StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
"A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined today in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan. Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with "second-tier" local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.
They are hoping that Britain's continuing military presence in Helmand, strengthened by the arrival of thousands of US troops, will encourage Taliban commanders to end the insurgency. There is even talk in London and Washington of a military "exit strategy."
Here's my view: There can be no honest debate about why we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, because our presence there is utterly indefensible – this is a situation where we do either the wrong thing or the right thing. The wrong thing means staying, and the right thing is complete withdrawal. The United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden (with a $20 Million bounty on his head) in the heated aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. So far, Bin Laden was never captured because he has paid for the protection by the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban, and the "bought and paid for" federal Afghan government officials (thus the original purpose of the war failed to achieve its stated main objective after 8 years!), but the loss of face that would have accompanied the US retreat from Afghanistan was thought to be unbearable, and so the fighting, bereft of real meaning, has continued to the present day and is likely to continue until such time as President Obama recognizes that the war no longer serves any real purpose. Given the fact that Pakistani and Afghan (read Taliban) government officials and their cronies seems to be only benefiting (financially) from the Afghan war - why are we allowing our military members to be killed in a guerilla war that can never be fully "won" and our governments to waste billions of (Chinese backed) US dollars of this 21st century version of the Vietnam War?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): Here's my view: There can be no honest debate about why we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, because our presence there is utterly indefensible
I support your view. However, if we withdraw now, people will be all over the president, especially guys like Rush Limbaugh. I'm so upset at the way George Bush handled the operations in Afghanistan from the begining. If we had sent every thing we had after Bin Laden in 2002, I would not be responding to this topic. But Bush felt it was completely ok to send in a couple CIA operatives and special forces and have them call in thousands of airstrikes on empty mountains while we pursued saddam on a hunch. I don't see Afghanistan EVER having a democratic gov't, because people are always trying to invade them and rule. I say we send everything after Bin Laden and his leaders, try to get him, and cut our losses in terms of our relationship with their gov't and their people. The military's "lets make them our friends" tactics are not working in Afganistan. If we are spending all this money, we might as well send some cruise missiles or B2 stealth bombers and bomb the heck outta those mountains where he's been hiding out.
Personally Afghanistan should not be our humanitarian mission
[Edited 2009-07-27 19:17:54]
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): If we are spending all this money, we might as well send some cruise missiles or B2 stealth bombers
How about some heavily armed and pissed offf American tourists?
Family Friendly Vacation Destination??
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): But Bush felt it was completely ok to send in a couple CIA operatives and special forces and have them call in thousands of airstrikes on empty mountains while we pursued saddam on a hunch.
Gives a long (and depressing) account of how this mess developed. What to do now still remains a desperately question.
However, occupations seldom go well, and occupations of Afghanistan seem to have a history of doing even less well.
It is a stain on the occupation that the absolutely despicable Taliban can appear a better option. Yes it is complex how that occurs and threats are not a pretty part of it, but not being able to prove more attractive than that bunch says a great deal about how bad the Bush administration was at nation building. With his abilities in that line of business, he should have been banned from invading his local supermarket!!!
Can there be any acceptable end point from the decades of first setting up the Mujaheddin and the ISI in a criminal Pakistan government, then blowback and now supporting a corrupt Karzai-led government? Negotiations seem about the only way. But for gods sake stop supporting organizations like the ISI with money and arms.
AustinAirport From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): Here's my view: There can be no honest debate about why we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, because our presence there is utterly indefensible – this is a situation where we do either the wrong thing or the right thing. The wrong thing means staying, and the right thing is complete withdrawal. The United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden (with a $20 Million bounty on his head) in the heated aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. So far, Bin Laden was never captured because he has paid for the protection by the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban, and the "bought and paid for" federal Afghan government officials (thus the original purpose of the war failed to achieve its stated main objective after 8 years!), but the loss of face that would have accompanied the US retreat from Afghanistan was thought to be unbearable, and so the fighting, bereft of real meaning, has continued to the present day and is likely to continue until such time as President Obama recognizes that the war no longer serves any real purpose. Given the fact that Pakistani and Afghan (read Taliban) government officials and their cronies seems to be only benefiting (financially) from the Afghan war - why are we allowing our military members to be killed in a guerilla war that can never be fully "won" and our governments to waste billions of (Chinese backed) US dollars of this 21st century version of the Vietnam War?
