Afghanistan-a good decision?

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
So Obama essentially continues the policy of "more troops will solve everything".

Which might have solved or at least seriously diminished the world's Al Qaeda problem if that was the action taken in 2001 or at least during the last 8 years. But the Shrub & company royally fucked up that one.

So now we have the Taliban, the evil little twerps that gave Al Qaeda a safe haven, coming back into power, and Al Qaeda mostly in the border regions of PAKISTAN. Coupled with the corrupt Karzai gov't and a totally inept/divided local military and police; a country with serious geographic home court advantage and a population with more tribal divisions than you can shake a stick at...with the poppy plant being the cash crop of choice export.

Somehow, I just don't think becoming an occupying military force is going to solve all the problems.

IMHO, you deal with Al Qaeda groups with a combination of intelligence opterations and police actions. That way, you have a target and limited use of effective military power. As it stands now, we're following a somewhat benign version of what the Russians went through.....and we know how that turned out for them.

As it stands, we're not REALLY leaving Iraq...because I have yet to hear Obama make comment on reducing that Vactican sized "embassy" construction to a standard sized one. And the President should make clear that mercenary groups like Blackwater (or whatever the hell they are calling themselves now) should NOT be "contracted" for Afghanistan...let alone still operate in Iraq. BOTH countries are costing (and will cost) the American coffers dearly...so any real reform domestically for social services and infrastructure improvement will be stymied if not outrightly curtailed. Maybe there're hopes on that pipeline to the Caspian Sea....I don't know.

Yes, Obama had to do something...but trying to pull a Slick Willy with SOS actions an lip service to actual change of course is not the way, IMHO.
 
An interesting opinion for the most part...minor bias, but thats normal for everyone...

might have solved or at least seriously diminished the world's Al Qaeda problem?
Click to expand...
Yeah,... maybe, might have, its possible....but its quite obvious that AQ strength and influence has been substantially diminished in the past few years, thats undeniable....
The same is true about the Taliban...but they are even more of a problem than AQ for the Afghan people....AQ's enemy is the west, the Taliban is out to enslave the Afghan population....
The corrupt Karzai gov't.... inept/divided local military and police..... a population with tribal divisions and the poppy plant being the cash crop of choice export...all true...and most of its been true for decades.....
An occupying military force has never been the goal of anyone.
You say,
"IMHO, you deal with Al Qaeda groups with a combination of intelligence opterations and police actions."
Click to expand...
Sounds simple enough on the surface....but this is a foreign country, thousands of miles away from the US (logistics)
Intell and "police action" almost demands as large military presence....so, realistically, its not a viable idea....
IMHO...we must decimate the Taliban and AQ elements and convince the Afghan government to keep their remnants under control...and even that seems an impossible task...
--------------------------
We must end what the Itaqi people see as US occupation....
Hopefully, we'll never leave Iraq...hopefully Iraq and the US along with all 'western' countrys will see the advantage to all of us to co-operate for the common good...
 
Last edited:
You can't blame Bush for this Libby because he's not CIC anymore- your messiah is. His commanding general wanted 60,000 and Obama only gave him 1/2 of that. Since his decision was based on politics instead of the reality of war, we can look forward to another Vietnam. Your guy is fucking up.:good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
You can't blame Bush for this Libby because he's not CIC anymore- your messiah is. His commanding general wanted 60,000 and Obama only gave him 1/2 of that. Since his decision was based on politics instead of the reality of war, we can look forward to another Vietnam. Your guy is fucking up.:good4u:
Click to expand...




foghorncel.jpg





I say, I say, I say I told you so son...​
 
Excerpt from Krauthammer:

would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.


Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?

Southern Man said:
You can't blame Bush for this Libby because he's not CIC anymore- your messiah is. His commanding general wanted 60,000 and Obama only gave him 1/2 of that. Since his decision was based on politics instead of the reality of war, we can look forward to another Vietnam. Your guy is fucking up.:good4u:
Click to expand...
 
bravo said:
An interesting opinion for the most part...minor bias, but thats normal for everyone...

Which might have solved or at least seriously diminished the world's Al Qaeda problem if that was the action taken in 2001 or at least during the last 8 years. But the Shrub & company royally fucked up that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah,... maybe, might have, its possible....but its quite obvious that AQ strength and influence has been substantially diminished in the past few years, thats undeniable....


The same is true about the Taliban...but they are even more of a problem than AQ for the Afghan people....AQ's enemy is the west, the Taliban is out to enslave the Afghan population....Internationally, yes....but for Afghanistan Not quite, because thanks to the brilliant strategem of Rummy and Dead Eye Dick, Al Qaeda just ran to the hills and began raising hell on the Pakistan borders...and the Taliban has made a comeback to the point of being a serious threat.

