Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up such garbage?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The greatest chance Afghanistan had for freedom was when we went in originally. Rumsfeld was so enthralled by technology he believed we didn't need a larger force to secure the country. Rumsfeld was calling the shots, so the number of troops were enough to "win", but not achieve lasting results.

Because the administration put Saddam at a higher priority than Al Qaeda, resources were spent in Iraq. I believe that a 500k force along with all the fancy bells and whistles Rummy was so fond of would be necessary to rout the Taliban and the others.

Once that happened, an understanding of social and political dynamics could have secured the peace, however we assumed that they were Little Americans just waiting to burst forth like tulips in spring, which was complete horseshit.

Now there is no military option which will work because the Taliban is firmly entrenched and has firmed up ties with the local controlling powers. They might be chased out, but not the Taliban are the "good guys" and we aren't.

I can't think of an administration less capable of understanding war and it's consequences than the last one. An eight year train wreck.

I don't know what to say other than that you are entirely correct in your assessments. ALL of them including the last line but i would like to include the UK gov in that too. Especially Blair who was for the UK what Karzai is for Afghanistan. (or Brown for that matter)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To LunarRay,

I know your question was directed to JOS, but after giving JOS more than an an adequate time to respond and also finding him posting on this forum this morning, I will take a stab at the question.

We have to realize that we have many fine and dedicated military people serving in Afghanistan, and JOS is certainly one of the better ones. And they have a certain faith and a matching ability to carry out the military side of the Afghan mission. And they somewhat rightly think if they can kill enough of the bad guys, a bottom will be reached and victory will be achieved.

But if we think of the military side of any occupation as just one cylinder in a six of eight cylinder engine, we can start to see why the military solution by itself is not enough to develop any real effective power to take us forward. . Because we also need the cylinder of economic development, the cylinder of ending corruption, and a true multifaceted occupation that will make the life of the Afghan man or woman on the streets better and safer.

And the one enduring eight year lesson from Afghanistan is that the military solution alone is not enough, and is not at all realistic at the troop numbers we have or are likely to ever have.

And the other lesson is that the fine men and women serving in Afghanistan are very good at what they do in terms of implementing a military solution, but are severely handicapped with inadequate troop numbers which really delimits what can be realistically done.

But the top generals are not good at what they should also be doing. And maybe Obama and his generals will evolve a better more multifaceted strategy, that is not known yet.

My thinking accepts the 8 cylinder analogy, however, my thinking sees the military as being the first most important cylinder IF and only IF we are fully committed in all other aspects. We can say we're behind the folks who have to rid the place of any contra aspect to the other 7 cylinders but it is meaningless dialog when Congress (us) are not fully committed to do what it takes to 'win'. Some folks I know personally have a dim view of not only the operational aspects but the entire strategy and mainly, I surmise from their comments, because our Government does not seem to be on the same page. That condition, if true, can't possibly help show the 'bad guys' our resolve thus putting most any strategy in jeopardy. More importantly, in my estimation, it puts the folks in-country with the guns and bullets into a no win but possible loose scenario. I fear that entire area is nothing different than a Vietnam. You can win and achieve the objective but it takes more than what we've reluctantly put forth.

IOW, IF it takes 5 trillion $ and 10 divisions to do the job... are we committed?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I for one am somewhat distressed at JOS turning so pessimistic. And while I agree that the last administration and its principle ally in the UK both showed inept leadership and unrealistic assumptions, it now water over the dam, the past squandering of opportunities cannot be changed, which means we can only learn from the mistakes of the past and move forward.

I for one am not yet convinced that Afghanistan is hopeless, and still remain convinced that a proper multifaceted strategy can make a big difference. But given the likely lack of troop numbers, we may have to start in Kabul, and gradually build outward, rather than try to bring peace and prosperity to the entire country all at once. But once the example is set, that a corruption free life with modernity is better than the Taliban alternative, we can start to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. In some ways, I am merely reviving the idea of the strategic hamlet, that could have been tried in Vietnam but was not. And even when the man in the street is interviewed, they have not lost all faith in Nato. But they still admit they have not seen anything to vindicate their faith in Nato.

