Are your seat belts buckled?
Got your chin-strap on?
This is it! The moment we've all been waiting for! The Obama Troop Surge Roller Coaster! From here, it looks like it's going to be one heckuva bumpy ride!
At 3:30 this morning, I was ready to give President Barack Obama his due after reading the latest New York Times headline, "Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan." Despite his unconscionable three-month delay, I was pleased to see that the president had compromised with NATO Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose request for upwards of 40,000 additional troops in the region hadn't fallen on deaf ears. Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops certainly wasn't the response McChrystal had hoped for, but it's about what he should have expected. After all, the president has to be able to claim plausible deniability when his liberal detractors start calling for their pound of flesh.
And then I read that Obama had no plans to follow the Bush administration's winning surge strategy, which calls for deploying additional troops over a relatively short span. In 2007, Bush deployed 20,000 troops to Iraq in just five-months, helping to bring a bitter, emotional war to a bittersweet, but victorious conclusion (no matter what the liberals say to the contrary). President Obama, this other article said, was going to send upwards of 30,000 troops alright -- but over a span of 12 to 18 months! My mood immediately vacillated. This wasn't a surge! This was a slow, plodding trickle. A buildup. A swell. There's no such thing as a "trickle surge!" I was outraged.
Trembling with the frustration of once again being disappointed, I prepared to fire off a firm and hearty rebuke of the president's so-called "strategy," but before I began, I decided to check the New York Times' headlines one last time. Guess what? The president had changed his mind (which, thankfully, didn't take him another three months). According to this new article, the president apparently had seen the light and decided to speed up the process. As of 2:55 p.m. today, Obama wants all 30,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan by the end of May.
If true, this is an excellent decision. This is a surge! It will bring the total number of troops in Afghanistan to about 100,000, and the battalions will be strategically paired with Afghan forces in an effort to familiarize them with modern-day warfare techniques. The idea is to provide members of the country's military the resources they need to one day handle insurgencies on their own.
I know what you're thinking. This is not just crazy; it's downright weird. Me? Praising a military decision by ... Obama??? I'd love to disagree, but I can't help it. What can I say? This is a sound decision, and one I believe most conservatives will find little to argue with ...
But, of course, the president hasn't officially announced anything yet. President Obama is scheduled to outline his war strategy tonight at 8 p.m. in a televised speech before a contingent of West Point cadets. Until then, these reports amount to nothing more than credible rumors.
In the meantime, I'll have to figure out a way to come to grips with this weird new approval-thing I've got going on here. I can only hope I haven't offered it too soon.
This is, after all, the Obama Troop Surge Roller Coaster.
Join Me on Facebook | Get My Twitter Updates 
Photo © Scott Olson/Getty Images
Comments
Maybe we need to move all the troops from Iraq over to Afghanistan. That would kill two birds with one stone.
Justin –
“Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops certainly wasn’t the response McChrystal had hoped for”
Without extended deployments, I doubt that there are more than 30,000 troops available.
FWIW, McChrystal’s analysis had a Chinese menu of requests: 15,000 troops at the minimum, 45,000 at the maximum, with a sliding scale of strategic targets commensurate with the troop levels.
“This is, after all, the Obama Troop Surge Roller Coaster.”
In the past three months there have been stories ranging from ‘Obama is shortly going to announce an almost complete withdrawl’ to ‘Obama is sending 45,000 troops’ to Afghanistan. I resolved to believe none of it until I heard it him from his own mouth.
All were ‘credible’ rumors
The real shame is that McChrystal’s report was redacted and leaked. Somebody, allegedly not on McChrystal’s staff, wanted a favorable decisision in a hurry. If so, they got something very different. Along with everyone else that leaked information.
“(which, thankfully, didn’t take him another three months)”
He addressed that last night. McChrystal’s request was for troops in 2010. Which makes perfect sense. Combat operations can’t begin until the snow is out of the mountains in the spring. The smallest self sustaining Army unit is a brigade, about 5,000 soldiers. If you ever wondered why all the requests were in increments of 5,000, now you know. Moving a brigade requires weeks of preparation. Consider that the 4th Infantry Division took six weeks to get from Turkey to Iraq during GW2, during a hot shooting war.
