Skip to comments.Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties
Posted on 01/25/2009 11:24:43 PM PST by FocusNexus
Vice-president Biden reveals US forces will step up operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.
Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as it takes the fight to its enemies in the region.
The Obama administration is to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 and when asked in a television interview if the US public should expect more American casualties, Biden said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
And wonder what Obama's far left anti-war supporters are saying, is war OK, as long as it's under a Democrat president, was it only "immoral" when Bush was waging it, to keep us safe?
Some of them are pretty PO’d at Barry already.
This is Afghanistan, not Iraq. Afghanistan has lots of support...for now.
The one thing I think we need to keep in perspective about Obama, is that if he does the right thing we need to support him on that matter.
I heartily agree with the moves described in this article. I’m all for it. We kick the ass of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then come home.
That works for me.
Does it give you cause for reflection that Biden is the source here? LMAO
“And wonder what Obama’s far left anti-war supporters are saying, is war OK, as long as it’s under a Democrat president, was it only “immoral” when Bush was waging it, to keep us safe?”
Not only that, but why go after Afghanistan? HOW MANY AFGHANI CITIZENS WERE INVOVLVED IN 9/11???
WHY AREN’T WE GOING AFTER THE REAL GUILTY ONES???
Ohhhhhhh...I think I am going to like this next few months, while the Libs try to figure out how to explain all of this BS....
“The one thing I think we need to keep in perspective about Obama, is that if he does the right thing we need to support him on that matter.”
I agree. But that is the question, is it the right thing to pull out troops from Iraq NOW and deploy them in Afghanistan? Do our generals recommend and agree that more troops in Afghanistan will help? I have NOT heard the answers to those question. So far, all I see is Obama and Biden having decided to do this, but I don’t see any evidence that our commanders in the field think this is “the right thing”.
No can do. He’s already done too many things I don’t support. Of course I always hope and pray for the safety of the troops.
I agree, especially since the Republican party is just sitting there, trying to appeal to “moderates” and not offering any alternatives—nor, in this case, SHOULD they be.
Having said that, I will await the day when bigmouth Biden claims victory. I hope we get UBL under Obama, but it will be because of steps Bush took in Afghanistan and Obama/Biden continued, not through any initiative on their own. Thus, Bush will be vindicated even as Biden will be claiming Obama/Biden did the right thing and trying desperately to discredit Bush for what might be the only action they’ll take that deserves bipartisan support.
Just as the Berlin Wall fell after Reagan left office yet was due in part to Reagan’s actions, continuing Bush’s policies will reflect well on him, while failures will reflect on Obama—fair or not, that’s how it goes.
While Joe is probably right, there will be more American deaths in Afghanistan, people are going to have to come to realize one important thing going forward... Joe Biden speaks for NO ONE but himself!! We will see that Biden will have NO role in the Obama government so anything he says will be just Joe’s blather and hot air.
from the article:
Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.
Afghanistan’s problems are not the same as Iraq’s. Its people aren’t recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq’s fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.
The Afghan insurgency has no broad popular base and doesn’t mirror an obvious religious or ethnic fault line. It is also far more linked with Pakistani support than the Iraqi insurgency or militias were with Iran. Afghanistan needs a better president, judiciary and police force — and a Pakistani government that is not playing footsie with the Taliban.
But there is no such thing as tribe in Nuristan,” the official continued. “There is no unit above the corporate community.” The last governor was fired, but it’s not clear how much even a brilliant, honest governor could do in a place so unaccustomed to authority above the village level.
Nuristanis — who were converted from paganism to Islam only about 100 years ago — live in isolated villages in terrain that is rugged even by Afghan standards. There are no paved roads in the province, and helicopters can be shot down from above in the narrow valleys, as two U.S. military helicopters were in the last year.
So how do we bring security to Nuristan? Is bringing in thousands of American troops the answer?
“No!” the official said. “It’s using Special Forces to get the bad guys who are infiltrating from Pakistan. Our enemy only attacks when they expect to win. If we have to go after them, we need the capacity to hunt them with stealth over trackless mountainsides for which our infantry, cavalry and airborne soldiers are not trained or equipped to operate.” Defeating the enemy is best accomplished by highly trained fighters who travel light.
Counterinsurgency is not one-size-fits-all. While there are best practices, they must be applied in a nuanced way. In poorly governed countries where insurgencies are likely to arise, the solution may vary from valley to valley.
