Rahm Emanuel says no troop Escalation in Afghanistan

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Harvey
One alternative worth considering might be to pull our troops and use drones to torch all of the poppy fields. That would deprive the warlords from all sides, from the Taliban to Karzi's brother and beyond, of their primary source of income. Then, we could immediately help them by offering reconstruction aid for more benificial crops and infrastructure, all of which would cost less than fighting a logistically impossible war.
It would have the lovely side effect of saving the lives of heroin addicts and damaging the drug cartels here and around the world.

It would be far more effective to buy the poppies ourselves. Pay the Afghani farmers a premium price for their crop, and we'd control the opium right from the source. No costly drug interdiction effort, reduced flow in the cartel pipelines, better relationships with Afghani civilians, and we get to cut off a major source of funding for the Taliban.

Knee-jerk "anti-drug" campaigns are stupid and counterproductive.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

It would be far more effective to buy the poppies ourselves. Pay the Afghani farmers a premium price for their crop, and we'd control the opium right from the source. No costly drug interdiction effort, reduced flow in the cartel pipelines, better relationships with Afghani civilians, and we get to cut off a major source of funding for the Taliban.

Mass communications to all of Afghanistan are non-existent. Getting to ALL of the Afghani farmers, let alone negotiating with them is somewhere on the other side of impossible. How do you propose doing that without battling the Taliban and all of those warlords who would try to stop us, just as they're doing, now?

Knee-jerk "anti-drug" campaigns are stupid and counterproductive.

This has nothing to do with any "knee-jerk anti-drug campaign." It's straight up economic warfare that would cost very few human casualties, if any, on side. A dramatic reduction in the world heroin supply would just be a huge side benefit.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Except Im going in a few months...

sorry bro

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Except Im going in a few months...

sorry bro

+1

 

[Farang]

I saw only a short blurb on Politico about this, and couldn't find any more information.. maybe someone can explain this more in depth:

The tea leaves are pointing to a decision that heads toward what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants rather than away from what he wants. ... One huge clue: It would be viewed as a terrible mismanagement of the relationship with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to let him announce a troop increase for an unpopular war, as he did this week, if the U.S. were headed in the other direction. Officials say that during a recent phone conversation with Brown, Obama did not tip one way or the other.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: chucky2
It's just not as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

There is an interesting article in Foreign Policy (October 12, 2009) that is critical of the war and basically makes your argument. The title is Get Nasty or Go Home. Check the website.

A primary issue as I see it is one cannot win when one is on the defensive. Defensive wars almost never, ever work. Any student of military doctrine knows this. They also know that an offense is only successful when overwhelming forces are brought to bear on the enemy. Victory is probably unattainable except via measures like a total invasion or an unrestricted air attack on its population... strategies that were never seriously considered by either civilian or military authorities. Both of these activities are offensive strategies? not defensive ones.

It's easy to win a war but we try to win the peace (and nationbuild) at the same time. If anyone can figure out how to crack that nut then please tell.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2

This is not just as simple as leaving Afghanistan, unless you don't want to consider the message that sends to various groups all around the world.

Sure, it is if that's the best move. Who are we fighting for? The corrupt Karzi regime who stole the election? The locals who don't want us there and will fight us, even if it means the return of the Taliban?

We're fighting for the Afghani's interests, as well as our own. If the Karzai regime is corrupt and not getting the job done, then you need to have the troops in country to kick Karzai out, under the table if possible, and if not, directly. As for the locals, when you don't have enough people in country to keep the Taliban away from them, then the locals aren't going to have much choice. When the Taliban come in and rape 1/2 of the women and tell him you don't cooperate with us we'll come back and do it again, and the locals know we're no where to be found, then there's not much of a choice. It gets worse when you drop bombs and kill more locals needlessly.

In short: The entire country needs to "Man Up" when it comes to deploying our Military.

That assumes we have the manpower to "man up." Your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang blew that and the arms, equipment and funds to win that war when it could have been won when they pulled our forces out of Afghanistan to start their war of LIES in Iraq.

Wrong. We could have sent more people to Iraq and kept those in Afghanistan, but because of American attitude about getting something on the cheap, we didn't. We've had all the arms, equipment, and funds we need, just the lack of priority to use them. Quick, derail the thread with your super macro that's always been BS, maybe you can add another derailed thread to your total. Congrats! :thumbsup:

One alternative worth considering might be to pull our troops and use drones to torch all of the poppy fields. That would deprive the warlords from all sides, from the Taliban to Karzi's brother and beyond, of their primary source of income. Then, we could immediately help them by offering reconstruction aid for more benificial crops and infrastructure, all of which would cost less than fighting a logistically impossible war.