We also have to realize that the Afghan people have not even had a semi stable government since 1937, and initially felt the Nato invasion might provide that better alternative than the Taliban. Unfortunately, Nato never fought the corruption and anarchy that developed and hence the lot of most of the Afghan people became worse.

But the Afghan people, like people everywhere know a better alternative when they see it, and if we can provide it for part of the country, we can use that
to build outward. The problem in a nutshell, IMHO, is that in trying to do the whole country, we did none of the country.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

It could have been fixed but the US didn't want that, the initial overwhelming force drove the Taliban out of the general area, the NA worked with the initial UK force that was there right after the bombings, if the US hadn't decided to piss on the troops in Afghanistan to go chase ghosts in Iraq it would have been a completly different situation.

I'm quite interested in what our military are doing and where. I've no more information than the next person, of course. I listened to Sec Def and Chairman JCS on C-Span and they spoke to McChrystal's mandate from the new Obama strategy for Afghanistan but that it is in the early formation stages. I think Obama gave that strategy late March '09 and they don't have the assets in place yet. McKiernan's departure seemed a slap but bringing McChrystal in despite his recent past must mean that the methods are about to change big time to a more 'appropriate' way.
Do you have the confidence that this is going to work?
I'm not sure if you are currently in military and of such a rank etc. and free to offer an opinion on this so I'd not want an answer that may jeopardize you or any Esprit de Corps.

No, nothing will work now, the Taliban are in every city, supported and propped up by local officials and more importantly supported and propped up under the table by the Afghan government.

Admit defeat and pull everyone out, nothing good will come out of this now.

You can't hit ANYTHING from the air without killing a bunch of civilians and that will make the situation worse every single time it's tried, we could have fixed this in the beginning but now it's over.

Look, almost all troops over there are overseeing safety for transports and population while the Taliban are growing in numbers NO ONE is really fighting them, it's more self defense against attacks and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse and with every counter attack from the air in populated areas we are giving up mor land in another.

So the question is really, can it be done now? No, not with the attitude we have and should have, we'd have to fuck the entire nation including parts of a boarding nation up to do that, this isn't a war that can be won with specops and minimal civilian casualties anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, we need to accept 80% civilian casualties if we are going to fight to win this one.

If that is the case and you'd know better than I, no doubt, I can't at this point see any hope of getting the job done. Killing the population (like in VN) does not create the environment we need. I just read we (some air strike) killed some 90 civilians who were near a couple of fuel trucks that had been hi-jacked and left stuck in a river area. That is the kind of thing that Taliban want to have happen.
Are we really as stupid as it seems... no don't answer that... we can let the facts speak for themselves. Or use John Glen's Duck test...
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Until Karzai is gone, the fucking Taliban and warlord arselicker he is, we can just move the troops right out.

Too bad he's fucking propped up as the saviour that has the support even if he HAD lost, democracy my cute arse!

You want to see democracy in Afghanistan, send enough troops to supervise the election offices, make sure they KNOW what the other guy stands for and make fucking sure that a propped up Taliban lover like Karzai can't even run for it.

That's a start, the next deal would be to change the agenda that he's been pushing for all these years, after that eradicating the Taliban is a job that can actually be done. Of course, no one in charge really wants that to happen. So move them out, it won't matter if it's tomorrow or in ten years, the Taliban has won.
If only the plight of Afghan women was at stake, then your suggesting, which amounts to abandoning them to a far worse fate than their current one under Karzai would be thinkable. (Interesting that OP seems to be railing against our propping up Karzai, when the alternative would make her even less happy.)

But beyond the issue with human rights, there are unacceptable consequences to abandoning Afghanistan:

We'd be creating a safe haven for Al Qaida under the Taliban.

We'd make it that much easier for a re-constituted Taliban to destabilize nuclear Pakistan.