Bravo my man! That was brilliant! I wish when asked why I don't support the war I could conjure up a statement like that! They'd back down off their soap-box really fast!
The war is a lost cause, has been for years now. That's not to say that some sort of retaliation against the force that brought terror to America is unnecessary, however, this is getting ridiculous, and has been for years. Republicans just need to drop it!
Nobody intelligent listens to Rush Limbaugh. He fills in the little niche market of fascist, rich, Republicans that will listen to him.
No one in their right mind would ever listen to him, much less buy into his BS that he spreads.
Whoever said you can do anything you set your mind to has obviously never tried to slam a revolving door!!!
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 4): Nobody intelligent listens to Rush Limbaugh. He fills in the little niche market of fascist, rich, Republicans that will listen to him.
No one in their right mind would ever listen to him, much less buy into his BS that he spreads.
Thank you, finally somebody understands why I hate that man.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
I'm pretty sure the new US administration understands quite well that things aren't that simple.
In Afghanistan there is quite a bit more at stake than just appearances for the western powers (and the USA and Britain aren't alone in there either).
Just a few thoughts:
- After the Taliban government was expelled by the invasion forces, Afghanistan has resurged as the biggest producer of opium (the basis for heroin and other "nice" drugs) and is going from production record to production record since then. Curbing drug trade and consumption in any meaningful way also includes keeping supply constrained as far as possible, which would be hopeless if Afghanistan was handed over to the warlords and the extremists as things stand today.
- This is also a massive source of funding for the mafia-like warlords and the political extremists alike, providing easy money to keep their territorial ambitions or their "jihad" alive and thriving for another few decades, if not for actual religious reasons then at least to maintain the power positions for their leaders.
- The obvious target of the Taliban and their allies is the overthrow or subversion of the pakistani government. Pakistan, as some of us may remember, is a nuclear power.
What is currently going on has more to do with trying to drive a wedge between the pashtun population who largely identify as "taliban" at this time and the militant extremists; Offering a peaceful and constructive perspective to this important part of the afghan population apart from armed fight against the western forces is essential to make any advances overall.
If it's done right, the militants could eventually lose their tight grip of a population choosing a more peaceful life, but in order to be credible the western forces also need to make the distinction between fighters and population a concrete experience, replacing more or less (from the perspective of the population) indiscriminate bombing raids on villages with an approach that actually lets the militants appear as the bigger evil.
The previously applied sledgehammer approach has driven the population into the arms of the militants. Something like that is difficult to reverse, but in view of the stakes there isn't much alternative to still trying.
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): If it's done right, the militants could eventually lose their tight grip of a population choosing a more peaceful life, but in order to be credible the western forces also need to make the distinction between fighters and population a concrete experience, replacing more or less (from the perspective of the population) indiscriminate bombing raids on villages with an approach that actually lets the militants appear as the bigger evil.
Why is Britain and the U.S. refereeing an internal drug war. Maybe if we LEGALIZED the drugs, and taxed their sale, this problem would quickly evaporate in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Mexico?? Just a rational thought on the topic....
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7): Why is Britain and the U.S. refereeing an internal drug war.
It is not an internal drug war. It is a war between those who are interested in turning Afghanistan into a money machine through the international drug trade (which they've largely won at this point) and basically the western forces who want a conventional economy and a generally peaceful situation (which they have mostly lost at this point).
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): Here's my view: There can be no honest debate about why we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, because our presence there is utterly indefensible – this is a situation where we do either the wrong thing or the right thing. The wrong thing means staying, and the right thing is complete withdrawal. The United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden (with a $20 Million bounty on his head) in the heated aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. So far, Bin Laden was never captured because he has paid for the protection by the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban, and the "bought and paid for" federal Afghan government officials (thus the original purpose of the war failed to achieve its stated main objective after 8 years!), but the loss of face that would have accompanied the US retreat from Afghanistan was thought to be unbearable, and so the fighting, bereft of real meaning, has continued to the present day and is likely to continue until such time as President Obama recognizes that the war no longer serves any real purpose. Given the fact that Pakistani and Afghan (read Taliban) government officials and their cronies seems to be only benefiting (financially) from the Afghan war - why are we allowing our military members to be killed in a guerilla war that can never be fully "won" and our governments to waste billions of (Chinese backed) US dollars of this 21st century version of the Vietnam War?
