More Troops to Afghan

[canceled.2021.3]

Nobody wants to stay there.

But you simply can't deny that total withdrawal will lead to the identical result as when Obama adandoned Iraq and when we mindlessly destabilized Libya.

Maybe you or someone else can explain how the same result in Afghanistan would serve US interests.

Also, Trump made it pretty clear this wasn't opended ended. If he doesn't get the results he wants, he'll say Fvct it, and pull the plug on it somewhere don't the road.

Lots of people want to stay there. The neocons want to stay there.

We have ZERO interest staying there. It is a war without end. These are animals. Anyone thinking they will move toward western style democracy is fooling themselves. Trump go rolled by McMaster. That is a fact. There is no spinning it.

Now that being said, it is always a fact that presidential candidates talk a lot tougher before they get into Office than when they are in. Think Obama and Gitmo. The generals have the routine down pat. They just keep whispering in their ear "You don't want to be the President when the last soldier is taken off the rooftop by helicopter"

That Lindsay Graham is praising Trump is all I need to know. Do you think he is going to get any quarter from the neocons? No.

Do you think the libtards are going to praise him? Fuck no. They are already trying to score political points. Now GayRod will run around with his "you got duped" routine. But, I always thought it doubtful that he would pull troops right out even though it is the right thing to do.

There are lots of unstable countries out there. We have no more obligation to Afghanistan than we do anywhere else.

We need to bomb the shit out of them, killing women, children, old people anyone who walks until they say "Mercy please". And then get the fuck out.

Congress needs to reassert its authority and declare a war, but they won't. They are pussies. Nobody should support this policy. I do not. But, I still support Trump.

For the libtards, my support does not rest on any one single policy. But, I will criticize when I think it necessary.

 

[Amadeus]

Put diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to reign-in the Taliban from one side---and kick their asses with looser rules of engagement and generals calling shots on the ground, from the other.

Please. Pakistan will do what is in their interest, and if that means supporting and/or enabling terrorists (remember where Bin Laden was found?), they will do it. And that changes NOTHING with regard to Trump's decision to nation-build for the term of his presidency.

 

[dukkha]

The second America withdraws, without some form of nation-building, it becomes a terrorist haven. So either you stay there indefinitely or nation-build. There is no third option that doesn't result in the collapse of Afghanistan.

you might very well have to stay there. Low level troops to keep the place from becoming a terrorist state.
Trump didn't start this -nor did Obama ( although Obama micromanaged the war ,and was a shitty general)
This was a neocon misadventure handed down 16 years now

we keep troops in Europe, and we've escalated there thanks to our Russiaphobic Cold war 2.0 posture.
We might have to stay in Afghan indefinately in a counter-terrorist posture.

It is what it is..If you leave chances are the place will fragment into terrorist strongholds-
or you welcome back the Taliban who will gladly accept ISIS and foreign fighters in like it was before.

Our options are limited.
you run thru scenarios. you try the best outcome, and you play the ball where it lies like golf.
Or you pull out and the place goes to hell

 

[Irish]

Let the nation building begin!

Globalism at its finest!

He directly said we wouldn't be nation building, only helping in the fight against ISIS/Taliban. Why do you leftists continue to lie daily?

 

[Amadeus]

For what it's worth, Trump's plan has the full backing of super-neocon, Lindsey Graham.

 

[Darth Omar]

Well, for one, Trump spent the past 8 years telling Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan. And to turn things around on you, Trump's strategy is literally more of the same. Why criticize Obama and not Trump?

And when you say 'Victory is a reasonably stable government', you are endorsing nation building. America is committing blood and treasure to stabilize another nation. Sorry if you don't see it.

Ok, victory is getting the Taliban to negotiate a political solution with the Afghan government. Obviously, the political goal is some form of coalition government. But we have no say in the type of government, don't force elections, don't place advisors training them in Jeffersonian democracy and etc.

How's that?

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Ok, victory is getting the Taliban to negotiate a political solution with the Afghan government. Obviously, the political goal is some form of coalition government. But we have no say in the type of government, don't force elections, don't place advisors training them in Jeffersonian democracy and etc.

How's that?

you can't be serious

 

[Irish]

but the ANAF is getting beaten in battle,as well as Kabul bombings.
I hate being there. We should have never gone in. but we are,and we can't let it become a full terrorist state.

it's a stalemate/ best we're gonna get

Like Iraq, its very complex. If Pakistan would stop offering safe havens for ISIS/Taliban in its country the ANAF might stand a chance. We haven't really pressured or put the screws to Pakistan, or even thought about using India as leverage.

A lot more can be done on the diplomatic pressure line. Obama really wasn't interested in much of that. He wanted to throw a few peanuts at it, say it didn't work, and fully withdraw like in Iraq.

 

[dukkha]

Please. Pakistan will do what is in their interest, and if that means supporting and/or enabling terrorists (remember where Bin Laden was found?), they will do it. And that changes NOTHING with regard to Trump's decision to nation-build for the term of his presidency.

so you put pressure on Paki. economic/ISI bribe money/reducing intel sharing-at the same time we are trying to work India to be a more viable presence.
You tell Paki if they wont cooperate we're gonna step up droning..

Paki is in trouble from the Tribal areas and Waziristan. The last thing they want is more drones.
Drones are a rallying point for the TTP Taliban especially if the Islamabad government is seen as an enabler.

 

[Amadeus]

Ok, victory is getting the Taliban to negotiate a political solution with the Afghan government. Obviously, the political goal is some form of coalition government. But we have no say in the type of government, don't force elections, don't place advisors training them in Jeffersonian democracy and etc.

