Obama's Lose-Lose Decision

Mott the Hoople said:
No, quite the contrary, I think finding and capturing/killing Bin Ladin will haunt US Presidents until Bin Ladin is captured or dead.
Click to expand...
So you're not catching the similarities with a past and are pretending his specific mention of the war in Afghanistan and its importance in capturing or killing Bin Laden never existed?
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
Fair enough, you've clearly defined what you believe victory to be.

Now the question is how much time, blood and treasure are willing to commit the nation to to achieve it?
Click to expand...
That's easy for him to say. It's not his blood or treasure.

My answer would be, victory has been achieved when Afghanistan is no longer a clear and present danger to US national security. Having said that, your question still applies. How much blood and treasure are we willing to commit? "Whatever it takes" is a senseless and inhumane answer of someone who is callous to death and dying and the suffering of others.

The means of securing our aims is by establishing a modernized stable government that isn't ruled by midevil drug/war lords. The problem is, how to do that and at what price? I'm not going to pretend I have the answer by saying something as flippant and immoral or as open ended as "whatever it takes.".
 
Damocles said:
So you're not catching the similarities with a past and are pretending his specific mention of the war in Afghanistan and its importance in capturing or killing Bin Laden never existed?
Click to expand...

So, my good friend, are you saying that the mission's focus should be limited primarily to hunting down Bin Laden? If that's the objective, then we need to immediately move towards decamping Hell's Half Acre and take steps towards setting up the "hunter-killer" program the two of us appear to have agreed on earlier. The time for the fool's errand of nation-building has come to end; the time for ruthless headhunting is at hand.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
So, my good friend, are you saying that the mission's focus should be limited primarily to hunting down Bin Laden? If that's the objective, then we need to immediately move towards decamping Hell's Half Acre and take steps towards setting up the "hunter-killer" program the two of us appear to have agreed on earlier. The time for the fool's errand of nation-building has come to end; the time for ruthless headhunting is at hand.
Click to expand...
That's what it should have been from the beginning, instead we have Bush then Obama... The Dumbnastic Duo brings us a foreign war while we ignore people getting killed on our own border.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
So, my good friend, are you saying that the mission's focus should be limited primarily to hunting down Bin Laden? If that's the objective, then we need to immediately move towards decamping Hell's Half Acre and take steps towards setting up the "hunter-killer" program the two of us appear to have agreed on earlier. The time for the fool's errand of nation-building has come to end; the time for ruthless headhunting is at hand.
Click to expand...
Well that I don't agree with. The reason Afghanistan was a national security threat was that they were a failed state which sponsored terrorist who attacked our nation. If we leave Afghanistan as a failed state, even if Bin Ladin is dead (always a worthy goal) what is to say the Taliban won't move right back in and Afghanistan will revert right back to the Narco trafficaing, terrorist supporting failed state anarchy that would threaten our security again vis-a-vis supporting terrorist attacks on our nation?

It is mitigating this threat which I would consider a victory. How do we do that with out nation building?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that I don't agree with. The reason Afghanistan was a national security threat was that they were a failed state which sponsored terrorist who attacked our nation. If we leave Afghanistan as a failed state, even if Bin Ladin is dead (always a worthy goal) what is to say the Taliban won't move right back in and Afghanistan will revert right back to the Narco trafficaing, terrorist supporting failed state anarchy that would threaten our security again vis-a-vis supporting terrorist attacks on our nation?

It is mitigating this threat which I would consider a victory. How do we do that with out nation building?
Click to expand...

I would refer you to what I posted in post #33, Mott.

"....we'd be far better served by a combination of an extensive HUMINT network, drone-coverage, special forces teams and over-the-horizon strike capabilities. Critical to its' success, though, would be an emphasis on rapid and devastating responses when necessary. Additionally, it would be augmented by an aggressive program that targets the Taliban leadership in order to keep them off balance and unable to gain significant traction or a permanent foothold.

If we as a nation aren't willing to commit to a policy along these lines, then we must ask why we should continue to expend massive amounts of national treasure, including the blood of our fellow countrymen, for an ambiguous and undefined objective.

While I am sure this will draw fire from my friends on the Right, if we cannot define victory or we determine that the costs are too high, then one must seriously consider pursuing a comprehensive political solution that makes the Taliban a stakeholder rather than an insurgent. The alternative to these two policies is the continued erosion of the fiscal and military pillars which support our national power and another headstone in the graveyard of empires."

