The New York Times complains that there aren’t enough troops in Afghanistan to keep aid workers safe these days;
As NATO forces poured in and shifted to the south to battle the Taliban in their stronghold, the Taliban responded with a surge of their own, greatly increasing their activities in the north and parts of the east.
The worsening security comes as the Obama administration is under increasing pressure to show results to maintain public support for the war, and raises serious concerns about whether the country can hold legitimate nationwide elections for Parliament next Saturday.
I guess it couldn’t be because the Obama Administration made the political decision to give General McCrystal half of the troops he requested last year as a compromise with the Democrat anti-war base. He set McChrystal up to fail and then fired him for complaining about it.
American military officials say the increased level of violence is related to the rise in the number of its forces here. The last 2,000 of 30,000 new American troops are expected to arrive in the next week or two, military officials say. The result is more military operations, they say, and more opportunities for the insurgents to attack coalition forces.
That does not entirely explain the increased activity of the Taliban in areas where they were seldom seen before, and where the coalition presence is light, however.
Maybe it’s because the surge has been a trickle and half of what the commanders requested. The Obama administration has decided that win or lose, they’re pulling out next year. What happens between now and then is irrelevant.
I no longer believe Obama is just a bumbling idealogue who thinks he’s making the country into a better, socialist world. I think he just plain hates America and has every intention of destroying her if it kills us all.
Jonn… It seems even the NYTimes is glorying in on
the ‘Nam thing. They have jumped on the old ‘Peace with Honor’ bandwagon.
You would know best, but (I think) the War without declaring War aspect is just around the corner.
The NATO involvement well aside, I believe I can make a case. Just watch Iraq.
Imagine pulling back from Okinawa (et.al.) and extrapolate.
This administration reminds me of a dog chasing it’s tail.
I’m fed up with all the political bullshit. Either we are there for a purpose, or we’re not and need to get out. There is no victory in setting a timetable for leaving. You leave when you achieve victory, not on some pre-determined political date. That’s not victory. That’s basically pissing away the lives that have been lost and those that have been scarred for life. WTF? Is that what we’re reduced to, now; fight for a few years and then leave under a pre-determined timeframe; win, lose, draw?
I could go on, but I’m too pissed and I would probably have everyone hatin’ on me by the time I was done.
Not at all, OT. I agree completely. Owebowma is playing for a tie, that’s all. So what if more troops die, as long as he can stand up on the campaign trail and tell his base that “he” got us out of Iraq, and “he” got us out of Afghanistan?