To my mind, those two realities are unacceptable, and almost no price is too high to prevent them. Just one nuke traceable to the Taliban/Al Qaida via Pakistan and exploded in a major U.S. city, and the price we refuse to pay over the next decade (or more) in Afghanistan will seem cheap.

Unfortunately, we again are in the situation where the American people seem unable to understand a legitimate disaster prevented rather than a disaster reacted to. The Bush Administration's colossal blunder in turning their eyes toward Iraq rather than tripling our forces in Afghanistan when it would have made a huge difference has confronted us with two horrible options. But the price of withdrawal would in the long run be dwarfed by the consequences of that action a few years down the road.

I was totally against our invasion of Iraq, but I regard stabilizing Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban- with 300,000 U.S. troops, if necessary - to be absolutely essential.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

It could have been fixed but the US didn't want that, the initial overwhelming force drove the Taliban out of the general area, the NA worked with the initial UK force that was there right after the bombings, if the US hadn't decided to piss on the troops in Afghanistan to go chase ghosts in Iraq it would have been a completly different situation.

I'm quite interested in what our military are doing and where. I've no more information than the next person, of course. I listened to Sec Def and Chairman JCS on C-Span and they spoke to McChrystal's mandate from the new Obama strategy for Afghanistan but that it is in the early formation stages. I think Obama gave that strategy late March '09 and they don't have the assets in place yet. McKiernan's departure seemed a slap but bringing McChrystal in despite his recent past must mean that the methods are about to change big time to a more 'appropriate' way.
Do you have the confidence that this is going to work?
I'm not sure if you are currently in military and of such a rank etc. and free to offer an opinion on this so I'd not want an answer that may jeopardize you or any Esprit de Corps.

No, nothing will work now, the Taliban are in every city, supported and propped up by local officials and more importantly supported and propped up under the table by the Afghan government.

Admit defeat and pull everyone out, nothing good will come out of this now.

You can't hit ANYTHING from the air without killing a bunch of civilians and that will make the situation worse every single time it's tried, we could have fixed this in the beginning but now it's over.

Look, almost all troops over there are overseeing safety for transports and population while the Taliban are growing in numbers NO ONE is really fighting them, it's more self defense against attacks and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse and with every counter attack from the air in populated areas we are giving up mor land in another.

So the question is really, can it be done now? No, not with the attitude we have and should have, we'd have to fuck the entire nation including parts of a boarding nation up to do that, this isn't a war that can be won with specops and minimal civilian casualties anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, we need to accept 80% civilian casualties if we are going to fight to win this one.

If that is the case and you'd know better than I, no doubt, I can't at this point see any hope of getting the job done. Killing the population (like in VN) does not create the environment we need. I just read we (some air strike) killed some 90 civilians who were near a couple of fuel trucks that had been hi-jacked and left stuck in a river area. That is the kind of thing that Taliban want to have happen.
Are we really as stupid as it seems... no don't answer that... we can let the facts speak for themselves. Or use John Glen's Duck test...

Unfortunantly, that is the way things are, the more we try the more the Taliban wins.

*quack*
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Until Karzai is gone, the fucking Taliban and warlord arselicker he is, we can just move the troops right out.

Too bad he's fucking propped up as the saviour that has the support even if he HAD lost, democracy my cute arse!

You want to see democracy in Afghanistan, send enough troops to supervise the election offices, make sure they KNOW what the other guy stands for and make fucking sure that a propped up Taliban lover like Karzai can't even run for it.

That's a start, the next deal would be to change the agenda that he's been pushing for all these years, after that eradicating the Taliban is a job that can actually be done. Of course, no one in charge really wants that to happen. So move them out, it won't matter if it's tomorrow or in ten years, the Taliban has won.
If only the plight of Afghan women was at stake, then your suggesting, which amounts to abandoning them to a far worse fate than their current one under Karzai would be thinkable. (Interesting that OP seems to be railing against our propping up Karzai, when the alternative would make her even less happy.)