How's that?

Sounds very much like Iraq to me. In fact, if you had said this 12 years ago I'd be unable to discern your strategy from Bush's in Iraq. You achieve stability, and when America leaves, the government decides to turn sectarian-thug and disenfranchise one side of the 'coalition' -- or simply collapses due to rampant corruption. When Obama left Iraq (or rather, was forced to leave), Al-Maliki almost immediately disassembled his military and installed loyalist cronies, and began targeting Sunnis.

We know how this will end, and Trump is simply putting a band-aid on the problem rather than face a tough decision. Yes, his military advisors KNOW Afghanistan will collapse. The only solution is to nation build and stay there for another 20 years, and hope for the best when America does pull out (after billions/trillions more of an investment, not to mention the blood investment). Trump should be clear about this to the American people.

 

[Darth Omar]

you can't be serious

Well, what's your solution?

 

[dukkha]

Like Iraq, its very complex. If Pakistan would stop offering safe havens for ISIS/Taliban in its country the ANAF might stand a chance. We haven't really pressured or put the screws to Pakistan, or even thought about using India as leverage.

A lot more can be done on the diplomatic pressure line. Obama really wasn't interested in much of that. He wanted to throw a few peanuts at it, say it didn't work, and fully withdraw like in Iraq.

but we are still dealing with a nuclear Pakistan, and not just ICBM's. A good part of their arsenal are "tactical nukes"-short range battlefield nukes in the border stand off with India. so that is the caveat

 

[Darth Omar]

Sounds very much like Iraq to me. In fact, if you had said this 12 years ago I'd be unable to discern your strategy from Bush's in Iraq. You achieve stability, and when America leaves, the government decides to turn sectarian-thug and disenfranchise one side of the 'coalition' -- or simply collapses due to rampant corruption. When Obama left Iraq (or rather, was forced to leave), Al-Maliki almost immediately disassembled his military and installed loyalist cronies, and began targeting Sunnis.

We know how this will end, and Trump is simply putting a band-aid on the problem rather than face a tough decision. Yes, his military advisors KNOW Afghanistan will collapse. The only solution is to nation build and stay there for another 20 years, and hope for the best when America does pull out (after billions/trillions more of an investment, not to mention the blood investment). Trump should be clear about this to the American people.

What's the solution?

 

[dukkha]

For what it's worth, Trump's plan has the full backing of super-neocon, Lindsey Graham.

did you listen to Graham??
He endorsed it as a viable anti-terrorist play.. Yes he's a neocon but he's not completely crazed like John McCain

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Like Iraq, its very complex. If Pakistan would stop offering safe havens for ISIS/Taliban in its country the ANAF might stand a chance. We haven't really pressured or put the screws to Pakistan, or even thought about using India as leverage.

A lot more can be done on the diplomatic pressure line. Obama really wasn't interested in much of that. He wanted to throw a few peanuts at it, say it didn't work, and fully withdraw like in Iraq.

It isn't our job. Let those fuckers kill each other.

It is funny, but the same douchebags (not you) who claim that we need to keep troops in Afghanistan to prevent muslims from coming here and committing another 9-11 are the the same ones who say we can't ban muslims from coming to this country.

Anyone else see the irony?

 

[Amadeus]

What's the solution?

I don't have a solution, I'm simply laying out the options. Trump is effectively ceding leadership to the military, but the responsibility is ultimately on him.

I'm actually pleased with this discussion because we're actually discussing policy rather than flinging mud. A welcome change.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

If you don't want to create a "vacuum for terrorists," you're nation-building.

The same guys who were crowing just last week about Trump's remarkable ability to keep us out of war are now singing his praises for (drumroll)...escalating a war.

Trump can say literally anything & they'll buy it. It's hard to watch.

 

[dukkha]

Sounds very much like Iraq to me. In fact, if you had said this 12 years ago I'd be unable to discern your strategy from Bush's in Iraq. You achieve stability, and when America leaves, the government decides to turn sectarian-thug and disenfranchise one side of the 'coalition' -- or simply collapses due to rampant corruption. When Obama left Iraq (or rather, was forced to leave), Al-Maliki almost immediately disassembled his military and installed loyalist cronies, and began targeting Sunnis.

We know how this will end, and Trump is simply putting a band-aid on the problem rather than face a tough decision. Yes, his military advisors KNOW Afghanistan will collapse. The only solution is to nation build and stay there for another 20 years, and hope for the best when America does pull out (after billions/trillions more of an investment, not to mention the blood investment). Trump should be clear about this to the American people.

BUT. the ANAF are not purged out by sectarianism,and WILL fight, have been fighting and taking big losses.
as long as we give them tactical backing I don't see it changing, despite the pressures.

Don't forget the Taliban has come to the negotiation table before- start killing them,and seizing land, and they will comeback

 

[Amadeus]

BUT. the ANAF are not purged out by sectarianism,and WILL fight, have been fighting and taking big losses.
as long as we give them tactical backing I don't see it changing, despite the pressures.

Don't forget the Taliban has come to the negotiation table before- start killing them,and seizing land, and they will comeback

The Taliban's presence in Afghanistan will far outlast the US.

 

[Darth Omar]

I don't have a solution, I'm simply laying out the options. Trump is effectively ceding leadership to the military, but the responsibility is ultimately on him.

I'm actually pleased with this discussion because we're actually discussing policy rather than flinging mud. A welcome change.

Indeed.

Trump may fail on this, or not. But ceding another nation in the region to ISIS isn't a viable option in my mind, so I'm on board with it for now at least.

He won't give a date, but I got the sense from the speech that he'll pull out if it comes to it.