Afghan surge begins

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#1
The largest coalition offensive in Afghanistan since 2001 began today as American and Afghani troops raided a town occupied by the Taliban, kicking off a major part of the Obama strategy. The strategy also includes finding and defusing the hundreds of explosives left in the taken areas and implementing what some are calling a "government-in-a-box", basically a set administration to help govern the conquered areas.

reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...198076854.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#3
This is something Obama should be applauded for! As long as they can defeat The Taliban!
I would rather replace Obama with "US Military", even if he is the ultimate Chief of the Army. And appreciation for the British.

The largest coalition offensive in Afghanistan since 2001 began today as American and Afghani troops
.... and British troops ....
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#4
I would rather replace Obama with "US Military", even if he is the ultimate Chief of the Army. And appreciation for the British.

.... and British troops ....
From what I got from the article, it was just US and Afghani troops in this first raid. Britain is a major player in the plan though, but not in the first raid I think (although I am not sure.) I did not forget them though :p
 
Feb 2010
360
0
United Kingdom
#5
I would rather replace Obama with "US Military", even if he is the ultimate Chief of the Army. And appreciation for the British.

.... and British troops ....
Obama has done enough, but I am happy for Obama's enthusiasm in Afghanistan, it's really a part of the world that needs Western influence.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#6
it's really a part of the world that needs Western influence.
While fighting the people who attacked us is one thing, I completely disagree with this. Who says we are superior in any way? We should not be there to bring Western influence on them, but more so just to fight those who attacked us.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#7
From what I got from the article, it was just US and Afghani troops in this first raid. Britain is a major player in the plan though, but not in the first raid I think (although I am not sure.) I did not forget them though :p
Read about the attack in todays paper, was a total rout. Almost no resistance and every major point in the city was taken and every route for retreat blocked. The surrounding communities and tribal leaders are already celebrating and gov't agents are already establishing authority.

Assuming the paper wasn't spinning anything, things look to be going well. Now we just wait for the city as a whole to fall.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#8
While fighting the people who attacked us is one thing, I completely disagree with this. Who says we are superior in any way? We should not be there to bring Western influence on them, but more so just to fight those who attacked us.
I don't know about that myp. Afghanistan was pretty much in the dark ages before the US and Canada started to do work in the remote villages where initially there was complete lack of medical assistance, basic necessities, education. There have been many selfless professionals, doctors, nurses, teachers, who have volunteered for services with very good results, although only a dent has been made so far.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#9
I don't know about that myp. Afghanistan was pretty much in the dark ages before the US and Canada started to do work in the remote villages where initially there was complete lack of medical assistance, basic necessities, education. There have been many selfless professionals, doctors, nurses, teachers, who have volunteered for services with very good results, although only a dent has been made so far.
Volunteering when the people ask for help is another issue. What I am saying is we should not be there to police the country or to push Western influence on them- it should be the will of the people that makes the government, not the will of Americans or Canadians no matter how "right" we think we are.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#10
Volunteering when the people ask for help is another issue. What I am saying is we should not be there to police the country or to push Western influence on them- it should be the will of the people that makes the government, not the will of Americans or Canadians no matter how "right" we think we are.
I wonder whether the people from Afghanistan have become used to foreigners managing their Government Affairs directly or indirectly, to the extent that they can no longer operate without foreign assistance. It has possibly become more of a choice of a foreign power that is the least harmful. Maybe Afghanistan is not strong enough as a Government in its own right to operate without the assistance of foreign Governments.
 
Feb 2010
360
0
United Kingdom
#11
While fighting the people who attacked us is one thing, I completely disagree with this. Who says we are superior in any way? We should not be there to bring Western influence on them, but more so just to fight those who attacked us.
We are superior in the way that what the West are fighting in Afghanistan is an evil ideology that's based on hatred towards the West, to handle this we can't act like the views of Islamic terrorists are just as valuable and legit as Western views on society. We are at war in Afghanistan because our way of living IS superior to theirs.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#12
We are superior in the way that what the West are fighting in Afghanistan is an evil ideology that's based on hatred towards the West, to handle this we can't act like the views of Islamic terrorists are just as valuable and legit as Western views on society. We are at war in Afghanistan because our way of living IS superior to theirs.
And THAT is why they hate us.
 

Similar Discussions