The Fight In Afghanistan. Is Obama Right?

[John317]

US Marines fan out across dangerous Afghan south

By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 5 mins ago

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan – Teams of builders worked through dust storms Monday to expand a base for a brigade of U.S. Marines now fanning out across southern Afghanistan to change the course of a war claiming American lives faster than ever before.

Some 10,000 Marines have poured into Afghanistan in the last six weeks, the military said Monday, transforming this once small base in the heart of the country's most violent province, Helmand, into a desert fortress.

The statement to embedded journalists, including a team from The Associated Press, was the first confirmation that the military has fully deployed the first wave of 21,000 additional troops President Barack Obama ordered to Afghanistan this year to help stanch an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency.

The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, normally based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., will battle the Taliban as well as train and fight alongside Afghan security forces.

"This is where the fight is, in Afghanistan," said 1st Sgt. Christopher Watson, who like many of the troops was most recently deployed in Iraq. "We are here to get the job done."

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 because the country's extremist Taliban leaders were sheltering Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, the Islamic terrorist group behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

The forces quickly defeated the Taliban, pushing the militants out of Kabul and their southern base in Kandahar. But a guerrilla war, which turned dangerously violent in 2006, has bedeviled the international coalition and Afghan government.

While the insurgency is active across much of the country, its stronghold remains in Helmand. The province is home to the world's largest opium-poppy growing region and borders Pakistan, where commanders say the Taliban leadership supplies money and recruits.

The Taliban has become entrenched in Helmand because of a lack of international and Afghan troops. Several thousand British forces have engaged in heavy fighting in Helmand for much of the past three years. Last year, a much smaller U.S. Marine force joined them, helping to clear the town of Garmser of insurgents.

"We are not under the impression that is going to be easy," said Capt. Bill Pelletier, a Marine spokesman. "They are an adaptive enemy."

A dust storm whipped across Camp Leatherneck early Monday but did little to stop the pace of construction. Hard-hatted workers put up wooden structures to house command centers and dining facilities, while cranes dropped blast walls close to the rows of air-conditioned tents housing troops.

The Marines are slowly spreading out to smaller bases in an area of operations about 7,000 square miles, said Pelletier, adding there already have been several engagements with insurgents. The military has yet to announce any losses in combat suffered by the brigade.

An Army brigade of some 7,000 troops will follow this summer along with 4,000 forces to train Afghan security forces.

The surge will bring American troop levels from about 55,000 now to more than 68,000 by the end of 2009 — about half of the nearly 140,000 troops currently in Iraq.

The buildup has led to comparisons with Iraq, where an influx of troops in 2007 is credited with helping to reduce violence.

But unlike Iraq, where the U.S. plans to phase out its role by 2012, the military envisions a long-term presence in Afghanistan.

Adding troops in a country with a history of resistance to foreign forces risks increasing Afghans' resentment, which in turn fuels the insurgency.

There are also fears that the surge will push the Taliban to other parts of the country — or even across the border to Pakistan, where they could further destabilize that nuclear-armed country.

The bulk of the Marines, about 7,300, remain at Leatherneck and are training for missions — or "sharpening the sword" as one young Marine put it. Several said Marine commanders have drilled into them the need to respect the local culture and not barge into villages, kicking down doors and alienating residents whose support they need to win the war.

"They have told us to be more friendly with the locals," said Lance Cpl. John McCall, who was marching in full battle gear around the base with two buddies to get in shape. "We are not to shoot first and ask questions later."

Commanders warn that U.S. deaths are likely to increase this summer, the traditional fighting season in Afghanistan.

At least 70 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year, according to an AP count, a 75 percent increase over the 40 U.S. troop deaths through the first week in June last year. A record 151 American forces died in Afghanistan in 2008.

Joanna Nathan, an Afghanistan specialist at the International Crisis Group, said more troops were needed to improve security so that the task of building Afghan government structures and other infrastructure projects could happen more quickly.