It shouldn’t be hard to see that adding men, helicopters or projects is not always the solution. But then, a would-be commander in chief who announces his prescription for Afghanistan before setting foot there has a lot to learn about America’s top job.
(full article at url above)
I’m waiting for the MSM’s “5000 dead” drumbeat to start. Not that I hope that many good men will be killed, but I’m still listening for the repetitive news reports.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Every time Obama speaks he tempers his policies with: “but this is not gonna be easy...it will take time....you have to be patient......”
He will try to milk this honeymoon for all it’s worth.
I guess this will have CODE PINK seeing RED.
SAY NO TO WAR
Unless a democrat is president...
I wonder if the Obambam administration plans to keep the military fully funded, or if he thinks we can do it hobbled with one arm tied behind our backs.
I’m by no means a master strategist, but I saw real genius in the Bush Admin’s use of a stable Iraq to draw in all the insurgents from neighboring countries to fight on what had become “our turf.”
Now the fledgling Zero Admin wants to abandon the gains and stability in a situation where we pretty much call the shots and follow Al Quaeda into the mountains of Afghanistan, where their Muslim brothers kicked the Russian’s butts not so long ago.
We wouldn’t want to keep on doing something that works, now would we? Or are we running a fool’s errand on behalf of someone who wants the Afghans and Pakis engaged, but doesn’t want to do it themselves?
Did you feel the same way when Bush did the right thing?
Perhaps he feels the American people will then allow him to have everything he asks for.
Very simple. They lie, and the media supports the lie. Nuthin' to it!
I remember well that in the leadup to the Surge in Iraq all the naysayers were also predicting the same thing for Iraq , a great uptick in US casualties . Yet in fact casualties dropped precipitously and and have remained vastly lower since.
Some US Battalions and even entire Brigades doing their entire tours with almost no losses . Think of 2005 & 2006 .
Bush was so right and well advised by the likes of General David Petraeus who is , THANK GOD , still on scene and advising Mr. Obama right now. We also may conclude that all these mouthy frothing Jihadis are a bunch of cowards who use women and children as shields ,but who run and hide in the deepest hole they can find when they know we are coming for them in much greater numbers . I totally wish our President the best on this . And please bring us the head of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Sawahiri on a plate . Fill the skies with Predators !
Gets worse, he said so, and it is no surprise.
Gets better, OH MY GOD the Messiah performed a miracle.
I wonder if they will use the “V” word *now*?
That’s a valid point. It this is just a way to draw down Iraq too early I would agree that it’s a very bad idea.
Thanks for the response.
I agree with your reasoning. Thanks for the comments.
Those are all good questions to be asking. I have seen very little talk about what is actually going to take place here, or how it is going to be facilitated.
I’m not going to back something that is revealed to be a serious miscalculation, or simply a devious way to draw down Iraq prematurely. We should be asking questions. In the end, if Obama’s actions on this matter do sound reasoned, I’m not against backing his move.
This is one we’ll have to keep our eyes open and continue to watch as it unfolds no doubt.
Lori, I have backed Bushes actions in Iraq since before he took them. Any questions?
A very good article about protecting us from terrorism:
2,668 Days without an attack by Mark Thiessen
“As the new president receives his intelligence briefings, certain facts must now be apparent: Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding. During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America’s peril — and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible — and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.
Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk — until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks — including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. “
Now that Obama banned aggressive interrogations, we would NOT find out about any of these attacks in advance and don’t think the terrorists aren’t planning many more.
There may be some truth to that. I am not convinced he’ll get Osama Bin Lauden. I would like to have thought Bush did everything in his power to get him. I would not be too happy a camper if Obama wound up doing it in a few months, even if I would be happy Laden was finally brought down.
Do you do windows?
” agree, especially since the Republican party is just sitting there, trying to appeal to “moderates” and not offering any alternativesnor, in this case, SHOULD they be.”
Actually I think Republicans are trying to get their act together ( and hope they will) and they should indeed offer alternative and point out flaws in the Obama agenda.
Here is an article by clearly a Democrat complaining that Republicans may actually oppose Obama’s agenda.
from the article:
Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.”
Excellent, informative article, thanks for posting it.
Why don’t you find someone else to act childish with.
Obama will INVITE Bin Laden to the White House for diplomatic talks, guaranteeing his full safety, of course, they will have joint photo-ops and Obama will tell us, see, how much better diplomacy works.
Then within a month we’ll get attacked — what will Obama say then?
(I am being sarcastic, but I don’t think this is as far from the truth as I would like it to be)
You’re welcome, I thought it was on target.
