"The United States is scrambling to coax NATO allies to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s strategy for the region. . . .
NATO members and other foreign allies have expressed reluctance to send more soldiers because of the Afghan war’s growing unpopularity in their countries and increasing concerns over corruption in President Hamid Karzai’s government.
The Obama administration views a substantial contribution from its allies as a way to keep the American troop increase lower and blunt domestic political criticism of the Afghan war."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/world/asia/26troops.html?hp
Worth observing:
1. Obama is unable to act regarding Afghanistan or Iran without "allies".
2. 10,000 additional allied troops probably translate into 1,000 additional field soldiers, who, in a country the size of Afghanistan, make little tactical or strategic difference.
3. What we're really seeing is an attempt to cajole U.S. allies to partake in the tomfoolery of expanding the American footprint in Afghanistan. In another year or two, Obama will explain to the U.S. electorate:
"I wasn't the only dim-wit. The entire class failed the exam."
The speech Obama will not give, but should
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175151/
I think it is pretty good!
I wonder, out of all presidential candidates we had, who could make the right decision? Was there somebody against Afghan war?
I too,question our presence in A'stan.
ReplyDeleteWhat is our mission-are we on the offensive?or is that our defensive perimeter? How can we achieve a goal with long lines of logistics,an unclear policy,when we can't defend our own borders or even the security at 1600 Pa. Ave.
The easiest security mission starts right here at home-no point of off-shore activity without that in place.