Nice rant.
[Edited 2009-07-28 14:44:05]
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
The British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has just released an extremely negative progress report on NATO operations in Afghanistan. I think it's time for NATO to get out of the dustbowl that is Afghanistan.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): Here's my view: There can be no honest debate about why we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, because our presence there is utterly indefensible – this is a situation where we do either the wrong thing or the right thing. The wrong thing means staying, and the right thing is complete withdrawal.
Well, maybe the both of you need to talk to the families of the more than 3,000 people (not all were Americans) killed on 9/11. Go on, just tell them that.......
I suppose you also believe the US is a war criminal for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945?
Do you also think the Japanese were justified in the attack on Pearl Harbor on Sunday, 12/7/41? Was al qaeda justified in their attacks on US soil on Tuesday 9/11/01? Was the taliban justified in hiding al qaeda and bin laden after those attacks, even though the US tried, diplomaticly, for them to turn him over to us?
Wake up, its a crule world out there. There are people in this world who want to kill you just because of who you are.
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): However, if we withdraw now, people will be all over the president, especially guys like Rush Limbaugh. I'm so upset at the way George Bush handled the operations in Afghanistan from the begining.
If we walk away from the Afghan people, as you want, who will you be upset with then, son? Bush or Limbaugh?
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): The military's "lets make them our friends" tactics are not working in Afganistan.
Maybe you should be in command, son?
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): If we are spending all this money, we might as well send some cruise missiles or B2 stealth bombers and bomb the heck outta those mountains where he's been hiding out.
Did that, it didn't work. Have you ever heard of the "Battle of Tora Bora"?
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): Personally Afghanistan should not be our humanitarian mission
I see, so the more than 25 million people who live in Afghanistan don't mean much to you? They have no right to be as free as most of the rest of the world?
Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 4): Bravo my man! That was brilliant! I wish when asked why I don't support the war I could conjure up a statement like that! They'd back down off their soap-box really fast!
Another skull full of mush. Go ahead, son, take your argument to the people. Of course in Anstin, you could get away with it. Try in in Fort Worth, San Antonio, Waco, Dallas, Midland/Odessa, Houston, or El Paso, first.
Nobody intelligent listens to Rush Limbaugh. He fills in the little niche market of fascist, rich, Republicans that will listen to him.
No one in their right mind would ever listen to him, much less buy into his BS that he spreads.
Well, son, more than 20 million Americans listen to him at least once each week, that includes the Obama White House. I wouldn't call the biggest block of listeners on the radio a "niche market". BTW, how is "Air America" doing these days?
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 5): Thank you, finally somebody understands why I hate that man.
So, you know Rush personally? Otherwise how can you hate someone you never met? Oh, never mind, I almost forgot, you are a democrat, the party of hate.
You do know that Rush has personally met most high ranking Dems, and all get along with him on a personal bases, don't you, son?
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): In Afghanistan there is quite a bit more at stake than just appearances for the western powers (and the USA and Britain aren't alone in there either).
Correct
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): - After the Taliban government was expelled by the invasion forces, Afghanistan has resurged as the biggest producer of opium (the basis for heroin and other "nice" drugs) and is going from production record to production record since then.
Correct, but the Afghan people really don't have anything else to trade on the world markets. Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on Earth.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): - The obvious target of the Taliban and their allies is the overthrow or subversion of the pakistani government. Pakistan, as some of us may remember, is a nuclear power.
Absolutly correct.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): If it's done right, the militants could eventually lose their tight grip of a population choosing a more peaceful life, but in order to be credible the western forces also need to make the distinction between fighters and population a concrete experience, replacing more or less (from the perspective of the population) indiscriminate bombing raids on villages with an approach that actually lets the militants appear as the bigger evil.