The corrupt Karzai gov't.... inept/divided local military and police..... a population with tribal divisions and the poppy plant being the cash crop of choice export...all true...and most of its been true for decades.....
An occupying military force has never been the goal of anyone. But yet that seems to be the inevitable outcome of the current plan....just as it was in Iraq. The big difference is, the Afghan geography is NOT conducive to that scenario or tactic.

IMHO, you deal with Al Qaeda groups with a combination of intelligence opterations and police actions. That way, you have a target and limited use of effective military power. As it stands now, we're following a somewhat benign version of what the Russians went through.....and we know how that turned out for them.
Click to expand...

Sounds simple enough on the surface....but this is a foreign country, thousands of miles away from the US (logistics) Yes, which is why you can't depend upon trying to maintain an occupying force attempting to lock down the situation. Since we have a history in South America and with Iraq/Iran of somewhat effectively using the tactic in supporting shady gov'ts to curtail an enemy presence, I don't see why it can't be used now.

Intell and "police action" almost demands as large military presence....so, realistically, its not a viable idea.... Not true....remember Noriega? The strikes on Libya?IMHO...we must decimate the Taliban and AQ elements and convince the Afghan government to keep their remnants under control...and even that seems an impossible task... which will NOT be served by essentially increasing our military presence to the point were the locals just see us as enforcers of the Karzi/US gov't.
--------------------------
We must end what the Itaqi people see as US occupation....
Hopefully, we'll never leave Iraq...hopefully Iraq and the US along with all 'western' countrys will see the advantage to all of us to co-operate for the common good...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but colonialism eventually doesn't work...and at some point in the near future those children will have to deal with the ramification. Iraq, like Iran has a proud history of independence...they DON'T like an occupying force. Period. This is evident in the amount of civilian recruits that Al Qaeda garnered there.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Excerpt from Krauthammer:

would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.


Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
Click to expand...


So Krathammer (once again) talks out of both sides of his mouth....because he did occasionally criticize the war without end policy of the Shrub & company..and now he's lambasting Obama for actually doing (or at least alluding to) correcting that mistake. In effect, Krathammer is just advocating a continuation of a failed and costly (in lives and money) policy of the PNAC driven agenda of the last 8 years.

Blabba's summation is a-typical of the distortion whine one gets from the talking heads of Fox News....she leaves out of the actual speech the parts that would negate her conclusion and beliefs. Sad.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Excerpt from Krauthammer:

would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.


Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for our troops and country, Krauthammer is rarely wrong.
 
There's only a 100 there. That's like using our military here to go after some large gang or something. Africa probably has more AlQida than Afghanistan does. And some one in the administration needs to learn Afghanistan's military history.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
So Obama essentially continues the policy of "more troops will solve everything".

Which might have solved or at least seriously diminished the world's Al Qaeda problem if that was the action taken in 2001 or at least during the last 8 years. But the Shrub & company royally fucked up that one.

So now we have the Taliban, the evil little twerps that gave Al Qaeda a safe haven, coming back into power, and Al Qaeda mostly in the border regions of PAKISTAN. Coupled with the corrupt Karzai gov't and a totally inept/divided local military and police; a country with serious geographic home court advantage and a population with more tribal divisions than you can shake a stick at...with the poppy plant being the cash crop of choice export.

Somehow, I just don't think becoming an occupying military force is going to solve all the problems.

IMHO, you deal with Al Qaeda groups with a combination of intelligence opterations and police actions. That way, you have a target and limited use of effective military power. As it stands now, we're following a somewhat benign version of what the Russians went through.....and we know how that turned out for them.

As it stands, we're not REALLY leaving Iraq...because I have yet to hear Obama make comment on reducing that Vactican sized "embassy" construction to a standard sized one. And the President should make clear that mercenary groups like Blackwater (or whatever the hell they are calling themselves now) should NOT be "contracted" for Afghanistan...let alone still operate in Iraq. BOTH countries are costing (and will cost) the American coffers dearly...so any real reform domestically for social services and infrastructure improvement will be stymied if not outrightly curtailed. Maybe there're hopes on that pipeline to the Caspian Sea....I don't know.

Yes, Obama had to do something...but trying to pull a Slick Willy with SOS actions an lip service to actual change of course is not the way, IMHO.
Click to expand...

:good4u: :clap: :clap:
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Excerpt from Krauthammer:

would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.


Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't know krautie was a vet. Maybe someone should hook him up with McChrystal.

"Former Navy SEAL commander and now commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal lent support for the recently announced strategy of President Barack Obama for Afghanistan. He did so before a rather skeptical Congress, who allegedly peppered the commander with questions.

Overall, the commander was quoted as saying: “I’m comfortable with the entire plan,” referring to what was termed in a feature by the Associated Press as the “surge-and-exit” strategy for the pull-out of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The general signified this support despite the fact that he did not quite get the number of troops that he wanted and is now working with a timeline that he did not recommend."

http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2009/12/gen-mcchrystal-supports-obamas-afghan-plan.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top