Should Obama heed Gorbachev’s advice on Afghanistan and prepare to withdraw troops?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev who has "been there, done that" when it comes to Afghanistan says that instead of sending more troops, President Obama should prepare to withdraw U.S. forces. It's advice Mr. Obama may want to consider as he weighs sending up to 40,000 additional troops into that eight year old war.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/09/art.gorbachev.jpg caption="Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev ."]
You see, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan in 1979. A decade later, they picked up their toys and went home after intense opposition from Afghan fighters, backed by the U.S. and Pakistan.
13,000 Soviet soldiers - and more than a million Afghans - died during those 10 years. At the time that Gorbachev withdrew his forces - he called the occupation of Afghanistan a "bleeding wound."
Gorbachev now says the Soviets talked about sending more troops back then - but decided against it. Instead, he says they chose to work on domestic development in Afghanistan and promoting reconciliation between the various factions in the country.
Gorbachev acknowledges that terrorism can't be ignored... but that the overall emphasis should be on dialogue and ultimately a withdrawal of troops.
Meanwhile President Obama has been holding meetings for over a month now with top military and foreign policy advisers about what to do next in Afghanistan. Maybe some day he'll make up his mind.
Last month was the deadliest in the eight year war for U.S. troops.
Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama heed former Soviet Pres. Gorbachev’s advice on Afghanistan and prepare to withdraw U.S. troops?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should U.S. put faith in Afghan Pres. Hamid Karzai?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As President Obama weighs whether to send as many as 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan - the government we're supporting over there continues to become more of a joke. President Hamid Karzai has been declared the winner in the disputed election; after his chief challenger Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the runoff that would have happened Saturday.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/03/art.karzai.jpg caption="Afghan President Hamid Karzai addresses a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul."]
Abdullah was calling for the resignations of top election officials to avoid the kind of fraud that happened in the first election. Didn't happen.
Faced with a transparently phony situation, President Obama is calling for "a new chapter" of improved governance in Afghanistan now that Karzai's re-election is complete. He really doesn't have much of a choice.
Mr. Obama says that Karzai has to take on the rampant corruption and drug trade - which he hasn't done so far and has helped the Taliban make its comeback.
Fat chance... maybe Karzai's brother - a suspected player in Afghanistan's illegal opium business and also suspected of rigging those August elections - could head up the Afghan Ethics Committee.
With each new development our presence in Afghanistan looks more and more futile. And it's no surprise that Afghan political experts along with regular citizens there say the elections have undermined the people's faith in democracy.
Meanwhile President Karzai vows that he will stamp out corruption and work with the Taliban. But even the Taliban isn't buying that - calling the election a fraud manufactured by Washington. Just what we need as our troops continue to die in that godforsaken place and more of them could be going there soon.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. place its faith in Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan?
An Afghan opium farmer stands next to his poppy field in southwest Afghanistan. U.S. Marines based there are battling a Taliban insurgency funded in large part by the drug export trade. (PHOTO CREDIT: John Moore/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As U.S. troops suffer the deadliest month so far in the war in Afghanistan, it seems worth asking exactly what our strategy is.
Turns out the U.S. is now set to pay Taliban fighters to switch sides and stop killing our troops. Supporters say the buyout idea is meant to separate local Taliban from their leaders,which is similar to a program used to win over insurgents in Iraq.
Many of these fighters owe no particular allegiance to the Taliban, but rather support them for a paycheck and because there is no other way for them to support their families.
But experts say that although the program may have some success, the U.S. is ultimately buying a "very temporary allegiance." You don't have to be an expert to figure that out.
Speaking of payments, The New York Times reported yesterday that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a suspected major player in the country's drug trade - and has been on the CIA payroll for eight years.
This makes no sense. U.S. officials talk about how Afghanistan's opium trade threatens the stability of the country, pays for the Taliban fighters' war effort against us, and corrupts government officials.
Ahmed Wali Karzai denies that he has anything to do with drug trade, and says he doesn't take payments from the CIA. I think I will choose to believe The New York Times.
Officials also say there's evidence that the president's brother helped create hundreds of thousands of phony ballots and set up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations for the August election.
If it's true, no wonder Harmid Karzai won; and if this stuff doesn't make you scratch your head, it should.
