Vets Not Ready to Support New Afghanistan Strategy

Vets Voice ^ | Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:41:15 | Richard Allen Smith

[BP2]

AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ VETERANS NOT READY
TO SUPPORT OBAMA STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN

Usually supportive of administration, largest progressive veterans group in America has serious questions about future of War in Afghanistan following Obama speech

WASHINGTON -- Veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not ready to support the strategy for the war in Afghanistan, laid out by President Obama this evening, saying they had serious reservations and questions about it.  The veterans of VoteVets.org, the largest progressive group of veterans in America, said that the strategy left unanswered too many questions regarding strain on the Armed Forces, and didn't address other issues that would help ensure that the entire mission wouldn't be put on the backs of the troops.

Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, "We have been supportive of every move the President has made since he was elected, and have supported an increased focus on Afghanistan since our inception, but given the serious questions that are unresolved, we aren't ready to support what he's laid out.  First and foremost, we are always concerned about the strain on the American servicemember, and this plan leaves very big questions on that issue.  We know that the President has carefully considered all the options presented to him, and doesn't take this decision lightly.  We appreciate that.  But before committing troops, he has to answer these questions."

The questions the group raised are as follows:

1. By deploying an additional 30k troops, without speeding up the departure from Iraq, our force will remain overstretched.  How does the administration reconcile this issue?  

       * The administration has promised that each servicemember will receive appropriate "Dwell Time" (as much time home as deployed) and an end to stop loss.  With the operational tempo set out by this strategy, it is hard to see how the administration can keep to that promise.

       * Additionally, will this strategy mean a return to deployments longer than 12 months?  Again, by simply shifting Iraq troops to Afghanistan, it is hard to see how deployment times don't go up again.  We've seen a record rate of suicide in the Army, linked to longer and more frequent deployments, making this a top consideration.

       * The troop increase will happen in just six months. At this rate, that doesn't match the troops coming home from Iraq. Where do these troops come from, and what does it leave to take care of any emergencies in Korea, Iran, or at home?

2. What increases in efforts can we expect from the State Department, CIA, other intelligence, diplomatic, and humanitarian arms of the US government?

         o Is there increased sacrifice from other agencies equal to what the administration is putting on the troops?  A counter-insurgency strategy, which the President has laid out, the engine of American foreign policy firing on all cylinders.  Without increasing the commitment of other branches of American foreign policy, will we continue to see troops having to serve as negotiators, diplomats, and nation builders?  They weren't trained for that, and it isn't right to place that responsibility on their shoulders.

3. Do we have a partner in Karzai, and are there guarantees that his government can be legitimized so we can leave?

         o It has become clear that the Karzai government does not have the confidence of the people because of corruption.  A trusted government is essential to any counter-insurgency strategy working, otherwise it becomes impossible to transition out.  How does this plan address corruption issues, especially as it pertains to the central government gaining the confidence of the people in a way that doesn't make it seem that it is a puppet-regime just doing what the western nations want?  If we cannot guarantee that, what does a counter-insurgency strategy really achieve that could not be done with a counter-terror strategy that relies on fewer troops?

Founded in 2006, VoteVets.org is the leading progressive, pro-military organization of veterans, dedicated to the destruction of terror networks around the world, with force when necessary. It primarily focuses on education and advocacy on issues of importance to the troops and veterans, and holding politicians accountable for their actions on these issues.

[NorthernTraveler]

Either we fight the bad guys there and tear up somebody else’s country....

or....

we fight them here and tear up our country.

Because the bad guys aren’t quitting and they hate us for our existence.

Because it is easier for them to blame US for their problems than it is to look in the mirror at the real source of their problems.

I’m a vet - long time ago - and have been in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a civilian. I have also traveled extensively in the region, gotten to know the people.

It is the way it is.

[camp_steveo]

So, you believe that implementing a surge shows that BHO is not willing to finish the job?

[camp_steveo]

haha...

No one said anything about wanting to be home with momma. sheesh...

I said “finish the job, and then bring ‘em home”.

What do you want, to stay there forever?

[Scythian]

He announced that they are leaving in 18 months, the 30k troops wont be there for another 5 months, so the Taliban just goes somewhere and kills and murders and butchers and it’s theirs in a year or so, you must be freakin’ over the the rainbow to believe the taliban is going to waste any time fighting an enemy that accounced they are leaving soon, the jig is up, we lost, by design.

