Obama Adviser: Afghanistan In No Immediate Danger Of Falling - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There is no immediate danger of Afghanistan falling to the Taliban, National Security Adviser James Jones said Sunday. "I don't foresee the return of the Taliban," Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union." "And I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger -- imminent danger -- of falling." President Obama is overseeing a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, with his top general in that country, some other military leaders and opposition Republicans pressing him to act quickly to increase the present 68,000-troop level by up to 40,000 troops. "This is a strategic moment," Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, said of the review that included a three-hour meeting of top Cabinet officials, generals and other advisers last week. Additional meetings are planned for the coming week. In March, Obama announced a plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to provide security for a national election. That followed what Obama and others call years of under-resourcing in Afghanistan due to the previous administration's focus on Iraq. The Obama strategy was based on a counterinsurgency mission intended to both defeat terrorists based in Afghanistan while winning local support and helping with development. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took over as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan four months ago, has submitted an assessment in which he reportedly says he needs additional forces to successfully carry out the counterinsurgency strategy. Otherwise, McChrystal reportedly warns, the mission could fail, bringing a return of power to the Taliban. Obama has yet to respond to McChrystal's report, prompting opponents to accuse him of indecisiveness and playing politics that put U.S. troops at risk. Eight American troops and two Afghan security force members were killed Saturday when militants opened fire on an outpost with rockets, mortars and heavy-caliber machine guns, according to an initial U.S. military report on the battle. It was the largest number of Americans killed by hostile action in a single day in Afghanistan since July 13, 2008, according to CNN records. Republicans said Sunday that Obama needs to quickly agree to McChrystal's request to salvage the mission. "If we don't add more troops, you're going to see more of what happened yesterday," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on "Fox News Sunday." "The security situation's going to get worse. And any hope of better governance is lost, and the Taliban will re-emerge." Jones, on the CNN program, cited three developments since March that led the White House to reconsider its overall Afghanistan strategy: questions about the legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai's election victory; the conclusion by McChrystal that the Taliban is stronger than previously thought; and neighboring Pakistan's improved efforts to change the overall dynamic of the border region. "The key in Afghanistan is to have a triad of things happen simultaneously," Jones said, listing improved security, economic development and "good governance and the rule of law." He said the Karzai government "is going to have to pitch in and do much better than they have" to improve the governance situation after elections widely considered tainted by vote fraud in some areas. Both Jones and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for building up Afghanistan's police and military forces as part of overall U.S. strategy. Levin, speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," and Jones said the strategy review would provide Obama with options for how to proceed. "In the coming weeks, we will have vigorous debates. There will be alternative views presented and I'm quite sure we'll come up with the right solution," Jones said. Some in Obama's inner circle, including Vice President Joe Biden, are advocating a counterterrorism approach that focuses on combating al Qaeda through the use of unmanned drones and special forces without involving additional troops. Others, especially McChrystal, are advocating a broader counterinsurgency approach that would require a much larger U.S. military footprint in the country. "If you send troops in, we'll have a second chance at governance," Graham said on the Fox program, adding: "What we have in place now is not going to work. Gen. McChrystal tells us that. He needs reinforcements. And I hope the president will send them and let us all work together for better governance, because the Taliban are going to win if we don't change course soon." A senior U.S. military official familiar with McChrystal's thinking told CNN the general would have mentioned a counterterrorism approach in his assessment if he thought it was viable. According to the official, McChrystal has been consistent in interviews that he thinks a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy is the proper approach. "He does not support a counterterrorism strategy," the official said. "He believes counterinsurgency is the best solution." [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/04/us.afghanistan/index.html[/url] (Yes, it's not Fox this time) Jeez, one outpost gets raided and everyone starts worrying we're going to lose the whole nation.

It's kinda smart, he's trying to avoid war. What a lovin' man.

It's like vietnam all over again

[QUOTE=Latias;17667141]It's like vietnam all over again[/QUOTE] Hopefully we have learned our mistakes since then. I hope they don't pull out all of a sudden

[QUOTE=cheeseman52;17667176]Hopefully we have learned our mistakes since then. I hope they don't pull out all of a sudden[/QUOTE] They don't have to win the ground war, only the PR war.

[QUOTE=cheeseman52;17667176]Hopefully we have learned our mistakes since then. I hope they don't pull out all of a sudden[/QUOTE] Pull out all of a sudden? Do you think that Vietnam would have gone better if they had stayed in?

inb4WW3 [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme shit" - TH89))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=snuwoods;17667382]Pull out all of a sudden? Do you think that Vietnam would have gone better if they had stayed in?[/QUOTE] Could of. Truth is, we'll never know because they didn't.

"Sooo...When does a presidential adviser know more about the situation of a place he has never been to than the general leading forces there?" That's just the first question that came to mind when reading title.

