When Obama flees Afghanistan in 2011, what will we have gained?

[alphatarget1]

It would have been entirely convenient for Dems to sacrifice themselves in the 2002 midterms, I'm sure. They wouldn't have still been around to fight another day.

Bush would've still gone to war probably. The point is that a majority of Democrats voted for the war. That shows that your party has no spine and no principle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Name-calling from the people of no principles at all, other than greed.

Quaint and apropos...

It would have been entirely convenient for Dems to sacrifice themselves in the 2002 midterms, I'm sure. They wouldn't have still been around to fight another day.

Perhaps the Russians should have sacrificed themselves down to the last man opposing the initial Nazi onslaught rather than regrouping, choosing the battlegrounds themselves.

Right, because Republicans were Nazis and would have executed the Dems. Hey, maybe Jefferson and the others should have risked sacrificing themselves because the Brits might have voted them out of office.

If the Dems would rather passively sit around and cover their asses than oppose something like Iraq, they aren't any better than the Reps which are constantly bitched about.

It's never about what's best for America, it's alway a matter of party above all.

You party has no reason to be, not that the Reps do. They both suck.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, and as Red said, when GWB went into Iraq, Afghanistan immediately became impossible.

What will we have gained when we pull out in 2011? The same thing as if it were 2031. Nothing.

 

[alchemize]

Right, because Republicans were Nazis and would have executed the Dems. Hey, maybe Jefferson and the others should have risked sacrificing themselves because the Brits might have voted them out of office.

If the Dems would rather passively sit around and cover their asses than oppose something like Iraq, they aren't any better than the Reps which are constantly bitched about.

It's never about what's best for America, it's alway a matter of party above all.

You party has no reason to be, not that the Reps do. They both suck.

Suck is an understatement. They are like alcohol and barbiturates. Argue which is worse, but put them together and you really can fuck things up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sigh.

Washington, too, retreated many times in the face of superior British forces, yet ultimately won the war.

Basically, Dems' detractors wish they'd sacrificed themselves like so many fools before- the charge of the light brigade, Gallipoli and the second battle of the Somme come to mind.

The Iraq resolution was carefully worded so as to *not* be a declaration of war, but rather to be an authorization for GWB to use force as he saw necessary. More than a few Dem Senators offered severe cautions in accepting it, and the Admin had represented it as a necessary threat to force Compliance from the Iraqi regime. Which, of course, wasn't their intent at all.

While the Dems may, indeed, have shown some lack of principles in the whole affair, that's nothing compared to the lack of principles by the perps, who savagely and ruthlessly exploited the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor to serve their own purposes at home and abroad.

In the process, they also left Afghanistan to fester and to become the serious challenge of today.

And, uhh, comparisons of those deeds to the spending stimulus are so sleazy as to be beneath contempt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sigh.

Washington, too, retreated many times in the face of superior British forces, yet ultimately won the war.

Basically, Dems' detractors wish they'd sacrificed themselves like so many fools before- the charge of the light brigade, Gallipoli and the second battle of the Somme come to mind.

The Iraq resolution was carefully worded so as to *not* be a declaration of war, but rather to be an authorization for GWB to use force as he saw necessary. More than a few Dem Senators offered severe cautions in accepting it, and the Admin had represented it as a necessary threat to force Compliance from the Iraqi regime. Which, of course, wasn't their intent at all.

While the Dems may, indeed, have shown some lack of principles in the whole affair, that's nothing compared to the lack of principles by the perps, who savagely and ruthlessly exploited the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor to serve their own purposes at home and abroad.

In the process, they also left Afghanistan to fester and to become the serious challenge of today.

And, uhh, comparisons of those deeds to the spending stimulus are so sleazy as to be beneath contempt.

So you weren't the guy who beat the woman and left her to bleed to death, you were the one who didn't want to get involved and just watched the whole thing without saying a word. You might have gotten dirty, and we can't have that.

 

[Craig234]

Cliffs:

"I know what you are but what am I?"

I was wrong on Iraq. So were the dems.