But beyond the issue with human rights, there are unacceptable consequences to abandoning Afghanistan:

We'd be creating a safe haven for Al Qaida under the Taliban.

We'd make it that much easier for a re-constituted Taliban to destabilize nuclear Pakistan.

To my mind, those two realities are unacceptable, and almost no price is too high to prevent them. Just one nuke traceable to the Taliban/Al Qaida via Pakistan and exploded in a major U.S. city, and the price we refuse to pay over the next decade (or more) in Afghanistan will seem cheap.

Unfortunately, we again are in the situation where the American people seem unable to understand a legitimate disaster prevented rather than a disaster reacted to. The Bush Administration's colossal blunder in turning their eyes toward Iraq rather than tripling our forces in Afghanistan when it would have made a huge difference has confronted us with two horrible options. But the price of withdrawal would in the long run be dwarfed by the consequences of that action a few years down the road.

I was totally against our invasion of Iraq, but I regard stabilizing Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban- with 300,000 U.S. troops, if necessary - to be absolutely essential.

You are the absolute reverse of truth here, what could have been done to help the Afghani population was if the effort had been there when it begun, now it's too late and as i fucking stated, no one wants to live with 80% civilian casualties to win it, i doubt even you want that.

I think we should send you and those like you, you obviously know how to fucking fix it.

Those of us who have been involved in the whole process and in the overall missions are not as knowledgable as your lot, so here's what we should do. Take the next fucking plane out and go fix it, you can bring 500k if you'd like, or why not a million if you think that will do anything what so ever at this point.

Cheers and good luck to you.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No, nothing will work now, the Taliban are in every city, supported and propped up by local officials and more importantly supported and propped up under the table by the Afghan government.

Admit defeat and pull everyone out, nothing good will come out of this now.

You can't hit ANYTHING from the air without killing a bunch of civilians and that will make the situation worse every single time it's tried, we could have fixed this in the beginning but now it's over.

Look, almost all troops over there are overseeing safety for transports and population while the Taliban are growing in numbers NO ONE is really fighting them, it's more self defense against attacks and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse and with every counter attack from the air in populated areas we are giving up mor land in another.

So the question is really, can it be done now? No, not with the attitude we have and should have, we'd have to fuck the entire nation including parts of a boarding nation up to do that, this isn't a war that can be won with specops and minimal civilian casualties anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, we need to accept 80% civilian casualties if we are going to fight to win this one.

:shocked: god damn bush fucked up so bad. It boggles the mind.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76

Yeah... but ain't rhetoric great

" ... Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans?born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage?and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more."

Don't those comments make you want to grab an AR15 and join the battle. "Dam the torpedos full speed ahead."

When I go down to the VA hospital for my treatments I see another reality... not much different then 40 yrs ago or over the years... same young folk missing limbs or worse and less too but with the same look... It's always the same look.
It's not a look of defeat but one of contemplation. Why?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay

Yeah... but ain't rhetoric great

" ... Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans?born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage?and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more."

Don't those comments make you want to grab an AR15 and join the battle. "Dam the torpedos full speed ahead."

When I go down to the VA hospital for my treatments I see another reality... not much different then 40 yrs ago or over the years... same young folk missing limbs or worse and less too but with the same look... It's always the same look.
It's not a look of defeat but one of contemplation. Why?

Holy sheit, an MDMFK fan...

That quote is fucked up, i know because i went and support for us who went was not a consideration AT ALL.... I don't have to tell you that though Lunar, i doubt it was better back in VN.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay

Yeah... but ain't rhetoric great

" ... Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans?born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage?and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more."

Don't those comments make you want to grab an AR15 and join the battle. "Dam the torpedos full speed ahead."

When I go down to the VA hospital for my treatments I see another reality... not much different then 40 yrs ago or over the years... same young folk missing limbs or worse and less too but with the same look... It's always the same look.
It's not a look of defeat but one of contemplation. Why?

John Quincy Adams....