Correct.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): The previously applied sledgehammer approach has driven the population into the arms of the militants. Something like that is difficult to reverse, but in view of the stakes there isn't much alternative to still trying.
Correct, we can change our tactics, there is no other LOGICAL option.
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7): Why is Britain and the U.S. refereeing an internal drug war. Maybe if we LEGALIZED the drugs, and taxed their sale, this problem would quickly evaporate in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Mexico?? Just a rational thought on the topic....
Yeah, that is a real rational thought.................NOT That is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever read on this forum.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7):
Why is Britain and the U.S. refereeing an internal drug war.
It is not an internal drug war. It is a war between those who are interested in turning Afghanistan into a money machine through the international drug trade (which they've largely won at this point) and basically the western forces who want a conventional economy and a generally peaceful situation (which they have mostly lost at this point).
Correct.
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 11): The British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has just released an extremely negative progress report on NATO operations in Afghanistan. I think it's time for NATO to get out of the dustbowl that is Afghanistan.
Harry Reid said the same thing about Iraq..............oh wait a minute, I think we won there. The job isn't done, but we won.
Some liberal mindless reporter on a liberal news media only said that because he could spell V-I-C-T-O-R-I-O-U-S in his notes, so he just wrote "we can't win"
He siad he was in the montains with 100 taliban around him. To bad they were such bad shots.
KSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): The United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden (with a $20 Million bounty on his head) in the heated aftermath of the 9/11 attacks
Wrong. Capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden was ONE of our reasons for invading Afghanistan, but it wasn't the only one. Al Qaeda had (and maybe still does have) elaborate training facilities in Afghanistan that were used to prepare for terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies in Europe. Those camps, and the terrorists that run them, would be there with or without Bin Laden.
Suppose one of our advance CIA or Special Operations teams had stumbled across Bin Laden prior to the invasion and was able to take him into custody-do you really think that would have stopped the invasion from taking place? Not a chance, because getting rid of OBL is only PART of our mission there. Last time I checked, we were at war w ith Al Qaeda, not just Osama Bin Laden.
Nearly 8 years have passed since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and Al Qaeda hasn't been able to get us since then (don't think they haven't been trying). Pulling out of Afghanistan now and allowing Al Qaeda to go on plotting and training unopposed would be reckless and would just lead to another elaborate attack on our citizens a few years down the road. What you are calling for now borders on defeatism. If your football team is up in the 4th quarter and you have be ball, you don't punt it away on first down. You keep moving, burn that clock, and don't give your opponents time to mount a comeback. Same logic applies here.
AustinAirport From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): I suppose you also believe the US is a war criminal for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945?
WTF? Umm.. No?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Another skull full of mush. Go ahead, son, take your argument to the people. Of course in Anstin, you could get away with it. Try in in Fort Worth, San Antonio, Waco, Dallas, Midland/Odessa, Houston, or El Paso, first.
Yeah, pretty sure Obama won all those counties that the cities listed above inhibit.. except Fort Worth.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Well, son, more than 20 million Americans listen to him at least once each week, that includes the Obama White House. I wouldn't call the biggest block of listeners on the radio a "niche market". BTW, how is "Air America" doing these days?
I sure feel sorry for 20 million poor poor American's.. they know not what they do.
God forbid they come up with there OWN political ideas and actually rationalize things and not just make stupid little comments criticizing Liberals, and then having no material to back it up. But hell talk is cheap.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): I see, so the more than 25 million people who live in Afghanistan don't mean much to you? They have no right to be as free as most of the rest of the world?
Oh.. you are such a saint.
A military occupation.. that's what freedom is?
Oh.. Well I greatly appreciate the clarification.
And don't talk down to us younger people.. We're not your children.
Whoever said you can do anything you set your mind to has obviously never tried to slam a revolving door!!!
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Well, maybe the both of you need to talk to the families of the more than 3,000 people (not all were Americans) killed on 9/11. Go on, just tell them that
And you tell the families of the 1300 dead NATO troops from 23 nations (includes nearly 800 Americans and over 200 troops from Commonwealth nations) that their sons and daughters didn't die in a unwin-able war against Afghan warlords - with a history that includes defeating the British empire (at the height of its power) in the 19th century and the Soviet empire in the 20th century. God only knows how many Afghan civillians have died. Go ahead, tell 'em!