Here’s my question to you: What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's the right strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blowing up in President Obama's face at the same time. This month has become the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Two insurgent attacks there have killed eight more U.S. troops, bringing the October death toll to 58. This follows two helicopter crashes yesterday that killed 14 Americans.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/27/art.baghdad.jpg caption="An Iraqi woman and her two little boys survey the damage after a suicide truck bomb struck in central Baghdad over the weekend. The near-simultaneous twin suicide vehicle bomb attacks were the deadliest in the violence-wracked country in over two years."]
President Obama is trying to decide whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He is scheduled to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday.
Here's something else for the president to consider: A foreign service officer and former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq has become the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan.
Matthew Hoh says he no longer knows why we're fighting; and he thinks the U.S. is asking its troops to die for what is a far-off civil war.
As for Iraq - those two weekend bombings in Baghdad killed at least 155 people, including 20 children, and wounded more than 500 others. Al Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for these attacks - the deadliest in that country in more than two years.
The bombing of government buildings in Iraq raises some serious questions about Iraq's security and the national elections planned for January. Earlier this week - President Obama repeated America's commitment to withdrawing our troops.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, what's the right strategy?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
White House says leaving Afghanistan is not an option. What are U.S.'s options?
A U.S. Marine points his rifle at Afghan men ordered to raise their arms to show they're not carrying explosives in Farah Province, southern Afghanistan. (PHOTO CREDIT: DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Tomorrow marks eight years since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.
Eight years and 865 U.S. troops killed - and the Obama administration now says leaving is not an option. With both violence and troop deaths on the rise - this White House is caught up in a rather public discussion about what to do next.
They're playing down reports of divisions over strategy among members of the administration; but some of these disagreements seem hard to ignore. The top U.S. commander, Stanley McChrystal, has made no secret of his opinion that more troops are needed - perhaps as many as 40,000 - or else the mission will fail.
Others - like V.P. Joe BIden - want fewer U.S. troops targeting only al Qaeda, along with more training of Afghan troops and increasing Predator drone strikes.
McChrystal has said this approach would lead to "Chaos-istan" and that he wouldn't support it. So much for everyone being on the same page. It's no wonder Defense Sec. Robert Gates is calling on all military and civilian leaders to keep their advice to the president private...
Meanwhile, President Obama has said he needs time to meet with advisers to figure out the best way forward... and today he's talking with a group of bipartisan congressional leaders to get their opinions.
As for the American people - it doesn't seem like there's much of an appetite for this conflict. A recent poll shows support for the war in Afghanistan hit a new low of 39-percent.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan, the White House says leaving is not an option. What are America's options?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Fair to troops in Afghanistan for Obama to delay decision?
(PHOTO CREDIT: DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
This is just wrong. The White House says it will take President Obama several weeks to decide on the future course of action in Afghanistan... but U.S. troops on the ground need help now.
Consider this - 43 troops have died in Afghanistan in the month since General Stanley McChrystal asked for more troops - saying without them the operation will fail.
In fact - September was the deadliest month for American troops since the war began 8 years ago. That's eight years ago, in case you've lost track. And compared to 2 years ago - the number of U.S. troops killed by roadside bombs is up 400 percent.
President Obama's decision is being complicated by the fact that his own people can't agree on what to do next... Top military commanders back the call for more troops. McChrystal is believed to want to add up to 40,000 troops to the current U.S. force of 68,000.
But other key officials, like the national security adviser and the vice president appear to be less supportive. Of course they're not fighting the war. The generals are.
There is an old expression about either doing something or getting off the pot that applies here. Either get our troops the reinforcements the commanders say they need to win or get them the hell out of there.
Maybe President Obama should have stayed home and focused on the war instead of trekking off to Europe on a taxpayer-funded mini-holiday to lobby for Chicago to get the Olympics.
Here’s my question to you: Is it fair to the troops on the ground in Afghanistan for Pres. Obama to delay his decision for weeks?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Commanders: Failure in Afghanistan without more troops
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan are about to force President Obama to do something he doesn't want to do - make a decision. The day of reckoning has been coming for a while now - as the U.S. death toll continues to rise, the Taliban strengthen their hold on ever-increasing parts of the country, and the effectiveness of the Karzai government when it comes to troops and security remains very much in doubt.
