Bush said we needed to stop terrorism by going into Iraq.
Obama said we needed to stop terrorism by going into Afganistan.
Going into Iraq was wrong, but at least for awhile it appeared that we were attempting to win. (What, I don't know).
Afganistan seems to be a "just for fun" war. We can't decide (read that, Obama can't decide) if we are in it to win. There are not enough troops to even make a dent.
Neither invasion has protected our shores.
Hence, my confusion.
We lost Korea. We lost Vietnam, We kicked ass in Granada. We are losing Iraq. We can't win in Afaganistan.
So far, we're 1-3 and looking towards 1-5. Think it's time to change managers?
Rick
------------------------------------ ILIAA
Training, Community, Support, and Success Independent Life Insurance Agents Assn rick@iliaa.org
We lost Korea. We lost Vietnam, We kicked ass in Granada. We are losing Iraq. We can't win in Afaganistan.
So far, we're 1-3 and looking towards 1-5. Think it's time to change managers?
Rick
I agree with Rick. My hope is that Obama is playing the "I'm looking at all angles" card in the hope that when he does announce his intention to pull out he can say "I weighed all the issues, etc."
I'm also hoping that Obama is working behind the scenes saying to Europe... "We're getting out unless you put in a million or more combat troops."
I'm sure that the brass hats are spinning their tired old "Just give us another 50,000 soldiers and we'll have it done in a year" Vietnam-story. But Winter is right. Obama owns both wars in a few months.
My question to you neo-cons is this. Do you want to get out... or do you want to send in 250,000 troops and have 10,000 come back dead and wounded? Since one of you has a conservative "What we believe" website that re-hashes all of Barry Goldwater's political positions, can I assume that those who agree with it, also agree we should just nuke the Taliban? That's basically what Goldwater wanted to do in Vietnam with "tactical nuclear weapons"... whatever those are!
I say we accept our losses (like we did in Vietnam) and get our butts out. What do you neo-cons say (as if I don't already know.)
If we leave Afghanistan it will certainly fall back into the hands of the Taliban who will become happy landlords for terrorist group like Al Quaeda.
Do you disagree with that?
And when the next terrorist attack kills thousand of Americans on our own shores, precisely what would you gentlemen recommend?
We will soon have over a quarter of a million troops in Afg and Iraq. There is the lib concern that we are exercising military might when in fact terrorism was something just invented by George Bush and we should be love-bombing these countries instead. However, my concern is the opposite. I think that there are so many dangers in the world (Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea, Russia, China, etc) that it is dangerous and a threat to our national security to not be able to respond to any other crisis in the world. We have been spread too thin for too long.
Unlike the libs, I am not opposed to slapping the regimes around in Iraq and Afg when they frig with us. I just dont think we owe them a democracy if we do, nor do they want one. Now you have Obama saying that he is going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans and turn it into the Switzerland of Islam. And McCain saying we cant leave Afg because the Taliban will go back to beating women instead of educating them. We are not going to change that.
If the Nato countries ponied up the same amount of troops collectively as the U.S., I would reconsider. But they only have half the troops and half of those are not allowed to be in combat areas, and most, Canadians included (who have fought hard) are pulling out next year. Britain is being overrun by Muslims and terrorists and should have as much stake in this as the U.S. We are talking about sending another 40-60 thousand troops. The Brits however committed to another 500 last week. That's hundred, not thousand.
I dont want to be in a position where we cant deal with Russia, Iran, North Korea, or China. Does that mean that radical Islam will advance? Yes. I know the rap about the Afg army needing to be trained and to stand up but it has been 8 years. Just as the U.S. was always just six months away from the Vietnamization of the war. Did it have consquences when we pulled out of S.E. Asia? You betcha. Cambodians were slaughtered by the millions and they knew the U.S. would not do anything about it or the U.N. either because we were war weary. The libs never said a word about it and couldnt have cared less. Same thing will happen many times over if we dont regroup from Afg and Iraq as soon as possible.
We are trying to fight a war with the Taliban in Afg. Problem is they are all over in Pakistan now and Pakistan has the bomb. Not a good combination. We made some progress in Iraq at the time of the surge. But the other thing that happened at exactly that time was that the Sunnis turned against Al Queda. Pakistan is just beginning to think about getting real about the Taliban too since the Taliban wants to overthrow them and is well on their way. To the extent that they do this, it is helpful, and both the military and the state department need to get their stuff together with Pakistan or we are going to lose the whole region, especially if we piddle our limited resources away trying to turn Afg into Switzerland.
