If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for us?

[Bunz]

Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for

Yes, the main US focus shifted away from Afghanistan to Iraq, however the NATO and ISAF mission in Afghanistan has been growing in size since 2001, growing from an initial 5,000 soldiers to around 70,000.

Of course they have, but the point is in your first sentence. Bush took his eyes off the ball, and from what I have read, wasnt being given good information. My point, is that the situation we find ourselves in with a deteriorating security situation and a questionable government at best...it didnt need to be this way. It shouldnt have gone this way.

Additionally, the idea that people support sending these additional soldiers to Afghanistan in NATO countries is laughable. There is loads of opposition to this deployment. From their point of view they have been sending more soldiers all along, and most likely view this as a total last ditch effort.

Which people?

You also ignore the multiple thousands of additional soldiers that Bush sent back in when the Taliban began to come back. If anything, a large part of failure in Afghanistan is a failure of NATO.

Rob, where were those troops in 03,04,05,06? To blame a large amount of the Afghanistan issue on NATO is tough for me to consider. I think if we would have been fully militarily committed to Afghanistan and specifically Al-Q, the Taliban, the chances of an actual political success entirely possible.

 

[BigRob]

Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for

Of course they have, but the point is in your first sentence. Bush took his eyes off the ball, and from what I have read, wasnt being given good information. My point, is that the situation we find ourselves in with a deteriorating security situation and a questionable government at best...it didnt need to be this way. It shouldnt have gone this way.

Afghanistan was supposed to be more of a NATO mission all along. So, in reality, the US shifting some focus away should not have caused massive problems for security within the country.

Which people?

I was talking about other NATO countries. There are very large domestic constituencies that are very upset about new soldiers going. It could cause problems for the governments.

Rob, where were those troops in 03,04,05,06? To blame a large amount of the Afghanistan issue on NATO is tough for me to consider. I think if we would have been fully militarily committed to Afghanistan and specifically Al-Q, the Taliban, the chances of an actual political success entirely possible.

I believe Bush sent in an additional 20,000 or so soldiers in 2005, and the NATO mission (and troop counts) have been growing since 2001.

I think the main problem lies with the rules of engagement that NATO is following. Unless those are changed, frankly, we are not going to win.