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sadly there has been a great gap between what Kennedy said with, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more." , and the reality of recent US foreign policy which is better described as throw banana peels at any problem in the hopes it will trip up our enemies.

And while the USA uses that fine rhetoric of fighting communism, promoting democracy, supporting our friends, the only people we now fool are only ourselves. Because the only people the USA the USA seem to care about are the misguided short term interests of the current POTUS. And because our short term interests are only short term illusions, the USA has a track record of when the going get tough, the tough wimp out. I mean where do we start, we support a Baptista in Cuba and get a Castro. We support a Shah in Iran and get an Ayatollah, we try to oppose the historical force of a unified Vietnam
and get our ass kicked. We don't give a shit about Afghanistan until the Russians invade, then we support terrorists, wait stop the presses call them freedom fighters, because we see a golden opportunity to tweak the nose of the Russian bear, and as soon as the bear's nose was properly tweaked, we abandoned Afghanistan to anarchy and civil war because we no longer needed them. And now we wonder why the very people we trained in terrorists tactics attacked us on 911, and why no one in Afghanistan trusts us to bring better governance.

I could go on and on and on citing examples, but the USA is a status quo nation, and hence has a big interest in a more stable world. Yet seems to unerringly seek to destabilize everything they touch, and then when we discover our approach was ass backwards from the get go, we cut and run.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly there has been a great gap between what Kennedy said with, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more." , and the reality of recent US foreign policy which is better described as throw banana peels at any problem in the hopes it will trip up our enemies.

And while the USA uses that fine rhetoric of fighting communism, promoting democracy, supporting our friends, the only people we now fool are only ourselves. Because the only people the USA the USA seem to care about are the misguided short term interests of the current POTUS. And because our short term interests are only short term illusions, the USA has a track record of when the going get tough, the tough wimp out. I mean where do we start, we support a Baptista in Cuba and get a Castro. We support a Shah in Iran and get an Ayatollah, we try to oppose the historical force of a unified Vietnam
and get our ass kicked. We don't give a shit about Afghanistan until the Russians invade, then we support terrorists, wait stop the presses call them freedom fighters, because we see a golden opportunity to tweak the nose of the Russian bear, and as soon as the bear's nose was properly tweaked, we abandoned Afghanistan to anarchy and civil war because we no longer needed them. And now we wonder why the very people we trained in terrorists tactics attacked us on 911, and why no one in Afghanistan trusts us to bring better governance.

I could go on and on and on citing examples, but the USA is a status quo nation, and hence has a big interest in a more stable world. Yet seems to unerringly seek to destabilize everything they touch, and then when we discover our approach was ass backwards from the get go, we cut and run.

In the role of the world's policeman, we play a dirty dirty cop. One who seeks not justice, but his own treasures. Too many times have we failed to listen to our founders advice and paid the price for doing so. We literally pay higher taxes so we can endanger our own security. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be this way. We needed a new foreign policy yesterday.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly there has been a great gap between what Kennedy said with, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more." , and the reality of recent US foreign policy which is better described as throw banana peels at any problem in the hopes it will trip up our enemies.

And while the USA uses that fine rhetoric of fighting communism, promoting democracy, supporting our friends, the only people we now fool are only ourselves. Because the only people the USA the USA seem to care about are the misguided short term interests of the current POTUS. And because our short term interests are only short term illusions, the USA has a track record of when the going get tough, the tough wimp out. I mean where do we start, we support a Baptista in Cuba and get a Castro. We support a Shah in Iran and get an Ayatollah, we try to oppose the historical force of a unified Vietnam
and get our ass kicked. We don't give a shit about Afghanistan until the Russians invade, then we support terrorists, wait stop the presses call them freedom fighters, because we see a golden opportunity to tweak the nose of the Russian bear, and as soon as the bear's nose was properly tweaked, we abandoned Afghanistan to anarchy and civil war because we no longer needed them. And now we wonder why the very people we trained in terrorists tactics attacked us on 911, and why no one in Afghanistan trusts us to bring better governance.