I get this sense Obama is acting according to what the Democrat POLITICIANS want in order to make political hay—”You shouldn’t have attacked Iraq, but put all that in AFGHANISTAN”—as if one size fits all in military matters.
Bush, for all his flaws, seemed to listen to the military, and stick with their advice even when public sentiment was against it.
Oh, for cryin’ out loud! I was just joking with ya!
I would agree that if we’re talking about sending in traditional troops to do heavy battle, then perhaps the surge is not warranted. However, if the goal is to work with the people on projects and build relations with them, then more troops means more contacts and more projects that can be done jointly. I think the writer may have some good points to make, but I’m not convinced her overall conclusion is spot on.
This woman has mad ten tours of Afghanistan. She should know more than I do. I still note that leftist politicians make tours too, and they seldom get it right.
Hmm, that first question to me was a joke huh?
Look Lori, I’ve been here to long to be questioned about whether I support Bush’s efforts in Iraq or not.
What effort at humor took place after that wasn’t going to be received warmly.
Perhaps we’ll get a chance to agree on another thread.
Well, Obama has certainly set himself up for this type of speculation hasn’t he.
I know where you are coming from.
Wouldn’t it be just like the new president to let someone else do all the heavy lifting so he can swoop in and take credit for the victory. Remember this story...
I just haven't been very impressed with him in his first week. He has gotten a lot of things done, and I don't think I've agreed with any of them. And he sure isn't leading according to his "bipartisan" stuff about "listening to those who disagree with me."
I think the problem is that with President Bush, we could be 100% certain, that whatever he did, it was what he considered in the best interest in the country, NOT for political reasons, and he made those decisions based on the best available information at the time.
In case of Obama, I don’t think we can trust him to make his decisions based on what’s best for the country. If he has any concern for the country, instead of the terrorists, he would not have dismantled the interrogation techniques used on TERRORISTS PLANNING TO ATTACK US.
Obama is making this decision for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but did not tell us whether the commanders in the field are supporting it, and exactly what does it entail. I find that very suspicious, that he made his decision “for show” and to take troops out of Iraq prematurely.
Yes, I remember it. The guy is a ding bat to be sure.
Yes, you are quite right with your assessment.
I doubt we’re going to find more than a few isolated instances where we might support him. More often than not he’ll muck things up, even when we could have supported him if he had done things the right way.
It’s going to be a frustrating four years.
I don’t disagree with your take on it. The one minor difference is this.
While I do think Obama will be much more prone to do things for political gain, I do think he’ll do what he thinks is best for the nation. Now, the major problem I see there is somewhat akin to a ten year old trying to handle grown up situations. The ten year old may be trying to do the right thing with all his heart. He still won’t have the savvy to make all the decisions he would be faced with.
Obama will not have the savvy to handle all he will be faced with. He’s going to make monumental mistakes often. Obama’s moves regarding Gitmo and the other terrorist prisons and abortion have been only the first of those.
Obama is too smart by half. He’s going to destroy himself by implementing policy that he thinks is solid. The problem will be, that it isn’t at all as solid as he thinks.
Our problem is that the policy he thinks is sound and best for this nation, is extremely flawed and absolutely terrible for this nation.
I’m not convinced he’s trying to destroy this nation, as much as I am convinced this pretender is in way over his head.
This guy gives all the appearance of being a puppet. He may agree with what his puppet masters want him to do, but I don’t think he’s sharp enough to be doing this all on his own. He just doesn’t have the background experience to be able to do it on his own IMO.
No, the first question was serious.
Look Lori, Ive been here to long to be questioned about whether I support Bushs efforts in Iraq or not.
The length of time you've "been here" is irrelevant. I've run into many folks here with dates since 98, who have not been what they seem.
What effort at humor took place after that wasnt going to be received warmly.
You made your point clearly. Then you said: "Any questions?" I then responded with something I thought would lighten up the conversation. My bad. I wasn't trying to offend you. I was trying to get you to possibly chuckle a bit.
Perhaps well get a chance to agree on another thread.
Where on THIS thread did we DISagree? For heaven's sake! I asked a simple question and you answered it! I had no idea the answer would come with brass knuckles!
“This guy gives all the appearance of being a puppet. He may agree with what his puppet masters want him to do, but I don’t think he’s sharp enough to be doing this all on his own. He just doesn’t have the background experience to be able to do it on his own IMO.”
I do tend to agree with you on that.
However, I also believe that his puppet masters do NOT want what’s in the best interest of the nation.