It would have the lovely side effect of saving the lives of heroin addicts and damaging the drug cartels here and around the world.

Genius plan there. Lets see: We torch all the poppy fields, the ones that are keeping the locals that have few job opportunities employed working them. How about instead of torching the field, we just buy the poppy production for more than the Taliban can afford to spend? Then transition to well paying jobs/crops (of course the income from those jobs will need to equal and/or exceed what they can get for the poppy's, else, what's in it for the Afghani's).

Of course, after the geniousity of pulling all the troops out, there'll be no way to keep the Taliban from forcing the locals to do their bidding. I mean, we could always burn the poppy fields - hard to do by drones - but then, WTF do the locals do when the Taliban shows up wanting their take? I mean, we could have thrown in our own resources with the locals and given them a real choice, but because you pulled all the troops, now they've got nothing.

But that's cool, you got your easy solution, you just betrayed the Afghani's and left them to rot under the Taliban again. It's cool though, no other nation, group, or adversery is taking note of how we abandoned them. That way, next time we need to go and ask someone to throw in with us, they'll see exactly how dedicated an ally we are.

:thumbsup: Heckuva job!!!

Chuck

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
It would be far more effective to buy the poppies ourselves. Pay the Afghani farmers a premium price for their crop, and we'd control the opium right from the source. No costly drug interdiction effort, reduced flow in the cartel pipelines, better relationships with Afghani civilians, and we get to cut off a major source of funding for the Taliban.

Mass communications to all of Afghanistan are non-existent. Getting to ALL of the Afghani farmers, let alone negotiating with them is somewhere on the other side of impossible. How do you propose doing that without battling the Taliban and all of those warlords who would try to stop us, just as they're doing, now?

Knee-jerk "anti-drug" campaigns are stupid and counterproductive.

This has nothing to do with any "knee-jerk anti-drug campaign." It's straight up economic warfare that would cost very few human casualties, if any, on side. A dramatic reduction in the world heroin supply would just be a huge side benefit.

It may not be easy, but giving the Afghani farmers a legitimate market for the only crop they can currently get to harvest beats the hell out of burning them all out of business. Do you really think we need to make new enemies in central Asia?

 

[moparacer]

No additional troops until the Afghan government is assessed....

I think the better term would be replaced.

Its obvious the Obama administration wants Karzai out.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: moparacer

No additional troops until the Afghan government is assessed....

I think the better term would be replaced.
Its obvious the Obama administration wants Karzai out.

I think our government would be content with a Karzai administration if it had any appearance of legitimacy. If the Afghanis get a presidential run-off and Karzai wins what looks like a fair election, he will have American support. If he continues to stonewall the election auditors, he could be hung out to dry.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: chucky2
It's just not as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

You?re suppose to take the fight to the enemy, not sit around on the streets waiting to die. If we?re not in it to win it, then we shouldn?t be in it at all. If we?re not willing to use the manpower or policies necessary in order to achieve victory, then GTFO.

This is as simple as leaving Afghanistan.

There is an interesting article in Foreign Policy (October 12, 2009) that is critical of the war and basically makes your argument. The title is Get Nasty or Go Home. Check the website.

A primary issue as I see it is one cannot win when one is on the defensive. Defensive wars almost never, ever work. Any student of military doctrine knows this. They also know that an offense is only successful when overwhelming forces are brought to bear on the enemy. Victory is probably unattainable except via measures like a total invasion or an unrestricted air attack on its population... strategies that were never seriously considered by either civilian or military authorities. Both of these activities are offensive strategies? not defensive ones.

It's easy to win a war but we try to win the peace (and nationbuild) at the same time. If anyone can figure out how to crack that nut then please tell.

I've said since 9/11:

It's an issue when the bar for war is lowered. It's one thing to 'defend your nation', and quite another to rule the world so you need to go to war for corporate interests and such.

Or as with the Neocons, to look for a war to 'send a message to the world' and as a 'show of force'.

When we're going to war just to try to get people we like people who will sell theiir nation's resources to us cheapy, in power, it gets harder as we try to overcome their political interests. And when our goal is to say 'nowhere in the world can there be a safe haven for a small number of militants to plot against us', that sort of requires us to be able to dominate every square mile in the world with a few hundred people who act up.