I could go on and on and on citing examples, but the USA is a status quo nation, and hence has a big interest in a more stable world. Yet seems to unerringly seek to destabilize everything they touch, and then when we discover our approach was ass backwards from the get go, we cut and run.

In the role of the world's policeman, we play a dirty dirty cop. One who seeks not justice, but his own treasures. Too many times have we failed to listen to our founders advice and paid the price for doing so. We literally pay higher taxes so we can endanger our own security. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be this way. We needed a new foreign policy yesterday.

You're not alone in that and amen to that for both our nations.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Bamacre,
Who is this Isolationist Adams anyhow? One thing for sure no Teddy Sorensen wrote that. Reads like Sticks and Stones May Break your Bones while I turn the other cheek.

Why did Adams use the word 'Extrication'... Using the Jaws of Life to stir sovereign noodles dancing in a boiling cauldron of their own malaise.
Once extricated come to America, you-all come to America. Count the carriages making way to the burial site, listen to the Sounds of Silence and dream.

That Adams is so Un American. We've in our DNA to be aggressive, to fight for the right to display our might. To right the un-rightable wrong and provide the blessings of Death and Destruction upon all who should be in our way. Kennedy had it right. He knew exactly how to move people while the truth of the matter remained self preservation and the American way, aka Dichotomy.
We want results and every day produces another opportunity to wait for them. In the end no matter what we'll be friends. It is the American way...

Sancho, My Armor! :D
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bamacre,
Who is this Isolationist Adams anyhow? One thing for sure no Teddy Sorensen wrote that. Reads like Sticks and Stones May Break your Bones while I turn the other cheek.

Why did Adams use the word 'Extrication'... Using the Jaws of Life to stir sovereign noodles dancing in a boiling cauldron of their own malaise.
Once extricated come to America, you-all come to America. Count the carriages making way to the burial site, listen to the Sounds of Silence and dream.

That Adams is so Un American. We've in our DNA to be aggressive, to fight for the right to display our might. To right the un-rightable wrong and provide the blessings of Death and Destruction upon all who should be in our way. Kennedy had it right. He knew exactly how to move people while the truth of the matter remained self preservation and the American way, aka Dichotomy.
We want results and every day produces another opportunity to wait for them. In the end no matter what we'll be friends. It is the American way...

Sancho, My Armor! :D

Isolationism does not equal non-interventionism. Big difference.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bamacre,
Who is this Isolationist Adams anyhow? One thing for sure no Teddy Sorensen wrote that. Reads like Sticks and Stones May Break your Bones while I turn the other cheek.

Why did Adams use the word 'Extrication'... Using the Jaws of Life to stir sovereign noodles dancing in a boiling cauldron of their own malaise.
Once extricated come to America, you-all come to America. Count the carriages making way to the burial site, listen to the Sounds of Silence and dream.

That Adams is so Un American. We've in our DNA to be aggressive, to fight for the right to display our might. To right the un-rightable wrong and provide the blessings of Death and Destruction upon all who should be in our way. Kennedy had it right. He knew exactly how to move people while the truth of the matter remained self preservation and the American way, aka Dichotomy.
We want results and every day produces another opportunity to wait for them. In the end no matter what we'll be friends. It is the American way...

Sancho, My Armor! :D

Isolationism does not equal non-interventionism. Big difference.

Not to debate my word usage but... It sorta does

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not to debate my word usage but... It sorta does

It does not. :D

And the link you gave clearly shows this.

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism ? Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism ? There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Guess I don't know what you mean then... when you say Isolationism is not equal to non-interventionism or that there is a big difference...

I think Geo. Washington said it best...

" George Washington in his Farewell Address placed the accent on isolationism in a manner that would be long remembered:


"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Somehow I can't see the Lunar Ray position. When the USA has a foreign policy that supports another nations best interests, success is almost assured, but when we try to sell them stinking turds that benefit only the powerful few in a given nation, why should we be surprised when we can't sell ice boxes to eskimo's? Get a damn clue, it never never works out in the end.

Its simply the difference between stupid and smart, why should great power come with great stupidity? WHY WHY AND WHY, it sure as hell is not working yet.

Maybe Israel is another question, because we can't sell a stinking turd to an entire region. There has to be a rational balance also.

But Afghanistan is more than the trifecta of stupid, as we managed to destabilize Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile Ossam Bin Laden can relax in his cave, knowing full well, he does not have to do anything further as the USA manages to bankrupt itself.

And Iraq is that other gift that keeps giving and giving,.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Somehow I can't see the Lunar Ray position. When the USA has a foreign policy that supports another nations best interests, success is almost assured, but when we try to sell them stinking turds that benefit only the powerful few in a given nation, why should we be surprised when we can't sell ice boxes to eskimo's? Get a damn clue, it never never works out in the end.

Its simply the difference between stupid and smart, why should great power come with great stupidity? WHY WHY AND WHY, it sure as hell is not working yet.

Maybe Israel is another question, because we can't sell a stinking turd to an entire region. There has to be a rational balance also.

But Afghanistan is more than the trifecta of stupid, as we managed to destabilize Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile Ossam Bin Laden can relax in his cave, knowing full well, he does not have to do anything further as the USA manages to bankrupt itself.

And Iraq is that other gift that keeps giving and giving,.

I'm going to go right ahead and assume you meant Iraq and not Iran (while the US/UK did have a window of opportunity at one point to bring in Iran as an ally rather than an enemy, which was later pissed away FORCEFULLY, we certainly did not destabelise Iran)
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I believe ModerateRepZero is engaging in revisionist history when he notes, "Not surprisingly, once we turned our attention to Iraq, the Taliban began reconstituting themselves, opium made a resurgence.....etc."

Because it was corrupt war lords and corrupt Karzai government officials who lead the way in reconstituting opium production well before the Taliban started coming back. But now is somewhat correct because the Taliban is saying me too in using drug money to help finance their opposition. But make no mistake, the lion's share of drug money in Afghanistan still goes to feed non Taliban corruption.

And why, in nutshell, large numbers of troops are needed to conduct an occupation. Because once the various insurgencies and corrupt power bases are allowed the the room to grow into stable institutions, they turn into very hard to kill monsters. And large numbers of initial occupation troops allow for killing them before they multiply. And what did not happen in either Afghanistan or Iraq, nature abhors a power vacuum.

I wasn't saying that the Taliban were reconstituting opium, rather that there was a lack of focus insofar as keeping poppy suppressed. Frankly, one of the few 'good' (and I use that term loosely) things about the Taliban from the War on Drugs perspective was that before they were driven from power they took steps to sharply cut opium. I remember reading nytimes articles discussing the lack of focus by the military/CIA etc. on narco-terrorism believing it wasn't as important as the Taliban. Now to be fair, they probably could not have foreseen that starving farmers would grow opium in order to make money and that the Taliban would seize on it (as well as corrupt officials and warlords) to make money.

But I *do* contend that our present trouble with Afghanistan is in (large) part because we drove the Taliban from power, believed that the country was 'safe' and 'secure', and turned our attention to Iraq. I didn't need the media to tell me that once we invaded Iraq, alot of resources and attention shifted from Afghanistan, making it possible for the Taliban (and opium) to make a comeback and continue to haunt us today.

I totally agree with you with regards to the troops; we needed a large force to at least give us a decent chance of keeping the Taliban and narco-terrorism in check; but I'm a little concerned given that we're still splitting our attention between Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I believe ModerateRepZero is engaging in revisionist history when he notes, "Not surprisingly, once we turned our attention to Iraq, the Taliban began reconstituting themselves, opium made a resurgence.....etc."