"There needs to be a lot of work in the background," she said. "You are never going to shoot the last insurgent and then leave. The will in Western capitals to remain in Afghanistan will not last forever, so there is a need for urgency."

[bonnie]

We should talk to them

[fccool]

One thing that US should have learned from Nam and Soviet-Afgan war... you can not help people who don't want you to be there. It's like administering a CPR to a guy with a gun, especially if the guy is not dying, and he think that you are trying to rob him.

No matter how good the intentions are, in the end you end up causing more damage than you are trying to fix.

The problems in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are not fixable through military intervention, and I think that our leaders know it. The full scale victory can not be achieved in our lifetime. The best they can do is to maintain some kind of presence, which I think only re-enforces the opposition ranks.

[phkrause]

fccool, I'm not sure I agree with you about Nam, about the people not wanting us there. The south vietnamese really wanted us there. It was more of the commitment of the US politians than anything else. I know us soldiers were committed, but we fought a political war. I remember the generals telling the than President LBJ that we needed to shut off the HoChiMin Trail, which was the North's food and supply route, but we wouldn't do it until it was to late. They also told them to take out the Harbor (which I can't remember the name right now) where the stuff was coming in, but we didn't do that either until to late. No I think if the politicians listened to the generals in charge we would have come home earlier and with a victory, just like desert storm. General Schwatzkoff (sp) told them to let him run it his way and you can see how it turned out. I think you have to allow the people that know what they are doing to handle it. The first bush believed in his general's and listened to Powell. But I can kind of agree with you on Iraq, but I believe that afghanistan asked us to help them. And if allowed to run the situation the military will do a good job.

pk

[John317]

We should talk to them

Well, the government of Afghanistan wants us there, but we can't be sure if the people generally support that government. They probably do not.

I know for a fact, though, that most of the people there do not want the Taliban to rule.

However, in their hatred of foreign occupation, the people could turn to the Taliban for help.

I believe we should call for the Afghan people to vote on whether they want the US there, and if they don't want us there, we should leave.

The problem would be to make sure it is a fair and accurate vote, but I think there are ways of making sure that happens.

[John317]

fccool, I'm not sure I agree with you about Nam, about the people not wanting us there. The south vietnamese really wanted us there. It was more of the commitment of the US politians than anything else. I know us soldiers were committed, but we fought a political war.

The people of the South supported us for quite a long time, until about the time of the Tet offensive 1967-1968. That changed things. A lot of people think we lost it in battle but actually we won all the battles and killed "charlie" something like 10 to 1. It was a slaughter and a military defeat for them, and we know now they came close to giving up. But we lost it on the streets of America and in the halls of Congress. Basically what it comes down to is that the American public lost the will to fight, after watching their sons be killed on TV while Americans were eating their dinners. It wasn't live but it was close to it, and it hurt to watch day in and day out.

As it turns out, if Nixon had continued the bombing of Hanoi about 3 more weeks, the North Vietnamese would have thrown in the towel. (This is from the books written by Viet Cong leaders after the war.)

Quote:

I remember the generals telling the than President LBJ that we needed to shut off the HoChiMin Trail, which was the North's food and supply route, but we wouldn't do it until it was to late. They also told them to take out the Harbor (which I can't remember the name right now)

Hai Fong?

Quote:

where the stuff was coming in, but we didn't do that either until to late. No I think if the politicians listened to the generals in charge we would have come home earlier and with a victory, just like desert storm.

I agree with much that you say, but of course the situation there was very complex and different from Desert Storm. For one thing we had a jungle to deal with where there were numerous ways to hide. It is somewhat like Afghanistan that way with its mountains. That is one way in which Iraq was different, the terrain.

[fccool]

No matter how good the intentions are, in the end the occupying forces are occupying forces. No one will like a group of military men telling you when you can visit your relatives... and etc. Sooner of later the discontent builds up, and people turn to resistance and insurgency. Viet Nam was a good example. US war tactics of burning and gassing the jungle bred more enemies than it uprooted.