That's a pretty tall order. Remember the 'threat' Vietnam posed to us? The Honduras? Gutamala? El Salvador? Nicaragua? Chile? Panama? Iran in the 50's? And so on.

That's not defeating an enemy army who is invading us. It's trying to dominate other countries so much that they can't have a small numver of people who are our enemies.

Is that a good idea, when you consider how oppresive it is for us to dominate them that way? Those aren't our values. And we create enemies doing it.

How many nations target Canada for terrorism? Don't they hate Canaidans for their freedom, too? Or Swedes? Or Swiss?

Our tolerance for there being any enemy in the world is so low that we'll invade other nations, spend hundreds of billions, trying to dominate any nation with such a group.

Does that make any sense? Or is it just mindlessly acting like an imperial power because people don't consider that we should put up with some enemies as the price of freedom?

It's one thing if we're really fighting for 'a good cause' as rare as that is (very rare). But in Afghanistan, are we empowering the people to get a good government and replace the Taliban and Warlords? Not really, we hand picked a former US oil company figure who is corrupt and had a corrupt election.

We need the people of the US to get past this feeling that if they aren't exercising military power somewhere, they're 'weak' as a nation, to stop enabling the warmongers.

Afghanistan is complicated to deal with, but our country is far too willing to use force in trying to come up with a plan.

Leaving them alone when they had a leftist government would have been better. Supporting democracy and development after the USSR was driven out would have been better. Not encouraging Saddam's aggressiveness that led to Al Queda's formation (our telling Saddam he could have Kuwait if he'd defeat our 'enemy' Iran) would have been better.

When Vietnam was an issue, many argued that we couldn't leave because it would make the previous casualties for nothing, it would make us look weak, it would undermine our allies' confidence - all things that could have been prevented had we not made the bad choice to begin with, but having done so, were argued as why we couldn't get out. Funny how that works, that a bad war perpetuates more bad wat.

Maybe we should stay in Afghanistan and maybe we shouldn't, but we should not have a militaristic bias for the policy choice.

 

[Ozoned]

I like choices. We need to leave or mentally prepare our public for the necessity of killing all of the Taliban indoctrinated people that exist in that part of the world. I don't know the number for sure but I understand that it is between 1.5 and 3 million people that we would need to exterminate.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I like choices. We need to leave or mentally prepare our public for the necessity of killing all of the Taliban indoctrinated people that exist in that part of the world. I don't know the number for sure but I understand that it is between 1.5 and 3 million people that we would need to exterminate.

As overused as the Hitler analogy is, you sound more like him than anyone in a long time.

Just replace 'Taliban indoctrinated' with 'Jew' and you can see how 'easy' it is.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

what could possibly go wrong with creating thousands of impoverished ex-farmers out in the wilds who hate the US with a fiery passion because we set their income on fire...

They're already impovrished, and they already hate the U.S. There's not much they could do to any of us if we weren't there, the American death toll would be non-existent, the Afghani death toll would be far lower than trying to fight them face to face on their turf and if we put a big enough dent in the world's heroin supply, we'd save American lives at home.

How ignorant are you? The Afghans don't hate us. They hate the Taliban, and most of them are scared to death about what would happen if we left today.

Agricultural development is happening, and it is vastly improving parts of the country. This is going to be a long-term effort, and simple minded fools like yourself can't see past today's political banter to understand that fact, and to understand how important it is that we stay as long as it takes. Turning Afghanistan into a functioning, stable region would both greatly improve our relations with the Muslim world (something you seem to think we should do at any cost anyway), as well as open up economic opportunities for both the US and other central-Asian countries alike.

If Afghanistan were able to secure and build it's infrastructure and political structure, it would allow for an explosion of central-Asian economies, and greatly change the face of relations in the greater Muslim/ME/Asian regions for generations to come.

We NEED more troops and resources to succeed, but Obama as usual cares more about pleasing as many people as possible without doing anything which may cost him political points. If he doesn't make a major commitment to success in Afghanistan, history will look back and see this as one of the biggest mistakes in modern history.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Except Im going in a few months...

I hope you stay safe man!

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I like choices. We need to leave or mentally prepare our public for the necessity of killing all of the Taliban indoctrinated people that exist in that part of the world. I don't know the number for sure but I understand that it is between 1.5 and 3 million people that we would need to exterminate.

If we did that we would have to attack their strongholds all over the world which from what I read is financially impossible.