Will US troop boost help Afghanistan?

[RSS News]

President Barack Obama has authorised the deployment of extra troops to Afghanistan. Will the move help?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No.

[NecroCommie]

I dont know how up-to-date you comrades are on the afghan situation, but the coalition is bleeped up bad. In some areas the US troops are out manned and outgunned by 100-1 margin (source: a british liberal documentary I saw once. Trust if you want). This is ofcourse just the worst areas, and the equipment and training of US forces does give them some kind of help, but the basic situation is REALLY bad. The reinforcements might prolong the fight, but the outcome was decided years ago.

[Killfacer]

I dont know how up-to-date you comrades are on the afghan situation, but the coalition is bleeped up bad. In some areas the US troops are out manned and outgunned by 100-1 margin (source: a british liberal documentary I saw once. Trust if you want). This is ofcourse just the worst areas, and the equipment and training of US forces does give them some kind of help, but the basic situation is REALLY bad. The reinforcements might prolong the fight, but the outcome was decided years ago.

You say outgunned 100-1... But they are outgunned by people without Helicoptors, Raptor Jets, Night vision goggles, tanks, APCs, proper weaponry, good transport or training.

[Rjevan]

No, certainly not!
They haven't understood that they can't defeat the Talibans through military force. The UN has totally lost control in many regions and they won't winn it back through sending more soldiers into their certain death.

[Pawn Power]

What an absurd question. Will it help who? Perhaps it will help US hegemony. Of course it will not help the general Afghani population.

[scarletghoul]

^this

Anyway, if there ever is peace in Afghanistan, it will be through negotiations. The Afghan government has said they want to negotiate with the taleban (they might even have started) in some areas, because they understand the solution can't be purely military. So if there is relative peace anytime soon, it will be because of negotiations, but the US will say it is because of all the extra troops. Like what happened with the surge in Iraq- the violence decreased significantly, not because of the surge, but because the americans talked to various sunni leaders and stuff, and stopped them supporting the antiamerican forces.

[Kassad]

American imperialism is the direct cause of social, political and economic disaster in Afghanistan. The occupation is just the continuation of imperialism and the total domination of resources in the Middle East. The occupation has nothing to do with terrorism, defense or security. It is all about resources and militaristic hegemony. Revolutionaries have nothing in common with military "liberations" in the Middle East.

[Ismail]

Newsbot is not a human being. Responding to it as if it was literally asking a question is corny.

[bailey_187]

Not even Alexander the Great could occupy the Afghans successfully, and Obama is no Alexander the Great

[Diagoras]

I am just curious as to what you all think the primary motives are in trying to extend/preserve American military hegemony through Afghanistan? What resources or geopolitical significance does it offer for the powers that be? They don't seem to be quite as blatant as in Iraq.

[scarletghoul]

It is in a very important strategic position, between central asia, south asia, and the middle east. Russia and Britain both desired it, back when they were superpowers (see- the great game).

[brigadista]

caspian sea oil pipeline... they should leave

[Davie zepeda]

This country is a key position and also a key ally if you ever want to have great commerce you must have central Asia the gate to the west and to the east and the Mideast.

[Cumannach]

caspian sea oil pipeline... they should leave

and start paying reparations.

[NecroCommie]

You say outgunned 100-1... But they are outgunned by people without Helicoptors, Raptor Jets, Night vision goggles, tanks, APCs, proper weaponry, good transport or training.

It is true, and I tried to express this in my last post albeit it seems in vain. I just think this leads into a prolonged fight, but the hard maintenance of supply lines for choppers, tanks, apc's and proper weaponry will tilt the fight for the afghans in the end.

Also, the coalition is outgunned by people with popular support (out of fear or sympathy?), and the afghans are well hidden, and they dont even try to confront the western troops head-on, but to wear them out. This, as opposed to troops who are out there in the open amongst semi-hostile populace and opposed by enemy whom they cannot see, but who can certainly harm them from time to time.

[und]

At the moment, the US is convincing countries like Turkey to replace them in Iraq. They want to keep their own people happy AND "win" or prolong the war.
In my opinion Turkey is America's best positioned puppet.

Edit: Oops, sorry for resurrecting this old thread, I didn't notice.