UN maps show 'security worsening' in Afghanistan

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
UN maps show 'security worsening' in Afghanistan

KABUL (AFP) – Confidential UN maps show a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan over the course of this year, despite White House claims its strategy is working, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

The paper compared two UN maps, one showing the situation at the start of this year's fighting season in March and the other towards its end in October.

While the situation in the south -- the fiercest battleground between US-led troops and the Taliban -- remained virtually unchanged at "very high risk", it worsened in 16 districts in the north and east, the paper said.

US President Barack Obama released his review of strategy in the war earlier this month, a year after ordering 30,000 extra troops into battle to prepare for a planned security handover to Afghan forces in 2014.

Obama described the strategy as "on track" but warned that gains were fragile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/afghanistanunrestun

seems obama's surge isn't having the effect that bush's surge in iraq had...i wonder if this is due to who is running the war...and obama seems to be highly optimistic...maybe head in sand syndrome?
 
Yurt said:
UN maps show 'security worsening' in Afghanistan

KABUL (AFP) – Confidential UN maps show a clear deterioration in security in parts of Afghanistan over the course of this year, despite White House claims its strategy is working, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

The paper compared two UN maps, one showing the situation at the start of this year's fighting season in March and the other towards its end in October.

While the situation in the south -- the fiercest battleground between US-led troops and the Taliban -- remained virtually unchanged at "very high risk", it worsened in 16 districts in the north and east, the paper said.

US President Barack Obama released his review of strategy in the war earlier this month, a year after ordering 30,000 extra troops into battle to prepare for a planned security handover to Afghan forces in 2014.

Obama described the strategy as "on track" but warned that gains were fragile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/afghanistanunrestun

seems obama's surge isn't having the effect that bush's surge in iraq had...i wonder if this is due to who is running the war...and obama seems to be highly optimistic...maybe head in sand syndrome?
Click to expand...

What an uber-hackish, idiotic thing to say.

One of Bush's first big decisions in the Iraq war was to disband the Iraq army. Most in the field say that added about 5 years to the conflict.

Yeah - that war was managed beautifully....

Bush lover.
 
Onceler said:
What an uber-hackish, idiotic thing to say.

One of Bush's first big decisions in the Iraq war was to disband the Iraq army. Most in the field say that added about 5 years to the conflict.

Yeah - that war was managed beautifully....

Bush lover.
Click to expand...

please cite where i said the war was managed well

your post clearly shows you're on your typical hate filled rant as you obviously didn't understand what i said....bone up on your reading skills before replying next time, thanks
 
Yurt said:
please cite where i said the war was managed well

your post clearly shows you're on your typical hate filled rant as you obviously didn't understand what i said....bone up on your reading skills before replying next time, thanks
Click to expand...

Your post shows exactly why you call everyone "hack" all of the time. Nothing but 100% pure projection....
 
Onceler said:
You always sprint from what you clearly imply.

Nice dodge, btw...NOT! Such a Bush lover....
Click to expand...

why don't you be honest for once and just admit you improperly read my post and incorrectly stated i gave bush props for the war

instead, you have to lie in order to not admit you're wrong....how pathetic...since we know you won't back your claim up because you know you're wrong, i'll repost what i said:

seems obama's surge isn't having the effect that bush's surge in iraq had
Click to expand...

you're really stupid for trying to keep the lie going onceler, do us all a favor and admit you misread my post and move on, stop fucking up another thread with your petulant bs
 
LOL

Funny how you left out the "i wonder if this is due to who is running the war" part.

Now, I wonder why that is?
 
anyway....back to the thread topic

does anyone have any ideas on why the surge in iraq worked whereas this surge does not appear to be working after a year....? could it be who is leading the war, decisions about troops etc...? or are they two totally different situations? i believe the surge in iraq was 50,000, whereas this is 30,000, then again, iraq is a larger war theater
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top