Should We Increase Our Troop Level in Afghanistan

I understand you Robert, i've been the same many times with french troops in Africa, hearing deaths on the news, i wondered " What're we doing there ? Take them back home ".

In Afghanistan, i'm sure everyone wants to leave, but what if we do it now ?

Afghanistan produces 93 % of the world Opium, is divided in tribes, and talibans are trying to overwhelm the country. If we leave, they will, and the billions $ / € will finance islamic terrorism all over the world.
Maybe the way we did things until now didn't work, but we can't simply leave things to where they are, we need to find a solution. USA and Europe hold 40000 men there, and i agree we can't leave them there without finding a solution.

In Iraq, it could become the same, leaving the country to chaos and tribes power, it could become a 2nd Afghanistan.
Under S.Hussein, the country was held by strength (not justice), but it was united, by an iron fist. Now unification doesn't exist anymore, and we must find a solution.
I'm one of those who, even if i didn(t support War in the Gulf 2, think we MUST help USA, sending troops, find a solution, and show the world we all try to find a solution. That's not because your friend did something you disagreed with that you won't help him support the consequences. That IS friendship.

 

Since France stands a bigger risk than we do, I would agree. The U.S. has made herself broke & impotent implementing the U.N.'s demands.

 

We have 254000 active military in France, 35000 are deployed over the world, 3200 in Afghanistan, for a country of 65 million of people.

You have 1473900 active military in USA, 29000 in Afghanistan, 142000 in Iraq, for a country of 305 million of people.

By this, i mean we'll never be able, in terms of numbers, to send as many troops as you US do.
That's why i always consider miitary things from an European point of view, because alltogether, we have many more troops, as in Afghanistan.

I'm trying to bring you to purpose ideas or solutions we could find together, but is it me, or do some of you not consider we're a worthy ally in Afghanistan ? European represent many soldiers, by your side.

I honestly feel much friendship, and am proud we stand at your side over there, but still have the feeling we don't do enough, or don't count. Am i wrong ?

 

There are various opinions in the US regarding Afghanistan Spear, as you see from the responses here. Probably the predominant one is that the US (and her allies) should either send enough troops to defeat the Taliban, or go home. As you point out, considering the size of the French military, your country has sent about as many troops as you can I would think.

And thanks for the Statue of Liberty

 

I might could understand staying in Iraq. Why are we still in Afganistan? Why stay there? The mission was accomplished long ago. The next time the Taliban harbors terrorists we can go back in, kick their butts, and leave again. But, why stay trying to secure what cannot be secured?

 

Both General McChrystal and Gen Petraeus say that success is "achievable" in Afghanistan, and they know a thing or too about pulling victory out of defeat. It's on Obama.

It's just a shame that some folks were fooled into voting the neo-libs into office.

 

I really didn't know how to answer this one. To me, war is an all or nothing venture. Either you go in 100% to defeat the enemy, or you shouldn't go in at all. This has been a problem since Korea. General MacArthur was a very unique individual. He was exceedingly pompous and proud. On the other hand, he was brilliant at fighting war. He defeated the Japanese in the Pacific, not by fighting them head on, but by passing by them and establishing bases forward of them, cutting off their supply line. He would starve the Japanese out and force them to come to him in battle. They would be exhausted and starved by the time they got there and the American forces would easily defeat them. His troops loved him because he lost very few men compared to other commanders.

Truman held MacArthur back because he was afraid China would enter the war. MacArthur wanted to nuke at least 30 of China's major cities.

But I personally like MacArthur's fighting style. He fought to win.

So Truman removed MacArthur and everything bogged down, and unfortunately we have been fighting wars like this ever since. We don't fight to win, we fight for a stalemate.

Same thing happened in Viet Nam.

And now we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the same thing. Either fight to win or get out.

I personally hate to see young men and women die. If it were up to me, I'd bomb the major cities of those countries who support terrorism as MacArthur would have done. Why lose your young people when you can easily defeat the enemy without losing soldiers?

Remember 9/11 when they showed thousands of Muslims dancing in the street and celebrating all over the Arab world? I would have bombed them that day.

The problem with America is that we are too concerned what the world thinks about us. We could destroy these countries that support terrorism in days. If a country was afraid of severe retaliation from us, you can bet your bottom dollar they would get rid of these terrorists operating within their borders.

I am not for war, I am not for killing. But if others attack us, we should retaliate without mercy. Then they would think twice about attacking us again.

I have probably gotten off on a rabbit trail here. I do not see us ever giving 100% to this fight, so it is probably wisest to get out as soon as possible.

 

I disagree, it's right to have a conscience, and you're right by keeping from using nuclear nukes or that kind of things. Anyway it would not work in Iraq of Afghanistan because of the tribes thing : there's no real head i think, groups are spawn everywhere, doing " their " war.

Iraq is the most annoying :

- If you leave it where it is right now, chaos and maybe fundamentalist muslims will take it, and with oil, have big funds to finance terrorist actions, and like usually, they'll sing " Haha, we sent the US invaders back to their home ".

- If, let's go far, you send 4 nukes to bomb major cities. All the arabian countries will stand up, and maybe the rest of the world, asking " You came here by yourself, started the thing, now kill ten of thousands civilians ? ".

I think we must ruin the tribes power in both countries, so that a " higher " power takes advantage, like what we're trying to do in Afghanistan with the government, and, mostly, cut the arrival of weapons. I don't have the solution, that's what we're discussing together, and, once again, about Iraq, if tomorrow sending troops by your side would put an end to the thing, i would be the first to agree.

I believe we will find a solution, but we must find it quickly, terrorist acts are killing too many of our soldiers in both of the countries.
The matter is we all have the feeling that our soldiers are standing there, patrolling, dying, and that there's no progress. I honestly think progress is too little, and that we did not expect what we were going into (and probably that talibans would'nt get so much support or silence from the populations). We must break the support of terrorism in Afghanistan & Iraq, but i have no idea how.

If we leave both now, who's ready to let them prepare the next 9/11 quietly (in any occidental country) ?

 

I understand these opinions NiteShift, it's the same here with Afghanistan. 36 % of the french wish our troops to remain in Afghanistan, 55 % want us to leave now.

And for the statue of Liberty, you deserve it, helping many countries, and welcoming so many people on your ground.

 

Also, the US would not have won our independence without French assistance.
So much for isolationism

 

I know, i just hope we learned from the failures of our predecessors ... that's not sure (see french in Indochina replaced by US and Vietnam ....).

In fact, there is the point we need to discuss : let's say we remove our troops, and let the countries become the new money machine & shelter of terrorists. Are we ready to pay the consequences ? If no, what choices do we have ?

 

The US could do it and make short work of it if we went in to win. When you handle military conflicts with the mind set that you will send in the least number of troops you can then all you get is a quagmire. Which is what liberals do every time. Obama and the rest of the libbies want to withhold troop levels so as to create a quagmire and turn American opinion against it as much as possible. Of course when you start playing politics where the lives of our troops are involved then our troops are needlessly killed.

Send in all we can, secure the peace, train the new military and get out.

 

Not dreaming at all. In fact this is what the American people always expect quick and decisive victories.