The delay was conscionable. Very conscionable.
RT, with all due respect, the delay was unconscionable, and some of your facts are either misleading or flat out wrong.
For example, McChrystal didn’t request troops for 2010. He requested troops for the end of the summer/early fall. His request, according to people I know who are familiar with banter between the commander and the White House, was pooh-poohed away, and greeted with, “Why don’t you file a report outlining your request?” The report was submitted on AUG. 31, and for an entire month, the president did NOTHING with it. He didn’t even hold a “principles” meeting on it until after the report was leaked. . Following the leak, and STILL no action on the part of the White House, McChrystal began giving interviews and making speeches. His ONLY recourse was to go public or else he faced losing the war. With regard to your assertion that he wanted the troops in 2010, his direct quote on Oct. 5 was, “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.” McChrystal wanted the troops months ago. As for moving a brigade, it absolutely takes time, due simply to the sheer number of troops and equipment involved. Nevertheless, an entire brigade can be moved in two to three weeks, rain, snow or shine under “cold” (non-combat) conditions. Had Obama acted swiftly, the troop buildup and battle preparations could have taken place over the fall and winter months. Now, that buildup and battle prep will likely take all winter and spring. No matter how you try to portray the president’s hedging, RT, this delay was not in the best interests of our troops or the Afghan people. If anything, it gave the Taliban the upper hand. First, any potential “surprise” elements are completely lost thanks to the intense public scrutiny surrounding the President’s deliberations, and second, the Taliban have time to prepare for the influx of troops and can now craft a battle plan to neutralize it.
That said, the president did finally approve enough troops to hopefully overwhelm the Taliban and win the war regardless of their planning. That was a good move. It just should have come a lot sooner.
Justin –
“With regard to your assertion that he wanted the troops in 2010, his direct quote on Oct. 5 was, “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.” ”
I can’t argue with the quote, but it doesn’t state when McChrystal wanted, expected, or requested troops to be in theatre.
“For example, McChrystal didn’t request troops for 2010. He requested troops for the end of the summer/early fall.”
From the speech last night:
“Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/01/2009-12-01_text_of_president_obamas_speech_on_afghanistan_and_pakistan_at_west_point.html?page=2#ixzz0YZP5nXQC
I don’t know what else to tell you.
“That said, the president did finally approve enough troops to hopefully overwhelm the Taliban and win the war regardless of their planning.”
I’m not so sanguine. Between American and NATO troops, we enjoy a 12 to 1 advantage over the Taliban. With 30,000 additional American troops and 5,000 additional NATO troops we will have a 15 to 1 advantage. The Russians had similar numerical advantages.
We’ll see.
“Nevertheless, an entire brigade can be moved in two to three weeks, rain, snow or shine under “cold” (non-combat) conditions.”
Perhaps. However, the example that I gave you, the Fourth Infantry Division of three brigades and 15,000 men, required 34 ships and three months to arrive offshore of Turkey during GW2. Even though they were still onship, it required another six weeks after Turkey’s denial of entry to get them to to the front lines.
FWIW.
It wont matter anyway. We will lose this war like most others. We had too few troops from the beginning, and we never secured the border to Pakistan. This war has been one big tactical mistake after another.
Obama did promise during his campaign that he would increase troop counts in Afghanistan. So for once he has held true to his word. Too bad it won’t make a difference anyway. We will be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq longer than we fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam combined when it’s all said and done.
Ghee I wonder why this country is broke. I thought war is good for the economy. Well under that pretense unemployment should be floating at 1-2%. Clearly that bs voodoo economic theory has been proven invalid.
BTW
Where are all of our so-called “allies” right now? Why are they not sinking their dollars into the economic black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Again we foot the bill.
FWIW.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/afghanistan/story.html?id=2512952