Afghan Strategy Poses Stiff Challenge For Obama

New York Times:

WASHINGTON - One of the most difficult challenges President-elect Barack Obama's national security team faces is Mr. Obama's vow to send thousands of American troops to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[Ray46]

Afghanistan is a money pit.
It bankrupted the Soviet Union.
It might bankrupt the U.S. if we are not careful and continue on with no exit strategy.
Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world will gladly continue to send fighters to Afghanistan well into the next century.

[VictorLudorum]

Everything new for Strongman Barakobama !

Ronald M Reagan invited the then Afgan Mujahedeen Leaders to The US White House drawing room and it worked ,the chaps had authentic look on them ..They are all in the feild [Government of Afganistan while only perhaps Hekmetyar is outside and major Taliban Partners who joined after they had made deal with Pakistan are ready to join a Ittehad .,and will 'greedily' take a invitation to the us white house again to contract to wack the advertiser hero Osama and Taliban away from the Afganistan.

The NWFP and Forbidden Territories [Ilaqa Ghair] are sending itys regards and freindship to Barakobama,consider!

There is no international policy but Globalisation and labor is more paying then enlistments to Afgans.
The Bordering crisises have been painted similiarily but there are official issues like the baku pipline that should be let from Kazakhstan to Europe.

The Bombay incident has proved a lot ,so its no use trying to investigate what the ministeries are thinking of economic political humilities but there is this point that taliban were of no moral ethical help to islam for the four years they ruled!

[ema]

Americans are deceived that this is going to be "cake" just like they were with Iraq. Mission Accomplished -- remember that one?

[Stirner]

WHY we are sunk into that bloody cesspool? Perhaps AIPAC can give an answer.

[CologneCitizen]

Unless you can define a realistic goal and strategy for Afghanistan it is useless making a move. America's foreign diplomacy in this part of the world is pouring tons of money to corrupt regimes and hoping they pay back in good will, or leave you alone when you go after their resources. Obama has a fresh start and we will see if he does stand for change. Pulling troops from Iraq to Aghanistan will not be a solution. If the media in the USA would be more informative instead of pure propaganda, your people would get the chance to see the world as it is and not how America projcets it at home. There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan for you. A good start IMO would be to close most foreign bases, get the troops home and concentrate on the issues inside the USA. There is no threat from a cold war anymore and terrorism cannot be fought with an army anyway. We have to realize there always was, is and will be terror and the world can stand together against it. But never again with invading a country under false pretenses.

[slowhand0728]

This is actually rather interesting, while Obama and most Americans agree getting Bin Laden is priority, it would not end there. Not even close, we may end up in Afghanistan longer than even Iraq. And just MORE troops is going to lead to more casualties. I just hope we are not asking in 2 years, WHY we are losing more lives in Afghanastan than Iraq and have nothing to show for it?

[dtwoodson8]

Nobody rocks the surge like Bush.