Yet you're still here defending them. Pussy. Coward. Apologist.

You are not very honest.

First, let's recall - the vote was not 'a vfote for war', that would give the Democrats cover to vote no.

Bush made and broke a promise - and the American people did not hold him accountable for that.

Bush said the resolution was NOT a vote for war - war would be a last resort, he did not want war, it was only for leverage to get the inspectors back in Iraq.

And that part worked. The inspectros returned. That should have been the end of it, no war, if Bush kept his word.

But he didn't, because he had lied to the Congress and the American people.

Bush, not the Democrats, broke his word and ordered the inspectors out and invaded without any furthe Congressional approval or vote needed in a betrayal to those he had said to trust him on that vote.

Of course once he had the nation at war, the nation rallied behind the troops to support them. Too late to do much at that point.

Go read the Democrats' speeches on the vote, read Bush's messages. The Democrats said it was a vote for getting the inspectors back in, not for war if the inspctors got back in, as Bush had said.

It was the Bush administration (chief of staff and marketing guy Andy Card) who said they were treating the war as a marketing project starting in September because 'you don't pitch new product in August', it was the Bush administration (Paul Woldowitz) who admitted in the Atlantic a year later that WMD had been a "bureaucratic device" they used to get people behind the war - an issue where at every turn they chose to mislead by exaggerating the flimsy evidence, not look for the answer, doing things like anonymously leaking a WMD story to the press and the next day citing the story as proof of WMD as if they hadn't leaked it.

It was the Bush administration who had been looking for a way to invade Iraq from day 1, as insiders accounts from Paul O'Neill to Richard Clarke and others later revealed.

It was Bush who told his staff after 9/11 to look, and look again, for a way to link Iraq to 9/11 so he could use 9/11 to justify war with Iraq - and who made many misleading statements implying a link.

Democrats didn't do any of that. They believed the lying administration that there appared to be a WMD issue, and voted for the inspectors to peacefully investigate without war.

Bush said the only way to get inspectors back in was the resolution - and they gave him that for that purpose.

Oh, and you also did not mention the 'no' votes on the resolution, even given all that - from Democrats.

Since I have to retype the above so often for not honest posters, I'll put a keyword here or two for searching later to cut and paste. Alchemizenothonest Bushliedwmd.

 

[Craig234]

So you weren't the guy who beat the woman and left her to bleed to death, you were the one who didn't want to get involved and just watched the whole thing without saying a word. You might have gotten dirty, and we can't have that.

Let's net this out for you, since you are almost as dishonest and unfair as alchemize:

Republicans in charge = war with Iraq. Democrats in charge = no war with Iraq. Simple enough for you?

 

[Craig234]

Bush would've still gone to war probably. The point is that a majority of Democrats voted for the war. That shows that your party has no spine and no principle.

Total BS. You haven't come close to showing your hyperbolic attack.

Let's hear you explain a no vote to this if you are a Democratic Senator:

The President of the United States says that Saddam Hussein has WMD programs that pose a very dangerous risk to the United States - including a nuclear program. If you don't get inspectors back into Iraq, the first indication might be a mushroom cloud of an Iraqi nuclear weapon being exploded in the US - they're easy to smuggle in. There are plenty of scenarios for chemical or bioloigcal agents killing many Americans as well, far more than the 3,000 killed one year ago in 9/11. Saddam is drfying the UN resolutions and refusing to let the inspectors in.

The only way to get the inspectors in is for Bush to be able to threaten Saddam. Without the resolution, he has no authority to threaten Saddam, and Saddam can laugh at his efforts to pressure him.

He promises you publically and pirvately that he does not want war - he is committed to a peaceful resolution. He only needs the leverage to get the inspectors in to peacefully deal with this.

If the inspectors get in, no war. War would only be a last resort if Saddam refuses to let the inspectors back in and his WMD are threatening to kill many Americans.