History suggests Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack. And to think you can do it on the cheap with limited budgets and a limited number of troops is just plain ludicrous.
In effect - the White House is being told by the people fighting the war: either come up with a strategy that has a chance of working and commit enough troops to make it happen - or resign yourself to the same failure that all foreign invaders of Afghanistan have ultimately come face-to-face with.
It's time for the administration to stop equivocating. First we heard a decision on troops is "weeks and weeks" away, then we were told there were no plans for additional troops for Afghanistan.
But the people fighting the war say without them - there are no plans for victory either.
Since World War II - we have failed to achieve victory in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq... And the polls indicate the American people are not eager to commit the resources that might be necessary to win this one either.
Here’s my question to you: What should President Obama do when commanders are saying the mission in Afghanistan will fail without more troops?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should U.S. send more troops to Afghanistan?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
You knew this was coming… the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says it will probably take more U.S. troops to win the war in Afghanistan. Can you spell "surge"?
Admiral Mike Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that he doesn't know how many more troops are needed, but "it's very clear to me that we will need more resources" to carry out President Obama's plan to fight the Taliban.
Top Democrats have already said they're opposed to sending more troops. Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin says the U.S. should first be sure that Afghan security forces are trained and deployed.
But Republicans say that the U.S. could repeat the mistakes made in Iraq by not committing enough troops. Senator John McCain says, "I've seen that movie before."
The Obama administration has been kind of vague about what happens next, which may be so they can buy time for other priorities like health care. They say no decision on troops is expected "for weeks and weeks."
In the meantime, the troops that are there are being killed at a greater rate than ever before and could no doubt use the help. 51 U.S. troops died there last month - more than in any month since the war started.
At home - public support for this war, which will soon enter its ninth year, is fading fast. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows only 39-percent of Americans favor the war - the lowest percentage ever. The number is down from 53-percent as recently as April.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. send more troops to Afghanistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Time to declare war in Afghanistan a lost cause?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
More bad news about the war in Afghanistan. Military commanders say they don't have enough troops and warn that the Taliban is getting stronger and even gaining the upper hand in several parts of country. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, says, "It's serious and it's deteriorating."
Case in point, last week's election, which was only the second in the nation's history. The ballots are still being counted, results are expected tomorrow, but we already know voter turnout was low amid threats of violence. There are reports of voters' fingers being cut off. More than 200 complaints have been filed with The Election Complaints Commission, and one of the candidates is alleging fraud.
History shows a long list of failed foreign incursions into Afghanistan. So the U.S. may be taking a spot behind the Greeks, the British, and the Russians, who have all come before them-and left defeated.
For now, the Obama Administration is waiting for a new report on the situation (due out in two weeks) from the top commander in the region. Regardless of what it says, troop levels by the end of this year are on track to be double the number there at the end of last year.
In March, President Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into Afghanistan, but all indications are it's not nearly enough. Meanwhile, public support here at home for a war that is going on eight years is hardly increasing.
Here’s my question to you: Is it time to declare the war in Afghanistan a lost cause and get out?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
"A few years" in combat in Afghanistan?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/14/jc.08.14.war.jpg caption=" The U.S. will soon be entering the 9th year since the invasion of Afghanistan, but the war could be far from over."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. will soon be entering the 9th year since the invasion of Afghanistan, but the war could be far from over.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says it will take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, and larger scale success will take even longer.
Gates describes how long U.S. troops will be in the country as a "mystery" – saying there are too many variables to predict.
Variables like the Taliban – which are in control of more and more of the country. This means insurgent attacks are up. Last month, 49 coalition troops were killed in bomb attacks, up from 8 during the same time last year.
Some think more troops are the answer: There are now 62,000 U.S. troops there – with another 6,000 on the way. Gates says the top commander in Afghanistan won't be asking for more troops right now, but some expect him to eventually ask for another 10,000 troops.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $220 billion on Afghanistan since 2001 – and is now spending about $4 billion a month.
But that still may not be enough. A new Senate report paints a grim picture of the security situation in Afghanistan and makes clear that the U.S. needs to send more troops and civilians. Officials tell Senate investigators that progress in Afghanistan "if it comes" would be "incremental", talking about anywhere from 2 to 10 years.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Should the United States spend a "few years" in combat in Afghanistan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
FULL POST
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments