressed right away, and i believe that by sending more troops to Afghanistan, that it will help to make the war end faster than it would rather than if Obama just sat back and did nothing. Sending more troops means more equipment and fresh troops. Ones that aren't as worn out as the ones that have been there for awhile. So i believe that Obama will eventually cave in and agree to send more troops into Afghanistan.
I believe the troops who are in Afghanistan wouldn't be happy to hear they're own president won't send in more troops to thelp them out. Sending more troops to Afghanistan is the only way to "win" the war. I don't see a direct way to win but there are ways to help our troops who are currently stationed in Afghanistan. I hope Obama see's this and sends more troops to assist our troops.
I agree that a hybrid policy is a possible answer for Obama. It is the only logical way for him to keep his image after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, while being productive
It sounds like Obama will be sending more troops over to Afghanistan. He is said to adress the public this coming Tuesday and it is going to cost our country billions. I think that other countries should aid us in fighting this war. It is a war to end terrorism that would benefit not only our country but other countries as well.
Post a Comment