Your 'no' vote on the resolution is a vote for the US to leave Saddam in power, without any inspectors, continuing his ruthless regime in perpetuity - his son's groomed to follow him in dcades to come - and for yuou to let another 9/11, but far worse, happen simply because you would not stand up to insist on WMD inspectors removing the threat. As far as your constituents, they stronglyh want you to vote yes - and are likely to vote you out if you vote no.

You can't say you are voting no because it's a vote for war - the President just said the opposite, that it's not a vote for war. He says (IIRC) he will ask for further approval from Congress before war.

You have no basis to say there are no WMD, that the insspectors aren't needed - you can try but you have no basis for it, and there's all kinds of evidence being claimed there are that your constituents believe.

So, let's hear the explanation you give for a 'no' vote, Senator. Election in two weeks, you are ready to stand on 'principle' and lose the election to a pro-war Republican. Give your explanation.

 

[alphatarget1]

*snip*

Typical BS from Craig to defend his beloved Democratic party.

 

[alphatarget1]

Bush said the resolution was NOT a vote for war - war would be a last resort, he did not want war, it was only for leverage to get the inspectors back in Iraq.

LOL your Democratic senators believed Bush.

Let's just make one thing clear: Democratic senators who voted for the war have no backbone and voted for it strictly out of political convenience.

Bush lied, Obama lied, none (most) of the elected officials do not deserve our trust.

 

[soundforbjt]

LOL your Democratic senators believed Bush.

Let's just make one thing clear: Democratic senators who voted for the war have no backbone and voted for it strictly out of political convenience.

Bush lied, Obama lied, none (most) of the elected officials do not deserve our trust.

And let's not forget all of the repub senators who had no backbone also. They pressured & scorned all who dare question the almighty chimp & vader, and blindly followed the party line, crooked as is was.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's net this out for you, since you are almost as dishonest and unfair as alchemize:

Republicans in charge = war with Iraq. Democrats in charge = no war with Iraq. Simple enough for you?

Oh snap. I forgot that the minority party is supposed to swallow everything the majority does.

We apparently need to add one more line to this:

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

Then they came for Iraq and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Republican

Yes, your line of reasoning here is simple.

 

[theeedude]

10 years, just like the Soviet Union. Seems like no one can pacify these Afghans. But all that blood and treasure would be worth nothing if nothing positive comes out of it. Can't we just pacify the tribal areas of Pakistan instead until the locals, tired of Al Qaeda causing American bombs raining on them, turn on the terrorists? It works well for Israel w.r.t. to her neighbors.

Isn't it same reasoning that kept us in VietNam?
You need to understand the concept of sunk cost. That blood and treasure is gone, no need to be emo about it, the only decision is whether it's worth more blood and treasure to stay.

 

[Lemon law]

I think most everyone posting on this thread are wrong although Jhhnn come far closer to explaining the problem

We should not be at war with the people of Afghanistan, but after spending seven years under GWB self selecting to be such, we were bound to lose in opting to be at war with the Afghan people.

Now the only question the OP asks is will Obama maybe rationally conclude that our prior Afghanistan strategy is so screwed up it can't be repaired.

Or will Omama be try radically different approaches that have a better chance of success? And commit the economic resources to SHOW Nato and not Al-Quida can offer the Afghan people a better future long term. So far its been a mixed bag as Obama does too little of both.

But make no mistalke, Afghanistan is no longer as important when Nato now is confronted with the the same battles in Yemen, Somalia, Drafur, Israel, Indonesia, other parts of Africa,

 

[MovingTarget]

Honestly, I don't know what we would've gained by then. Although a great deal of progress has been made in Afghanistan, I believe that those gains are easily reversible. Sure, they have had elections and Al Qaeda has been denied official refuge, but does that really matter when we leave? As it stands right now, we have a corrupt semi-legitimate government under Karzai that doesn't really effect nor have the support of the general population ouside of the major urban centers. Of course, I hope that I am wrong about this and that Afghan society continues to move forward after we leave.