[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;17667488]"Sooo...When does a presidential adviser know more about the situation of a place he has never been to than the general leading forces there?" That's just the first question that came to mind when reading title.[/QUOTE] This is true. From what I've heard, the general who's in commanding Afghanistan and Obama have barely spoken in the last few months.

[QUOTE=snuwoods;17667382]Pull out all of a sudden? Do you think that Vietnam would have gone better if they had stayed in?[/QUOTE] Well, the thing with Vietnam was, we sent in troops little at a time. Had we just sent in one big load of troops things might have been different.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17667767]Well, the thing with Vietnam was, we sent in troops little at a time. Had we just sent in one big load of troops things might have been different.[/QUOTE] Or had we not sent any troops everyone would have been happier.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17667869]Or had we not sent any troops everyone would have been happier.[/QUOTE] Except for the south Vietnamese.

[QUOTE=snuwoods;17667382]Pull out all of a sudden? Do you think that Vietnam would have gone better if they had stayed in?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that its not good to leave a job unfinished.

[img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/politics.png[/img] cool

[QUOTE=Latias;17668817][img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/politics.png[/img] cool[/QUOTE] I was bored, and I like seeing political arguements on FP. They're entertaining.

The Democratic guy in South Vietnam was corrupt as hell and people didn't like him. The terrorists are genuinely hated. These are very different situations.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17668861]I was bored, and I like seeing political arguements on FP. They're entertaining.[/QUOTE] i disagree no wait i agree no wait i don't well you all suck anyway so it doesn't matter

So there's no danger of losing the country, but we need to send tens of thousands more people and commit to many more years of war.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17667767]Well, the thing with Vietnam was, we sent in troops little at a time. Had we just sent in one big load of troops things might have been different.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't, and we weren't lax with our firepower in vietnam. It still made no difference against a determined guerrilla group that had support of the people. [editline]04:40PM[/editline] It's not going to make much of a difference here, either

Nice to see the USA trying to pull a 'Nam again. Go ahead, rate me clocks.

[QUOTE=Conscript;17678941]It wouldn't, and we weren't lax with our firepower in vietnam. It still made no difference against a determined guerrilla group that had support of the people. [editline]04:40PM[/editline] It's not going to make much of a difference here, either[/QUOTE] Do the people of Afghanistan support the Taliban?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17680428]Do the people of Afghanistan support the Taliban?[/QUOTE] No, but if we play our cards wrong then that could change quickly. You have to remember the Taliban ruled with an iron fist after the Cold War. The Vietnamese Guerrillas were made of the people.

[QUOTE=billeh!;17680471]No, but if we play our cards wrong then that could change quickly. You have to remember the Taliban ruled with an iron fist after the Cold War. The Vietnamese Guerrillas were made of the people.[/QUOTE] So the people who were massacred for supporting the US after America withdrew don't count as "the people"?

The problem with Vietnam is that we listened to our General's retarded idea of "put more troops in and it's fixed". We need an actual plan, more soldiers are just a tool for carrying out a plan. Alone they aren't worth much militarily.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17680606]So the people who were massacred for supporting the US after America withdrew don't count as "the people"?[/QUOTE] "The people" as in the majority of the Vietnamese. The people that supported America were obviously made instant enemies of because of their affiliation with our side. There's no arguing that most Vietnamese wanted us to get the hell out. In short, no, they don't. [editline]06:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;17680676]The problem with Vietnam is that we listened to our General's retarded idea of "put more troops in and it's fixed". We need an actual plan, more soldiers are just a tool for carrying out a plan. Alone they aren't worth much militarily.[/QUOTE] Yeah, in order to counter Guerrillas, you need to win the minds and hearts of the people. Our current Supreme General's really got that idea down.

[QUOTE=billeh!;17680702] Yeah, in order to counter Guerrillas, you need to win the minds and hearts of the people. Our current Supreme General's really got that idea down.[/QUOTE] You need 3 things during war, support, money, and logistics. We threw money at the war, but we never took care of getting support in the Vietnamese population, and we never quite figured out the Logistics of fighting a war against a bunch of well trained Guerrillas.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;17680676]The problem with Vietnam is that we listened to our General's retarded idea of "put more troops in and it's fixed". We need an actual plan, more soldiers are just a tool for carrying out a plan. Alone they aren't worth much militarily.[/QUOTE] I'm quite sure our large military and government organizations have come up with a better idea than merely, "Okay, move this army into this spot. Problem goes away." I doubt the generals will just have the troops "sit there", and put them to work.

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;17669478]The Democratic guy in South Vietnam was corrupt as hell and people didn't like him. The terrorists are genuinely hated. These are very different situations.[/QUOTE] I might be wrong but didn't the CIA withdraw him from office so to speak?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;17681003]I might be wrong but didn't the CIA withdraw him from office so to speak?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure either, but I thought he fled the country toward the end of the war?