Better to "pay off" the Taliban and remove our forces, in my opinion. This isn't a war over government control, politics, or religion - we're in the middle of economic "class warfare" in Afghanistan.
And no need for chest thumping Americanism, my friend. I know a family that lost a family member on 9/11 (a parshioner at my church in Pennsylvania), and remember the horror of that day well.
The utter failure to kill or capture Taliban leaders has left NATO officials suspicious that the Afghan and Pakistani military is not serious at all about taking on the Taliban militias, and want the "war" to continue so that American/NATO monies continue to pour into Afghanistan. They want this war to be endless.....
[Edited 2009-08-02 20:22:32]
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
KSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 15): And you tell the families of the 1300 dead NATO troops from 23 nations (includes nearly 800 Americans and over 200 troops from Commonwealth nations)....
Soldiers fight in war, and it is expected that some will die. It isn't expected that 3,000 of our own civilians would be murdered in their offices on a single day, however.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 11):
The British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has just released an extremely negative progress report on NATO operations in Afghanistan. I think it's time for NATO to get out of the dustbowl that is Afghanistan.
Yeap, that's what we need, more politicians sticking their nose into something they haven't a clue about.
Admittedly, this was started by politicians, but are you telling us that the military have been a stellar success in Afghanistan? They have been writing the "How to kill civilians and have a bunch of religious fanatics run rings round you" text book. Pollies might be awful, but there must be close to a 50: 50 chance they are no less awful than the military has been to date. Does nobody remember Vietnam? Does nobody want to read Kilcullen??????
Our last Min of Defence arrived at NATO and found that there was NO plan at all, which means that not only NATO but its controlling power the US was just bumbling around for 5 years. The original form of the invasion was dumb and the follow up was even dumber. With the N Alliance as friends you were not going to need enemies. But hell, let us generate a few more by bombing any grouping we see and call it a terrorist clan meeting. Who cares if it was actually a wedding?
Quoting KSYR (Reply 13): Wrong. Capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden was ONE of our reasons for invading Afghanistan, but it wasn't the only one. Al Qaeda had (and maybe still does have) elaborate training facilities in Afghanistan that were used to prepare for terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies in Europe. Those camps, and the terrorists that run them, would be there with or without Bin Laden.
Suppose one of our advance CIA or Special Operations teams had stumbled across Bin Laden prior to the invasion and was able to take him into custody-do you really think that would have stopped the invasion from taking place? Not a chance, because getting rid of OBL is only PART of our mission there. Last time I checked, we were at war w ith Al Qaeda, not just Osama Bin Laden.
Nearly 8 years have passed since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and Al Qaeda hasn't been able to get us since then (don't think they haven't been trying). Pulling out of Afghanistan now and allowing Al Qaeda to go on plotting and training unopposed would be reckless and would just lead to another elaborate attack on our citizens a few years down the road.
The problem is that you don't have the least clue who you are fighting or more importantly why you are fighting them. It would be far more effective to run programs to give alternatives to the youth of that area other than joining extremist organizations than doing bombing runs that mainly seem to result in hundreds more recruits. At least the Hidden General seems to know that.
Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 14): A military occupation.. that's what freedom is?
Oh.. Well I greatly appreciate the clarification.
Nicely puit AA. Nicely put. OCCUPATION. Why do some seem to think that other nations are just dying to be occupied, why oh why?? And Afghanistan of all places that has seen off invaders ALL.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1288 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 17): Admittedly, this was started by politicians, but are you telling us that the military have been a stellar success in Afghanistan? They have been writing the "How to kill civilians and have a bunch of religious fanatics run rings round you" text book.
Actually, the strategy which had been executed by the US forces and some of the allies was mainly created by neocon geniuses like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, with willing followers in the military.
There have always been people like general Petraeus or general Shinseki in the military as well, they were just seen as unruly troublemakers by the neocon political leadership, in the process alienating even several of the NATO allies. But ultimately even the Bush/Cheney administration ran out of options and had to turn to Petraeus after all.