 

[Zebo]

We could have won easy if that tard Bush did'nt make over 100 mistakes there and Iraq. If you need a review of them Juan Cole provides a good recap or some of Frontlines series. We can still win but it takes SF embeds with tribes, gain trust, not abandoning them once things have chilled.

Course there is always total war - kill them all and let Allah sort them out - but we have no stomach for that anymore.

Our government does not want to do hard wok of training high IQ High athletic men for 3 years and send them to live with tribes. Shock and awe is gets ratings - not hard shit on the down low.

 

[Lemon law]

Bullshit Moving Target, there have been few gains in Afghanistan, the Karzai government is hopeless. And Nato's number one enemy is the corruption and drug money.

Having said a few common sense things, the biggest myth of all is to believe winning foreign conflicts is anyway partisan. And that if somehow Repulirats fail, magically changing our allegiances to the dimorats is the proper course, and when we have been there and done that, and we discover that does not immediately solve problems, the republirats rejoices and say re elect me?

That to me is stupidity personified, what we need is a winning strategy and a set of tactics we are willing to commit to, our problem is that we have a losing strategy and then wonder why we fail.

 

[alchemize]

You are not very honest.

First, let's recall - the vote was not 'a vfote for war', that would give the Democrats cover to vote no.

Bush made and broke a promise - and the American people did not hold him accountable for that.

Bush said the resolution was NOT a vote for war - war would be a last resort, he did not want war, it was only for leverage to get the inspectors back in Iraq.

And that part worked. The inspectros returned. That should have been the end of it, no war, if Bush kept his word.

But he didn't, because he had lied to the Congress and the American people.

Bush, not the Democrats, broke his word and ordered the inspectors out and invaded without any furthe Congressional approval or vote needed in a betrayal to those he had said to trust him on that vote.

Of course once he had the nation at war, the nation rallied behind the troops to support them. Too late to do much at that point.

Go read the Democrats' speeches on the vote, read Bush's messages. The Democrats said it was a vote for getting the inspectors back in, not for war if the inspctors got back in, as Bush had said.

It was the Bush administration (chief of staff and marketing guy Andy Card) who said they were treating the war as a marketing project starting in September because 'you don't pitch new product in August', it was the Bush administration (Paul Woldowitz) who admitted in the Atlantic a year later that WMD had been a "bureaucratic device" they used to get people behind the war - an issue where at every turn they chose to mislead by exaggerating the flimsy evidence, not look for the answer, doing things like anonymously leaking a WMD story to the press and the next day citing the story as proof of WMD as if they hadn't leaked it.

It was the Bush administration who had been looking for a way to invade Iraq from day 1, as insiders accounts from Paul O'Neill to Richard Clarke and others later revealed.

It was Bush who told his staff after 9/11 to look, and look again, for a way to link Iraq to 9/11 so he could use 9/11 to justify war with Iraq - and who made many misleading statements implying a link.

Democrats didn't do any of that. They believed the lying administration that there appared to be a WMD issue, and voted for the inspectors to peacefully investigate without war.

Bush said the only way to get inspectors back in was the resolution - and they gave him that for that purpose.

Oh, and you also did not mention the 'no' votes on the resolution, even given all that - from Democrats.

Since I have to retype the above so often for not honest posters, I'll put a keyword here or two for searching later to cut and paste. Alchemizenothonest Bushliedwmd.

I could refute most of your bullshit but it's not worth the effort, cause you're either the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, or the most partisan. I vote the latter.

"I'm going to vote to give you a loaded gun with the trigger cocked. I'm going to vote to put it into your hand. I'm going to vote to allow you to pull the trigger whenever you desire, under whatever circumstances you desire. But by golly, don't use that gun unless it fits my circumstances in a SPEECH in front of congress!"

Everybody knew at the time we were going to war with Iraq if Congress voted yes. EVERYBODY

You're just another pussy, apologist, coward. You're in great company!

Kind of funny we have multiple "conservatives" who have finally admitted that Iraq was a fuck up, and that Bush owns #1 responsibility for it. Still can't find a single "liberal" that has admitted it never could have happened without complicity from the democrats.

