Obama begins buildup in Afghanistan

[moparacer]

The surge will NEVER work!

Oh wait, I swear I have heard that before....hmmmm.

That huge thump you heard January 21, 2009 was all the anti war bandwagoners falling off.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I do not see how anyone can win a "war on terror" like we are fighting abroad. Especially with the enemy caring little for their civilian population (beyond their use as propaganda) by hiding amongst them. When we kill an insurgent, many times the civilians amongst them get killed in the cross-fire and they use it as propaganda to recruit more insurgents. It seems like a cycle that never ends....

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I do not see how anyone can win a "war on terror" like we are fighting abroad. Especially with the enemy caring little for their civilian population (beyond their use as propaganda) by hiding amongst them. When we kill an insurgent, many times the civilians amongst them get killed in the cross-fire and they use it as propaganda to recruit more insurgents. It seems like a cycle that never ends....

The cycle ends as civilian morale turns against the terrorists that exploit them.

 

[Lemon law]

I do not want to say the Schradenfroh characterization is completely false, but its time to point out that the Taliban is basically 100% a homegrown Afghan movement. And almost 100% of its members are the sons of Afghan parents. One day they were the Government of Afghanistan and the next day they are suddenly shot on sight because Al-Quida, a totally separate group attacked
the USA on 911.

To us the Taliban are the bad guys, to the Taliban, Nato are the bad guys. But in the eyes of 99.9% of the Afghan people, they do not trust the Taliban, Nato, or the Afghan government and all of them are life threatening to be around.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: moparacer
The surge will NEVER work!

Oh wait, I swear I have heard that before....hmmmm.

That huge thump you heard January 21, 2009 was all the anti war bandwagoners falling off.

The surge didn't help nearly as much as the new policy of buying off the locals.

 

[Lemon law]

Actually Atreus21 makes a good point with, "The cycle ends as civilian morale turns against the terrorists that exploit them."

But it also cuts the other way according to US military doctrine, because, if after eight years, civilian hearts and minds are not well on the US side, the occupation is lost. And while Nato has been loud in its rhetoric and promises, it has delivered an occupation on the cheap that has basically only brought anarchy and corruption. After almost eight years of that, why should the Afghan people support Nato? We had that similar revelation in Vietnam which ramped up in a big way in 1964, sure enough, after year eight in 1973, Nixon got out of Vietnam while calling it peace with honor.

The American people want to think we have far more Afghan civilian support than we actually have. And while us American sleep on content in our myths, troops recently put on the ground suddenly discover the Taliban has quietly wrapped up 95% of Afghanistan.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: bamacre
So what exactly are we still doing in Afghanistan, and what exactly is our exit strategy?

Well considering we haven't really done anything there up until now we have a lot to do. Bush really made shit hard for his successor.

How so? We won in iraq, now focus elsewhere. If anything Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise.

Mission Accomplished!

I'd insert a smiley face here, but this makes it a bit difficult.

100% yes. This is what the cowardly keyboard soldiers like chickenshit07 conveniently forget all the time. As long as THEIR name is not up on that list, they are A OK with thousands of US deaths so long as it isn't their own. There will be a special place in hell reserved for the yes men imo.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: moparacer
The surge will NEVER work!

Oh wait, I swear I have heard that before....hmmmm.

That huge thump you heard January 21, 2009 was all the anti war bandwagoners falling off.

The surge didn't help nearly as much as the new policy of buying off the locals.

Or the truce with al Sadr and the Mahdi army in August of '07.

The is nothing to 'surge' in Afghanistan --- except a bunch of rocky mountains. As I understand the greatest difficulty it is in training the Afghan Army.

Because of the low literacy rate even those trained as officers cannot read or write. They can't read street signs and highway markers - much less maps.

Maybe we should surge a bunch of teachers?

 

[Skitzer]

I happen to share the opinions of Ron Paul on the subject of foreign wars. Link
We need to get the hell out of the middle east, the sooner the better. We've got no business meddling in other Country's affairs. We are squandering our wealth and losing valuable people and assets ......... for what?! These wasteful wars serve no purpose and make us more vulnerable to attack. End the cycle of terrorism by bringing out troops home now.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: bamacre
So what exactly are we still doing in Afghanistan, and what exactly is our exit strategy?

