Hillary Clinton is Dead!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And that's what may lead to failure in Afghanistan. But at least now we're delineating the problem clearly, and not looking the other way regarding Pakistan's culpability. It's a start, and certainly better than what we've been doing.

[SlowwHand]

In short, threatening the government with economic sanctions (of whatever sort) may be playing a game of chicken that the US really doesn't want to lose...

If the USA, and others, would just do and not do what they keep saying they'll do or not do, the various situations would improve tremendously.
If you say it, do it.

[Wezil]

And that's what may lead to failure in Afghanistan. But at least now we're delineating the problem clearly, and not looking the other way regarding Pakistan's culpability. It's a start, and certainly better than what we've been doing.

I agree. Facing reality is much better than the Bush policy of pretending everything was alright. The prospect of widening the war into P- is troublesome when you consider the type of warfare it is. It could be a long and painful grind for no gain.

I'll join you in hoping for the best however.

[Mon River Monarch]

A couple of ways. First, it's treating Afghansitan and Pakistan as the same problem, which they are; under Bush, we had to try to get Afghanistan sorted while pretending that Pakistan was our dear friend and trying not to upset them.

I'm not sure I totally agree that Afghanistan & Pakistan are the same problem, but I appreciate your intelligent response to my snide comment. You made some excellent points.

[Wezil]

Will the US public accept a further surge of troops to Afghanistan?

Tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers may soon be needed in Afghanistan to quell the raging Taliban insurgency, top American generals are preparing to tell President Barack Obama.

A spate of apparently deliberate leaks – seemingly aimed at preparing public opinion for a second “surge” involving as many as three or four more brigades or 20,000-plus soldiers and Marines – culminated Friday with several reports saying General Stanley McChrystal, who took command of U.S. and NATO forces in June, wants lots more troops.

The politically unpalatable news comes at the end of the bloodiest month in the bloodiest year since 2001 for U.S. and other foreign forces battling a resurgent Taliban, and on the same day the United Nations grimly warned that civilian casualties among war-weary Afghans soared this year.

As U.S. soldiers and Marines continue to pourinto Helmand and Kandahar provinces, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, Gen. McChrystal also wants a fundamental shift in strategy. Instead of the intermittent patrolling from static bases, the general, who played a major role in U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, wants small units to stay and live in Afghan villages and hamlets.

That will require vastly greater numbers of forces – both foreign and Afghan – than have been deployed since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban from power in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

But Gen. McChrystal's counter-insurgency needs may face tough political hurdles in Washington. After approving more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, Mr. Obama said, “My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops.”

However, Gen. McChrystal, sent to Afghanistan in June, was given clear marching orders to both make some quick progress in winning the war and – equally importantly – to curtail air strikes. Although tactically vital to allied troops, the few air strikes that go wrong and kill Afghan civilians – sometimes scores of them – become widely known and disproportionately damage the image of U.S. and allied forces among ordinary Afghans.

Afghanistan remains a potential quagmire for the new President.

Mr. Obama – who has made Afghanistan his war – has already nearly doubled U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan to nearly 70,000.

Coupled with more than 30,000 NATO forces – including more than 2,000 Canadians embattled in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar – there are now roughly the same number of allied foreign forces in Afghanistan as there were Soviet forces during Moscow's failed 10-year war to subjugate Afghanistan.

However, sending even more troops to Afghanistan will be a tough political sell for the President, especially as there is a stubborn perception in Congress and among ordinary Americans that many of the NATO allies are shirking the fight by keeping their troops far from the combat zones in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

Continued at link.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-military-seeks-more-troops-for-afghan-mission/article1238293/

[Tiamat]

I swear I just want to smack you every time I read this thread title for getting my hopes up!

[Dr Strangelove]

This year Pakistan's war on the Taleban has gone quite well. They've pretty much driven the Taleban out of two regions and they're making progress on a third. At this point I think we should simply give them silent support.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This year Pakistan's war on the Taleban has gone quite well. They've pretty much driven the Taleban out of two regions and they're making progress on a third. At this point I think we should simply give them silent support.

Support yes, silent no. Pakistan's war on the Taliban this year is, frankly, 6-7 years too late, and only happened because they're starting to get scared not only of the Taliban but also of the Obama administration, which (as I've said) has signaled that it has no patience for Pakistan's constant excuses and inaction. If Pakistan's shown anything, it's that it doesn't need support (it had that in buckets under Bush); it needs pressure. Thank god we're finally pressing them.

[Thoth]