 

[Craig234]

We could have won easy if that tard Bush did'nt make over 100 mistakes there and Iraq. If you need a review of them Juan Cole provides a good recap or some of Frontlines series. We can still win but it takes SF embeds with tribes, gain trust, not abandoning them once things have chilled.

Course there is always total war - kill them all and let Allah sort them out - but we have no stomach for that anymore.

Our government does not want to do hard wok of training high IQ High athletic men for 3 years and send them to live with tribes. Shock and awe is gets ratings - not hard shit on the down low.

To your middle sentence. You don't get off that easy to say that.

Are you in support of or opposed to the mass killing of Afghan civilians?

If you are in favor of it, you are worse than the terrorists.

If you are against it, you have no business posting about it as an 'option' sounding sad that that darn government is not in favor of mass murder.

 

[TruePaige]

To your middle sentence. You don't get off that easy to say that.

Are you in support of or opposed to the mass killing of Afghan civilians?

If you are in favor of it, you are worse than the terrorists.

If you are against it, you have no business posting about it as an 'option' sounding sad that that darn government is not in favor of mass murder.

He's just stating a fact that the only way to get rid of enemy combatants that use cowardly guerrilla tactics and shield themself with innocents is to not worry about the innocents.

Bombarding a nation with missiles is a good way to cripple them.

 

[MovingTarget]

Bullshit Moving Target, there have been few gains in Afghanistan, the Karzai government is hopeless. And Nato's number one enemy is the corruption and drug money.

Having said a few common sense things, the biggest myth of all is to believe winning foreign conflicts is anyway partisan. And that if somehow Repulirats fail, magically changing our allegiances to the dimorats is the proper course, and when we have been there and done that, and we discover that does not immediately solve problems, the republirats rejoices and say re elect me?

That to me is stupidity personified, what we need is a winning strategy and a set of tactics we are willing to commit to, our problem is that we have a losing strategy and then wonder why we fail.

Perhaps I should've stated it differently then. I just did not want to belittle the efforts of those who are trying to make a positive difference there. The Karzai government is a large part of why I think that ultimately our presence in Afghanistan will not result in anything positive, hence why we would not have gained anything. I believe that Afghanistan cannot move forward with the likes of Karzai (or anyone similar) at the helm. He is illegitimate, corrupt, and ineffectual at controlling/governing the Afghan countryside. It isn't hard to see why the Afghan people might turn to people like the old Taliban for order.

Also, where did I say that this was a partisan issue? Democrats and Republicans seem to be following the same course with regards to the conflict. They often treat the conflict as little more than a domestic political pawn to gain and/or hold on to power. Changing leaders/parties like we did in 2006 and 2009 did not change the course of the war. The question I always run into when trying to find the 'proper course' is similar to what the OP asked. Even if we do commit the personell, equipment, and treasure for an all-out sustained effort in Afghanistan - is it really in our best interest? When do (or did) we hit the point of diminishing returns with regards to our own interests? It isn't a matter of whether we can win or not. Is it really worth it to 'win' anymore? I have my doubts...

 

[Ozoned]

Oh, and as Red said, when GWB went into Iraq, Afghanistan immediately became impossible.

What will we have gained when we pull out in 2011? The same thing as if it were 2031. Nothing.

That would be an entire Afghan generation.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe the other thing to say, even if the Brits lost India and the USA totally blew it in Vietnam, the Brits left India changed for the better and so did the USA regarding Vietnam.
Certainly the US butcher bill was far too high at two million or more Vietnamese before we got the ole heave ho, but its somewhat shocking we still now hate them more than they hate us.

Human culture is and remains a set of acts of cross pollination, maybe only the cynic says no good deed remains unpunished, as for me, I think we could have done much better in Afghanistan and are not doomed now. But still some of our good deeds will matter in unknowable ways.

 

[Greenman]

We will have gained nothing. In a very short time after the troops leave there will be another brutal totalitarian government.

I don't think Afghanistan was ever winnable, short of killing most of them and running the nation with an iron fist.