Because it was corrupt war lords and corrupt Karzai government officials who lead the way in reconstituting opium production well before the Taliban started coming back. But now is somewhat correct because the Taliban is saying me too in using drug money to help finance their opposition. But make no mistake, the lion's share of drug money in Afghanistan still goes to feed non Taliban corruption.

And why, in nutshell, large numbers of troops are needed to conduct an occupation. Because once the various insurgencies and corrupt power bases are allowed the the room to grow into stable institutions, they turn into very hard to kill monsters. And large numbers of initial occupation troops allow for killing them before they multiply. And what did not happen in either Afghanistan or Iraq, nature abhors a power vacuum.

I wasn't saying that the Taliban were reconstituting opium, rather that there was a lack of focus insofar as keeping poppy suppressed. Frankly, one of the few 'good' (and I use that term loosely) things about the Taliban from the War on Drugs perspective was that before they were driven from power they took steps to sharply cut opium. I remember reading nytimes articles discussing the lack of focus by the military/CIA etc. on narco-terrorism believing it wasn't as important as the Taliban. Now to be fair, they probably could not have foreseen that starving farmers would grow opium in order to make money and that the Taliban would seize on it (as well as corrupt officials and warlords) to make money.

But I *do* contend that our present trouble with Afghanistan is in (large) part because we drove the Taliban from power, believed that the country was 'safe' and 'secure', and turned our attention to Iraq. I didn't need the media to tell me that once we invaded Iraq, alot of resources and attention shifted from Afghanistan, making it possible for the Taliban (and opium) to make a comeback and continue to haunt us today.

I totally agree with you with regards to the troops; we needed a large force to at least give us a decent chance of keeping the Taliban and narco-terrorism in check; but I'm a little concerned given that we're still splitting our attention between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well you need to understand two things here, the Taliban kept the country safe in a way that would have made Charles Manson green with envy of the horror that was committed daily by their associates and the poppy growing was the war lords buisness.

Now we have the best of both worlds, a US/UK propped up moron of a president that supports BOTH the war lords and the Taliban.

Isn't that fucking wonderful?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Somehow I can't see the Lunar Ray position. When the USA has a foreign policy that supports another nations best interests, success is almost assured, but when we try to sell them stinking turds that benefit only the powerful few in a given nation, why should we be surprised when we can't sell ice boxes to eskimo's? Get a damn clue, it never never works out in the end.

Its simply the difference between stupid and smart, why should great power come with great stupidity? WHY WHY AND WHY, it sure as hell is not working yet.

Maybe Israel is another question, because we can't sell a stinking turd to an entire region. There has to be a rational balance also.

But Afghanistan is more than the trifecta of stupid, as we managed to destabilize Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile Ossam Bin Laden can relax in his cave, knowing full well, he does not have to do anything further as the USA manages to bankrupt itself.

And Iraq is that other gift that keeps giving and giving,.

Well.... I've been asking questions mainly. I don't think I know what Position I have other than I'm a demand sided Isolationist. I would love to build a great big fence economically and actually. As an Isolationist I reject all the 'Brother's Keeper' thinking. I'd no more worry about OBL than I would selling turds to Israel or Canadian Eskimos if I were in charge. Let him have his cake and eat it too. If they don't like what he's about then they can either bitch or feed him to the what ever might be so inclined to comply.
I've debated with Moonbeam till I was purple in the face over the US having broke Iraq so now we own it. Same with Afghanistan and the rest of the places we've visited... Hell they are broke ok.. bye!
I'm still young... only 63 so figure I've a few more years to live the American Way - in prosperity. And figure my economic model for sustaining the American Way requires us to Isolate.. both aspects of that. There are no long term benefits to the US as far as I can see to try and bring US values to the camel or the elephant. These freakin wars of the decade do nothing but tick off more people who then want to climb my fence and blow up my pig sty.
I guess that is my position... bring home the troops, buy American, Health care for all, a job for everyone cuz we have a larger demand than what we could fill and let's see ... what else... oh.. Put a solar panel on every home and a windmill next to every nuclear facility and let the world spin of its own accord.