Or maybe we can do both. Commander Biden says we can fight in Afg just using drones. Biden would certainly know something about being a drone but I digress.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
Without any kind of "border" policy or "crackdown" on illegal immigration, I don't know why we should expect that terrorists wouldn't be here, be coming here, anyway.
But then hey, all is well in America. We've eradicated all the gangs, haven't we?
Geez. We've got enough trouble as it is. Fix ourselves, first.
I just dont think we owe them a democracy if we do, nor do they want one.
Questions on this statement.
You say "they" don't want a democracy.
Who is the "they" you are referring to and would you argue that "they" are the majority in Iraq or the majority in Afganistan?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill
Without any kind of "border" policy or "crackdown" on illegal immigration, I don't know why we should expect that terrorists wouldn't be here, be coming here, anyway.
But then hey, all is well in America. We've eradicated all the gangs, haven't we?
Geez. We've got enough trouble as it is. Fix ourselves, first.
Pull the troops out of Afhganistan.
Let's be clear that the the "gangs" are not a military issue and take nothing from our military resources to address.
Yes, we have leaky borders backed up by an illegal immigration policy that is no policy at all.
Terrorists become serious threats when they have havens to train and organize. You don't sit back and hope to defeat them by have a good defense. In addition to your defense you must agressively go on the offense and keep them on the run, hiding in their caves until they show their heads.
I do not have a problem with troops stationed anywhere outside the U.S. We have troops in South Korea, we have them in Germany. No one really complains because our troops are not being killed in those places. And if you have to deploy troops to a new theatre, they are as fast and easy to move from those places as they are from home. There is a technical term for it, it's called "airplane".
Last edited by Robert Barney : 10-18-2009 at 10:12 PM.
Reason: Posts merged
Who is the "they" you are referring to and would you argue that "they" are the majority in Iraq or the majority in Afganistan?
".
I dont know. After eight years each of those countries needs to sort it out and not the beltway pundits.Their actions will answer the question. Whether each of those countries is just a house of cards held together by the U.S. military or whether there are those there who want a democracy remains to be seen. If there are lots of folks there that truly want a democracy and are willing to stand up for it, then we have given them a shot at it but I am not willing to hold them together with bailing wire and bondo for the next ten years or more. We dont have the troops anyway.
Oh, I don't know, I think the MS13 gang is a pretty good indicator of what a so-called "terrorist infiltration gang" could accomplish.
Perhaps one may be a bit quick to judge what should be/should not be a military operation. Seems to me that the reason why those of us on this board don't live in gang-infested areas is because we choose not to. Others, however, may not have so easy a choice.
As far as Germany & South Korea, unless they are paying us to have our troops there to protect them, we ought to bring them home as well.
In addition to your defense you must agressively go on the offense and keep them on the run, hiding in their caves until they show their heads.
.
Well, that's the point. We put them on the run and now Al Queda and the Taliban are based in Pakistan. Now what? We are going to keep spinning our wheels in Afg while all the commanders say that pakistan is the real problem and all the state deparment people say that preserving Pakistan is the real goal. Let the UN take care of it, or not. Or put the troops in Afg and while we are bogged down watch Iran move into Israel or Russia into Georgia or Poland or China in to Taiwan. Which one you want?
Right, as discussed. Pakistan provided safe haven for the Taliban and the Taliban started cannabalizing them to the point that Pakistan has finally gotten a wake up call. As discussed, this was the actual turning point in Iraq, when the Sunnis turned against Al Queda because Al Queda reached the point where it was cannabalizing them.
If Iraq, Afg, or Pakistan want to stand up that is a good thing and we should help them. But, "help" is not going to involve ground troops at some point soon and we certainly are not going to be sending troops into Pakistan unless the Taliban take over completely and we have to do a surgical mission to destroy their nukes. Unlike the libs, I am not hoping that all those countries fail just to make a case against the U.S or for withdrawal. Neither am I willing to be there another 8 years just to show them that I wish them well.
Obama will try to please everyone because that is what he does. He will come out with some plan that sends another 30,000 or so. 15,000 to go to combat forces and the other 15,000 to train Afghan soldiers. It's a good middle ground but it is at direct odds with those who believe we should either fight to win or pull out and it just keeps us mired. Presumably he is smart enough to offer more support to Pakistan as part of his strategy, and I could probably support that piece. Support does not mean troops but Pakistan would not allow that anyway. Right now the U.S. is telling Afg backchannel that if they dont hold a run-off election they wont get any more troops. I suppose that's okay too because they wont.
Iraq and Afg - Remind Me. Why?
Linear Mode
