The recent U.S. deaths in Afghanistan cut both ways in the escalation debate

Some supporters of escalation will likely argue that there need to be more troops to protect the forces from attack. The reality though, is that more troops introduced into the combat zone (with increased offensive missions against 'enemy' targets) is the primary cause of more U.S. and coalition deaths.

Which argument will prevail?

the reality is that we're digging in deeper to another senseless quagmire.

and hear what they think is the right course of action. I trust President Obama will make the correct decision in regards to the conflict in AfPak.

. . . who in the military is being 'listened to' in the WH? Petraeus? McCrystal? Odinero? It would be nice to have folks in the Pentagon leadership who weren't so wedded to the last administration. There's going to be an inevitable impulse from these holdover generals to 'win' what they started, at whatever the cost.

Who are you gonna ask? Front line soldiers? They are arguably the ones who know the very least about the large-scale strategic situation. And military command usually prefers for it to stay that way.

So, one can ask generals and the like. But those usually follow their own agenda and therefore aren't trustworthy sources either.

Under president Bush. :eyes:

welcome to DU, btw! :hi:

I think their judgment is skewed. We should listen to how to get them out, not how to increase the number of US targets.

whenever someone gets enough courage to end the war, it will be over the vociferous objections of "those in the battle".

The mindset is still muddled as people still equate Taliban with Al Queda and have little to no clue about the real war that's going on. Much of the fighting is now between tribes...the resumption of the constant strife in that area that out forces are now stuck in the middle. For those who see the Taliban as a subsidiary of Al Queda and a serious threat to US security (the next 9/11 mantra), then more troops are needed as the only "victory" is a total pacification of the country under the barrel of a gun. Others who see the real threat in Pakistan are stuck in their own box as any US military incursion into Pakistan promises to destabilize that country and could suck the US in even further.

The problem is our military has no real end game here...they claim they don't want to be occupiers yet the only way to accomplish a total pacification of the region is with "overwhelming force" and then for years and decades to come. Our country is showing less and less of an appetite for such adventures, it's a matter of the government and its military contractor friends to see it the same way. That could take some time.

Cheers...

Increased casualties can serve as justification for continuing these vain attempts to 'defeat' or 'eliminate' the 'enemy'. The military really hasn't much choice, but to recommend as many reinforcements as they can manage to support whatever mission they've been tasked with. They'll also be loath to just sit on those reinforcements in some defensive posture. The current strategy is to keep any armed resistance in the 'Taliban'-controlled provinces off-balance with these arbitrary offensive attacks. Sadly, it just perpetuates the cycle of attacks and reprisals. Escalating all of that just escalates the deaths and resistance without end. I hope the president makes a bold step to signal an end to our interest in pushing these ragtag Taliban rulers around just for the sake of dominating them.

"I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration." - President Obama, Sept. 20 on Meet the Press

What was our objective going in? What is our objective now? Has the mission crept forward or backward?

. . . to see just how the administration defines the 'way forward' in Afghanistan. The president has already indicated that he's not interested in some sort of posturing of our forces there just for appearance sake. But it will be interesting to see just how far his decision is from the split-the-difference compromises he's made so far in these troop decisions. I'm looking for something more decisive, but I expect a muddle, though, with 'combat troops' supplanted with more 'advisers' and trainers' to try and pacify the political sniping from the right. You can never feed those dogs enough ass meat to satisfy them, tho.

See Vietnam and Iraq for what happens when they do.

. . .both try and insulate themselves from a pronounced failure by stretching out the conflict. I've been told that Mr. Obama sometimes makes decisions above the politics of the moment. That's the hope.