More Troops to Afghan

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.

I don't think Trump will fail, but he won't succeed either. The hard decision I think will have to be made by someone willing to own the collapse of Afghanistan. Or failing that, a miracle.
 
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.
educate yourself: you can't nationbuild with 14k troops
Besides the nationbuild has already been done

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/21/tru...ly-to-focus-on-counter-terrorism-efforts.html
National security analysts say there have been bombings in major cities by the Taliban and other militant groups but that Afghan security forces have done a reasonable job of holding onto the population centers.

there's a need to increase air support as part of the counter terrorism effort too. "If we sharply increase the number of air sorties, that could do a lot to sustain things on the military side. And it would over time build up an effective Afghan force. So it could accomplish a great deal."
ugelman said there remain benefits to adding another 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. forces since "it would be able to better plug the gaps in capacity that we see from Afghan security force."

Kugelman also said it would help the Afghan security forces deal with weaknesses in intelligence collection and problems with air support and air cover.
 
educate yourself: you can't nationbuild with 14k troops
Besides the nationbuild has already been done

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/21/tru...ly-to-focus-on-counter-terrorism-efforts.html
National security analysts say there have been bombings in major cities by the Taliban and other militant groups but that Afghan security forces have done a reasonable job of holding onto the population centers.

there's a need to increase air support as part of the counter terrorism effort too. "If we sharply increase the number of air sorties, that could do a lot to sustain things on the military side. And it would over time build up an effective Afghan force. So it could accomplish a great deal."
ugelman said there remain benefits to adding another 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. forces since "it would be able to better plug the gaps in capacity that we see from Afghan security force."

Kugelman also said it would help the Afghan security forces deal with weaknesses in intelligence collection and problems with air support and air cover.

'Nation building' is a kind of catch-all buzz word.

As you pointed out, the 'nation' is already there. We're not out to overturn it and turn it in to something else.
 
Pop quiz: anyone remember how long the Soviets were in Afghanistan?

Fools. These are people fighting this war.
that was an invasion.The Soviets tried to conquer Afghanistan
It can't be done. Afghanistan is the "Graveyard of the Empires"
 
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.

Who was crowing about his amazing abilities to keep us out of war? Do you have quotes?

Trumps biggest mistake in his Presicency was firing Flynn and hiring McMaster
 
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

Yes well so be it, there are still soldiers in Korea since the armistice was signed in 1953. There were many thousands in Germany during the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
Thingy has his trite dictums lol.

You're spoiling it for him.

It actually makes me queasy to hear your rhetoric on this & how easily you buy whatever Trump says, and at the same time realizing that people's children are going to die because of Trump's decision.

And be careful about bringing up any of Obama's or Clinton's conflicts here. I'm always opposed to using our military when there is not a direct, immediate threat to our national security. Everyone should be.
 
Under Obama, Afghan was the "GOOD WAR" :palm:

I supported the initial effort under Bush, but came to regret that decision. I opposed all of Obama's military efforts.

So, who are you referring to? Certainly, no one on the right on JPP thought that - they all opposed any use of the military under Obama, but will now support anything Trump does.
 
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.
Why don't you just hand over Pakistan to Daesh now and get it over with!
 
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.
The problem is still the same, Afghanistan isn't a single nation, it is tribal, we will have to stay several generations, educate the populace to bring about real change. It will take a huge investment in the country, are Americans willing? I don't think they are.
 
More military autonomy
Perhaps the biggest military change Trump announced Monday was to relax US authorities to attack the Taliban and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration placed restrictions on US offensive operations in Afghanistan after the Afghan forces took the lead on fighting the Taliban, a move that frequently frustrated commanders in the field.

inning ... but not nation-building
When Obama talked about the war in Afghanistan, he focused on bringing US troops home. Trump made clear he wants victory there.

"Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win," Trump said. "From now on, victory will have a clear definition, attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge."

But the key thing Trump made clear to move away from — a nod to the isolationist wing of his supporters who backed a US pullout from Afghanistan — was nation-building.

"We want them to succeed, but we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in far-away lands or try to rebuild other countries in our own image," Trump said. "Those days are now over."
Trump said bluntly that the US was "not nation-building again."

To finish the point, he added: "We are killing terrorists."
"Micromanagement from Washington, DC, does not win battles," Trump said.

He added that he would give military commanders the authority to act in real time and expand the authorities for US armed forces to target terrorists and criminal networks in Afghanistan.

"These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms," Trump said. "Retribution will be fast and powerful."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/trump-afghan-plan-five-things/index.html
 
I supported the initial effort under Bush, but came to regret that decision. I opposed all of Obama's military efforts.

So, who are you referring to? Certainly, no one on the right on JPP thought that - they all opposed any use of the military under Obama, but will now support anything Trump does.

I'm referring to the Left's messiah, warmongerer Obama, first and foremost.
 
The problem is still the same, Afghanistan isn't a single nation, it is tribal, we will have to stay several generations, educate the populace to bring about real change. It will take a huge investment in the country, are Americans willing? I don't think they are.

Most seem far too willing when it's not one of their family members fighting (and deference on that comment to anyone who DOES have a family member involved).

It's the old test: is the justification enough that you would have no problem sending your own kid, or another loved one? I don't see the compelling case here, at all. Just a lot of vague speculation on what might happen if we leave.
 
The problem is still the same, Afghanistan isn't a single nation, it is tribal, we will have to stay several generations, educate the populace to bring about real change. It will take a huge investment in the country, are Americans willing? I don't think they are.
we did that..we are past "educating the population/change" etc. It ain't happening.

we are now in the business of killing terrorist and their networks and supporting the ANAF

This is not a surge/escalation/nationbuilding..it's using the US forces effectively both independent and embedded
 
Most seem far too willing when it's not one of their family members fighting (and deference on that comment to anyone who DOES have a family member involved).

It's the old test: is the justification enough that you would have no problem sending your own kid, or another loved one? I don't see the compelling case here, at all. Just a lot of vague speculation on what might happen if we leave.

Ummm ... Republican President Nixon ended the military draft. We now have an all VOLUNTEER military :palm:
 
Back
Top