Well considering we haven't really done anything there up until now we have a lot to do. Bush really made shit hard for his successor.

How so? We won in iraq, now focus elsewhere. If anything Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise.

WTF

You can't possibly be serious....Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise? Man you must doing some serious @ss drugs.

So 9 months into his presidency Obama's inherited war is just as fucked up? Because he hasnt done ANYTHING in Iraq. Since youre implying it IS still just as fucked up, when do you think Obama will get around to cleaning it up?

Huh? I did not imply the war in Iraq was/is still just as messed up. I didn't imply anything there Gomer Pyle. I was taken back by his lunatic statement about Bush leaving things cleaned up war wise, which is either one of two things. A lie or complete bullsh!t. You can imply which ever one of the two things you like.

 

[Lemon law]

After reviewing the record, I have to agree 100% with the original statement by classy.

And to some extent, Obama has no real options in Iraq because GWB had already agreed to a withdrawal timetable effective even before GWB left office. And we also have to agree that GWB was between a rock and a hard place because the UN permission for the American occupation expired 12/31/2008, and it was clear the UN would not renew it without those withdrawal terms.

The problem with Iraq is that all the various Iraqi insurgencies are better armed than ever, but have switched from violent ethnic cleansing to non-violently looting the Iraqi central government. And with basically no political progress Iraq limps along with the stability being far broader than it is deep. Sooner or later its going to be a question, can the Iraqi central government eliminate the power of insurgent groups or will some spark ignite a total civil war. Meanwhile Iraq straddles that fence.

But If Iraq does go civil war, there will not be enough US troops left to stop it, which may be good in the US sense that its always unwise for US troops to be inside a burning building because the fire will burn everyone.

If anyone wants to call Iraq certainly stabilized by GWB and mission accomplished, that someone is serious self deluding only themselves. Which is not to say, if Iraq takes all the right steps, Iraq may after much time have a politically stable country.

As for Afghanistan, any notion that GWB solved any Afghan problems is a total absurdity. Nato was in better shape when they started than they are eight years later in Afghanistan. Maybe McChrystal can start to turn it around, IMHO he seems to be the first one that seems to get things right, but I also wonder if its going to end up too little too late.

 

[LunarRay]

"RCW: There have been a number of revelations recently about endemic corruption in Afghanistan, as well numerous reports of election fraud. Can the U.S. rebuild a nation when its governing institutions are seen as corrupt, illegitimate, or both?

Dobbins: Corruption is a major factor in influencing the popular attitude [toward the Afghan government], but you need realistic metrics. Is it more corrupt than Pakistan or Tajikistan? And you may say yes, even by that low standard, the corruption has reached a bad point. But let's step back: the U.S. doesn't invade poor countries to make them rich or authoritarian countries to make them democratic. We invade violent countries to make them peaceful. The criteria are whether you can take a society in conflict and leave it at peace with itself and its neighbors.

So if you're trying to conduct an operation of this sort, whether it be in Libera or Sierra Leone, you're not trying to turn them into a Malaysia or South Korea, you're trying to get them to be like other African countries around them that are not at war. Azerbaijan and Tajikistan are sad places, but they're not at war. That's the standard."
James Dobbins interview

I think this may be the way to look at it... the Dobbins standard!

 

[Lemon law]

After reading the Dobbins interview, I better understand why the Bush administration blew it. More understandable if they listened to a word Dobbins had to say as he quite belatedly wakes up to the fact that corruption is a problem in Afghanistan.

If Dobbins is our best expert on nation building, we are in serious trouble.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
After reading the Dobbins interview, I better understand why the Bush administration blew it. More understandable if they listened to a word Dobbins had to say as he quite belatedly wakes up to the fact that corruption is a problem in Afghanistan.

If Dobbins is our best expert on nation building, we are in serious trouble.

You can call him Jim.

I've followed his career for some time and If I had to opine on his capability it would be to say that he's a much better critic. He probably could put an opera together but his talent is in commenting on what he has seen. He does get it! And, he is honest about what he did see!

His advice about what to do now is like the critic. They have all the understudies in place and they know the script. Let's hope the audience claps at the right time and laughs on cue.