Along those lines, should we seek integration of the Taliban into the political system, a condition of their integration should be a formal break with Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, it should be clearly understood that should they violate this condition, they will be subject to whatever use of force is deemed appropriate by the Afghan and American governments.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's easy for him to say. It's not his blood or treasure.

My answer would be, victory has been achieved when Afghanistan is no longer a clear and present danger to US national security. Having said that, your question still applies. How much blood and treasure are we willing to commit? "Whatever it takes" is a senseless and inhumane answer of someone who is callous to death and dying and the suffering of others.

The means of securing our aims is by establishing a modernized stable government that isn't ruled by midevil drug/war lords. The problem is, how to do that and at what price? I'm not going to pretend I have the answer by saying something as flippant and immoral or as open ended as "whatever it takes.".
Click to expand...
I think you have to realize that the phrase "what ever it takes" is not as open-ended as you are accusing your opponents of holding. However it denotes an attitude that is essential in warfare. Your basic definition of victory is quite accurate: assuring the nation in question no longer poses a threat (which includes it will not RETURN to pose a threat anytime soon.)

You question the price in attaining the goal of assuring Afghanistan no long poses a threat to national security. But you neglect the corollary: what is the price of NOT achieving that goal?
 
Good Luck said:
I think you have to realize that the phrase "what ever it takes" is not as open-ended as you are accusing your opponents of holding. However it denotes an attitude that is essential in warfare. Your basic definition of victory is quite accurate: assuring the nation in question no longer poses a threat (which includes it will not RETURN to pose a threat anytime soon.)

You question the price in attaining the goal of assuring Afghanistan no long poses a threat to national security. But you neglect the corollary: what is the price of NOT achieving that goal?
Click to expand...

This is the question that must be sufficiently answered. The other question, at least in my mind now, is will we leave Afghanistan better than we found it. Allowing the people of Afghanistan to return to Taliban control is unacceptable. It ensures that Afghanistan will remain the center of terrorism for the foreseeable future.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
I would refer you to what I posted in post #33, Mott.

"....we'd be far better served by a combination of an extensive HUMINT network, drone-coverage, special forces teams and over-the-horizon strike capabilities. Critical to its' success, though, would be an emphasis on rapid and devastating responses when necessary. Additionally, it would be augmented by an aggressive program that targets the Taliban leadership in order to keep them off balance and unable to gain significant traction or a permanent foothold.
Click to expand...


How would we do that with out bases of operation in the area?

If we as a nation aren't willing to commit to a policy along these lines, then we must ask why we should continue to expend massive amounts of national treasure, including the blood of our fellow countrymen, for an ambiguous and undefined objective.
Click to expand...
I agree, these need to be soundly defined if were to continue to sacrifice blood and treasure.

While I am sure this will draw fire from my friends on the Right, if we cannot define victory or we determine that the costs are too high, then one must seriously consider pursuing a comprehensive political solution that makes the Taliban a stakeholder rather than an insurgent. The alternative to these two policies is the continued erosion of the fiscal and military pillars which support our national power and another headstone in the graveyard of empires."
Click to expand...
Along those lines, should we seek integration of the Taliban into the political system, a condition of their integration should be a formal break with Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, it should be clearly understood that should they violate this condition, they will be subject to whatever use of force is deemed appropriate by the Afghan and American governments.
Click to expand...
Again this harkens back to, what are our political goals in this war? I don't mean to beat Clausewitz to death but this administration needs to communicate a clear and well defined political aim for this war if the American people are to continue to support the war in Afghanistan. With out this clear understanding of what our political goals in Afghanistan are, no strategy, even the one you've proposed, will work.
 
Good Luck said:
I think you have to realize that the phrase "what ever it takes" is not as open-ended as you are accusing your opponents of holding. However it denotes an attitude that is essential in warfare. Your basic definition of victory is quite accurate: assuring the nation in question no longer poses a threat (which includes it will not RETURN to pose a threat anytime soon.)

You question the price in attaining the goal of assuring Afghanistan no long poses a threat to national security. But you neglect the corollary: what is the price of NOT achieving that goal?
Click to expand...
I think that's a good (and relevant) question but a rhetorical one as the answer is pretty obvious. We risk another 911 style terrorist attack.

My point though is that if that is indeed our political aim of this war, to ensure that Aghanistan no longer represents a threat to the US then this political goal needs to be clearly defined and communicated to the American people. That is to say, if we don't know what our political aims are for this war then we cannot possibly win it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top