Afghanistan: More or less
Lots has been said lately on the subject, and there’s lots that hasn’t been said as well. (Political par for the course i suppose) But the matter at hand is generating a difference of opinion in advising to the President, and the public, on the decision that is requested to be made. Gen. McChristal has informed the President and his group of wise ones of the need for more troops to be deployed to Afghanistan if there is to be any forward progress towards ‘winnin’ or ending the war there against Taliban/Al-Qada… And there it began. A variable what’s what from those ‘who’s who’ that suppose they know whats what, and what’s best for us to do. I am not one of those who’s who, obviously, but I do have some response and opinion on the battery of mixed recommendations that I have heard so far.
There seems to be nothing specific as to the mission in mind for the some 40,000 troops wanted to join the fight in Afghanistan… at least none that the general public is going to get to hear about… which leaves one (specifically myself) to generalize the mission at hand as simply ‘getting it done’. I think getting it done right should be the priority… and the handful of guys under constant attack over there waiting for back up, quite frankly cannot do it alone… hell, even Afghans know that. They want us there… there want the threat from Taliban eliminated.
Some think no decision should be made by the President on sending troops until the political situation in the area is settled… until run off elections are held, or the numbers recounted, or Afghans can present some Government entity that is not contested. Some president that we can deal with durring the troop surge and fight against Taliban. “It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t had a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there’s an Afghan partner,” the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel told CNN John King
This is something that is detracting from the situation in a political direction that, in fact, is not necessarry to accomplish the goals of both the Afghan government (whatever they decide) and the US. The general notion implied was that the Afghan government needs our support prior to our sending more troops for the fight…. our troops currently there need some support… the back-up to create and carry out a sufficient strategy without the worry of constant defense mode…
What is the defense course? What is the offensive course these extra 40,000 troops will take? Specifically, what (and whom, i suppose) is the large target… Is it a fact that these troops will be the backbone of a newly directed mission? Of course it will have to be like starting from scratch… 8 years ago troops were sent, and then left hanging as our Military intentions were directed elsewhere (Iraq) for whatever reason (lets not get into that). The point is, it happened that way, and therefore those left hanging need to be supported, redirected and, yes they can accomplish the goal… set one. Do we need the ‘big guns’ and brawn or the intricate and specialized forces … or both, and who is going to be out in front of the mission? Everyone wants the answer to the ‘how long’ question… but the ‘how hard’ are we fighting blind without the extra troops?
Is this whole mission going to be like digging cat-fish out of a muddy hole? (And I am not referring to military strategy, I am referring to funding the whole deal 
C’mon Congress… is this the situation when you really want to pull that card and use that hand? Why?
And then, I think that the careful thought and considerations and advising that is going into the request for more troops is beginning to get wrapped in the red tape of opposing notions of “the plan of attack” (so to speak) … and after the hours of news I absorbed over my morning cup o’ joe caused me to some to the conclusion that, if I were deciding… I would have done it this morning in my fuzzy slippers….
Send the support, get shit on track and get it done.
Don’t send half, send the whole enchilada and just do it, dammit.