My conclusion regarding Afghanistan is to put a bag on the Afghani government's head and 'Make Love and not War' with them... iow, teach them to align with the US, we've the big bucks to pack their pockets and then get them to help rid the place of the bad guys.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: bamacre
So what exactly are we still doing in Afghanistan, and what exactly is our exit strategy?

Well considering we haven't really done anything there up until now we have a lot to do. Bush really made shit hard for his successor.

How so? We won in iraq, now focus elsewhere. If anything Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise.

WTF

You can't possibly be serious....Bush left things pretty much cleaned up war wise? Man you must doing some serious @ss drugs.

So 9 months into his presidency Obama's inherited war is just as fucked up? Because he hasnt done ANYTHING in Iraq. Since youre implying it IS still just as fucked up, when do you think Obama will get around to cleaning it up?

Huh? I did not imply the war in Iraq was/is still just as messed up. I didn't imply anything there Gomer Pyle. I was taken back by his lunatic statement about Bush leaving things cleaned up war wise, which is either one of two things. A lie or complete bullsh!t. You can imply which ever one of the two things you like.

Fair enough. Cheers

 

[polarbear6]

I wonder who gave Afghanistan and Taliban the money and weapons in the first place

 

[cubeless]

bo finally listened to his economists who know that the last leg of the major recession cycle is a good war to boost employment and reduce the population...

 

[Modelworks]

I got to talk to my cousin who is a chaplain in Afghanistan. He is deployed with the troops right in the thick of things. He got wounded about 3 days ago when they were attacked and flying glass cut his face pretty bad. He said he wasn't allowed to comment much on the state of the war but he did say every time we take 1 mile they take back 2. He told me that what they really needed was more troops and they needed them now, but he wasn't hoping for much because he said by the time they get approved and sent it won't matter.

I think that is the biggest problem. Politicians like to discuss and make plans long term and that is fine for most things. But in a war when you have troops on the front lines you can't tell them, give me two weeks/month to consider your proposal. You might as well just pack up your gear and go home.

He was pretty upset about the whole thing because the Taliban for all their talk of religion have no problem targeting chaplains with fire. He was giving last rites to a soldier when he was hurt.

 

[sportage]

Sorry to bring this thread back into view, since no one really cares and healthcare threads are much more prevalent... however...

How would people feel about going back into Vietnam to? this time? win???
Send the troops back in, the tanks, the planes back into Vietnam and pick up where we left off???

Well... continuing in Afghanistan, adding more troops, doing anything other than getting the hell out of there now, would be much like cranking back up the old Vietnam war.

I truly hope Obama will learn from the past, and not repeat our mistakes over and over.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sportage
Sorry to bring this thread back into view, since no one really cares and healthcare threads are much more prevalent... however...

How would people feel about going back into Vietnam to? this time? win???
Send the troops back in, the tanks, the planes back into Vietnam and pick up where we left off???

Well... continuing in Afghanistan, adding more troops, doing anything other than getting the hell out of there now, would be much like cranking back up the old Vietnam war.

I truly hope Obama will learn from the past, and not repeat our mistakes over and over.

Had North Vietnam executed successful attacks on CONUS and killed thousands of citizens, perhaps the Vietnam analogy may have been workable. Since that did not happen, using the Vietnam war as an analogue is seriously flawed.

The Taliban hosted the planning and preparation for multiple attacks on the US that killed thousands of people. They then attempted to shelter the attackers within that base of operations. That's not Vietnam, and its not similar to any other current despotic regime in Asia or Africa in this respect.

What has been lost in the babbling controversy and suggestion for options is the objective: bringing inexorable military, diplomatic, economic and information pressure to crush those enemy organizations of the United States that have supported killing thousands of our people. The Taliban is one such organization. The United States does not need to establish a stable and secure Afghanistan before meeting the conditions for the main objective. In fact, not removing the ability of the Taliban to function as an organization, however loose, precludes stability for Afghanistan.

I see two viable options: Complete unrestrained destruction of the Taliban minus the nation-building, or, negotiating an agreement with the Taliban and withdrawing. If you're not willing to do the former, you better get your ass into the latter. Fighting a counterinsurgency against the Taliban while trying to build this patch of shit into a real country is not worth the time, money, and blood.