[SunkenCiv]

Usually supportive of administration, largest progressive veterans group in America has serious questions about future of War in Afghanistan following Obama speech

Coupla hundred members! ;')

• Central Europe Ready To Send More Soldiers To Afghanistan
• [British] Defence Secretary: Obama's delay is hampering Afghan campaign
• Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan
• White House: Exit plan from Afghanistan is key
• Cheney raps Obama's 'inexperience'
• U.S. will be out of Afghanistan by 2017: White House
• Taliban leader says U.S. faces defeat in Afghanistan
• Liberals Vow to 'Spank' Obama for Sending More Troops to Afghanistan
• Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp'
• US soldiers: Afghan war more challenging than Iraq
• 9K Marines Reportedly to be First to Go After Obama Announces Troop Increase for Afghanistan
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): Bring home Afghan troops
• Obama Issues Afghan War Plan to Military Officials (Orders Sent Last Night)
• Peggy Noonan: He Can't Take Another Bow (Beltway Types Realizing Obama Is Just An Empty Suit)
• Anti-War Left Protests Obama's Afghanistan War Strategy
• Dick Cheney slams President Obama for projecting 'weakness'
• Official: Afghan buildup involves 30,000 troops
• Obama wants Afghan war over in 3 years, officials say (CUT AND RUN)
• Administration Outlines Afghan War Endgame [Stunning Development!]
• U.S. to stop counting new missiles in Russia
• Live Thread: Barack Obama Afghan Speech 8 p.m. EST -- "Hello I Must Be Going"
• Excerpts: Obama would start Afghanistan withdrawals in 2011
• Obama's Afghanistan Speech: I'm Sending Troops While Signaling To The Enemy That We Quit
• Matthews Calls West Point, Site of Obama Speech 'The Enemy Camp,' 'Strange Venue'
• Few Marines in Afghanistan wake for Obama's speech
• Vets Not Ready to Support New Afghanistan Strategy
• Obama sends 30,000 troops to Afghanistan
• Matthews Calls Cheney an Ankle Biter, Backtracks on West Point 'Enemy Camp' Claim
• Republicans React to Obama Surge Speech

[BP2]

Yeah, VoteVets seems like a Liberal vets group.

And they’re upset, as most other Libs are with Obama now.

[vimto]

That I agree, is the fatal flaw.

The Taliban are butchers but not stupid butchers. They will see this 18 months as downtime to sharpen the blades.

What military leader tells the enemy his exit strategy unless it is ‘out now’, we need to cut and run?

[novemberslady]

Bring them all home.
Now.

[ImpBill]

Welcome to FreeRepublic!

Thank you for your service and I really appreciate your self description as a "Classic Liberal". I for one understand the difference between classic liberals and the new "progressives".

As another vet, I would be the first to want a military success when we engage our brave young men and women. Of course, unfortunately I have to trust in our civilian leadership to "unleash the hell" upon an enemy sworn to the destruction of the Western way of life.

It has become the norm to play politics with the lives of our troops since WW II.

Again welcome to FreeRepublic and good luck exchanging ideas with many who have no clue on what "classic liberalism" is all about. Not that I am one, mind you.

[ImpBill]

Can’t at all disagree with that. Let’s save for the time, and it will come, that we finally figure out what a “war of civilizations” we have been forced into.

[camp_steveo]

Thank you. I enjoy a healthy debate, and I only want to learn the truth, even if it means that I am wrong sometimes, not that I am wrong in this case. :p

~SC

[ImpBill]

Well FRiend, the truth is that “we” don’t have the cajones to do what really must be done in confronting Islam!

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Obama is such an evil, cunning usurper traitor long legged mack daddy false messiah.

NO ONE bought his speech last night.

[RetiredArmy]

The title of “most progressive” made me think only of John Kerry types. Thus, dimocrat supporters. No more shall I care what they have to say.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

Results 1 - 10 of about 45,300 for “by Jon Soltz”. (0.45 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22by+Jon+Soltz%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[novemberslady]

Imo, we're no longer fighting a war, only peace-keeping and nation building again.

I'm feeling that men and women are being sent to get crippled or die, just because a bunch of puffed up idiots feel like playing God.

[razzle]

“Bring the boys home”. You sound like one of the Code Pink lesbos, who could care less about soldiers, they just want to tweek us homophobes.

[camp_steveo]

I am a vet, and you know what happens when you assume, right? LOL

[razzle]

I’m a vet too, and I don’t go around bashing Bush to gain some cred with the libs.

[camp_steveo]

When did I bash GW? You want to quote me, or are you making baseless claims?

..getting bored...

~SC