Question re: Iraq & Afghanistan

[Dionysos]

If the opportunity presented itself for the US to move say 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, would you be in favor of it or do you think the situation in Afghanistan is such that these troops would be unnecessary to the Afghan efforts?

Secondary question: Would you be in favor of crossing into the tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan - going back and forth across the border - if it gave the US a better chance of capturing/killing Bin Laden and/or his Al-Qaeda network, even if it risked straining or severing our ties with Pakistan?

[Element4040]

I don't know enough about the troop situation in Afghanistan to comment.

However I would fully support the movement in the tribal regions. I was never gung ho on the new relationship with Pakistan to begin with. I think it only invites trouble further down the road. It's another Saudi Arabia in my opinion.

i haven't a damn clue

Originally Posted by Dionysos

If the opportunity presented itself for the US to move say 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, would you be in favor of it or do you think the situation in Afghanistan is such that these troops would be unnecessary to the Afghan efforts?

Secondary question: Would you be in favor of crossing into the tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan - going back and forth across the border - if it gave the US a better chance of capturing/killing Bin Laden and/or his Al-Qaeda network, even if it risked straining or severing our ties with Pakistan?

a) no, I think the troops are too important in Iraq to be moved. I do not think the situation in Afganistan is too insignificant to warrant additional resources - I would just draw from a different well.

b) I think we should be mindful to maintain a good working relationship with Pakistan. I think the answer to your question depends on how effective or valuable the result of straining or severing relations with Pakistan would be. If we have a black and white choice... we get OBL but it causes strained relations... I don't think it would take long to make that decision. The further one moves away from that positive result the more we should seek to avoid pissing off Pakistan.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

a) no, I think the troops are too important in Iraq to be moved. I do not think the situation in Afganistan is too insignificant to warrant additional resources - I would just draw from a different well.

When I mentioned that 'the opportunity presented itself', I meant the situation in Iraq improved to a point at which 20,000 soldiers(I picked this number arbitrarily) would be able to leave Iraq permanently. Given that force reduction possibility, would you rather they be repurposed to Afghanistan or sent home?

Originally Posted by Dionysos

When I mentioned that 'the opportunity presented itself', I meant the situation in Iraq improved to a point at which 20,000 soldiers(I picked this number arbitrarily) would be able to leave Iraq permanently. Given that force reduction possibility, would you rather they be repurposed to Afghanistan or sent home?

I'd still draw resources for Afganistan from another well before redeploying troops from Iraq to Afganistan. If the need in Afganistan is sufficiently great and the alternatives less attractive - I would be willing to do the transfer you speak of. I guess the first question that drives the answer is "how badly are the troops needed in Afganistan?"

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I'd still draw resources for Afganistan from another well before redeploying troops from Iraq to Afganistan. If the need in Afganistan is sufficiently great and the alternatives less attractive - I would be willing to do the transfer you speak of. I guess the first question that drives the answer is "how badly are the troops needed in Afganistan?"

Things are manageable now, but it seems to me if they had more troops they might be able to stamp out the Taliban/Al-Qaeda resistance for good in Afghanistan. At the very least they could mount an effective campaign against the tribal areas on the border.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Things are manageable now, but it seems to me if they had more troops they might be able to stamp out the Taliban/Al-Qaeda resistance for good in Afghanistan. At the very least they could mount an effective campaign against the tribal areas on the border.

Presuming that as fact - I'd be very reluctant at best to use Iraqis troops for new duty in Afganistan. Further, I'd want to have very definite goals and methods of acheiving those goals in place before sending in more troops to Afganistan.

[Ryan]

We need all the help in Iraq we can get. If we need more in Afghanistan, then how about starting with the 70,000 we are pulling from Europe and Asia?

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Things are manageable now, but it seems to me if they had more troops they might be able to stamp out the Taliban/Al-Qaeda resistance for good in Afghanistan. At the very least they could mount an effective campaign against the tribal areas on the border.

They are pretty much pitted against the same elusive bands of soldiers that the soviets faced years ago... more troops does not mean better success in this campaign...


I would allocate more survaillence and reconnaissance of the tribal territories to help better coordinate coalition troops, including providing more information to pakistan. By stating more, I'm assuming they are not doing enough and I could be totally wrong in that assumption. Work on proposals to deliver strike teams into mountainous regions quicker. Terrain is the main adversary here...

I don't approve unilaterally moving into Paki-territory, but if it was a covert ops mission and the chances of catching individuals like Osama sat at over 85%, I might risk a dispute with Pakistan.

A little birdy told me we had troops in uzbekistan when we weren't supposed to, so as far as international outrage is concerned, not much is heard from the uzbek government... I don't think Pakistan would be up in arms, especially if such an operation were to play out favorably for them, while not at our own expense...

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Ryan

We need all the help in Iraq we can get. If we need more in Afghanistan, then how about starting with the 70,000 we are pulling from Europe and Asia?

Understood, this was merely a hypothetical question. I wasn't implying that we had that many to spare, just asking - if the situation arose where we could - would you do it?


As for the 70,000, that's a total over the next 10 years iirc. The pullout will probably be slow in execution, much like the bases that were closed domestically in the 90s.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

The further one moves away from that positive result the more we should seek to avoid pissing off Pakistan.

That's right, we need to strengthen our ties with one group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists to hunt another group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by Ryan

We need all the help in Iraq we can get. If we need more in Afghanistan, then how about starting with the 70,000 we are pulling from Europe and Asia?

No way, just like Bush said, we need those troops here to watch over distasteful dissidents such as myself.

Originally Posted by Adam D

That's right, we need to strengthen our ties with one group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists to hunt another group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists.

You'd prefer we do what we can to antagonize them Adam ?

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by Adam D

That's right, we need to strengthen our ties with one group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists to hunt another group of militant, oppressive, religious extremists.

welcome to global politics in 2008