The Obama administration now fully backs him and his approach, but the question is if the situation can be turned around this late in the campaign. Most of the allies' misgivings are being addressed this way as well, so the friction that had been existing before is reducing as well.
Given the stakes I sure hope it can be; The impression that Afghanistan was "unwinnable" is based on the old strategy, not on the new one.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1282 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 18): Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
Admittedly, this was started by politicians, but are you telling us that the military have been a stellar success in Afghanistan? They have been writing the "How to kill civilians and have a bunch of religious fanatics run rings round you" text book.
Actually, the strategy which had been executed by the US forces and some of the allies was mainly created by neocon geniuses like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, with willing followers in the military.
Perhaps I should have said the Mark I military strategy as dictated by the neocon genii (you forgot Perle R, he is a top level genius) but translated by the military into action has proved a disaster, so do you not think that the pollies might be well advised to have another try?
As you say, Obama has already done this. But as you imply, is it already too late? And in the too late calculations, it is necessary as GDB mentions to start the clock back around 1980 when the decisions were taken to sic the religious zealots onto the big bad Russians. Quite funny really that now the US is trying in a vague sort of way to sort out that mess, it need Russian permission to be able to get it supplies flown in, either that or have a couple of hundred more supply trucks burned or stolen by the Taliban, who as we already know were defeated in 2001. They must not have got the Email. And them so clever with the internet too.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1280 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): Perhaps I should have said the Mark I military strategy as dictated by the neocon genii (you forgot Perle R, he is a top level genius)
That was a severe omission on my part, indeed!
I guess my mind is trying a bit too hard to forget these clowns.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): but translated by the military into action has proved a disaster, so do you not think that the pollies might be well advised to have another try?
Petraeus himself knows that it can't be a purely military strategy anyway, and with the new administration he finally has a political leadership which understands the situation as he does.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): Quite funny really that now the US is trying in a vague sort of way to sort out that mess, it need Russian permission to be able to get it supplies flown in,
History often has a sick sense of humour – or at least sarcasm...
KSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 18): The problem is that you don't have the least clue who you are fighting or more importantly why you are fighting them. It would be far more effective to run programs to give alternatives to the youth of that area other than joining extremist organizations than doing bombing runs that mainly seem to result in hundreds more recruits. At least the Hidden General seems to know that.
You need security to be able to do this. Otherwise, the Taliban would just come in once the "program" people left and kill all of the youth that they had worked with.
And I'm pretty sure that we do know that we are fighting Al Qaeda and their Taliban buddies because they attacked us on a major way 8 years ago, and we don't want something like that to happen again. And so far, it hasn't. Must be doing something right.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8469 posts, RR: 40 Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 956 times:
Quoting KSYR (Reply 21): And I'm pretty sure that we do know that we are fighting Al Qaeda and their Taliban buddies because they attacked us on a major way 8 years ago, and we don't want something like that to happen again. And so far, it hasn't. Must be doing something right.
IMO that view couldn't be more wrong, KSYR.
Do you really think that 'terrorism' ended with 9/11? What about Madrid, Bali, London?
The main mistake we're making in Afghanistan - and Iraq before it - is that, between us all, we keep sending large numbers of uniformed targets into their own neighbourhoods, who they can attack (and often kill) without even leaving home.............
No wonder they don't feel the need to spend years (as the 9/11 lot did) building respectable 'images' in the USA - and more or less learning to fly as well.......
Me, I reckon we should pull all our blokes back home. Let them go on killing each other, if they've a mind to. Just defend our own turf and leave the more well-meaning of them (who, I have no doubt, constitute the majority) to sort out their own problems.
And ALSO suspend all financial and medical aid. Sounds 'rough,' but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
No exaggeration to say, at the moment, that we are giving people of whom a substantial proportion spend their spare time killing our blokes food, education, and free medical care......
If they really want "Westerners/Christians out, Islamic Republics in, etc." - give them their wish and we'll be able to sit back and see how it all works out..........
After quite a short while, if I'm any judge, they'll be begging us to come back........
[Edited 2009-08-06 06:35:29]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
25 Baroque: Agreed. Curiously, we have already tried this in Indonesia, and it has sort of worked, including the tricky bit. Having our wallopers invited in to h
26 TheCol: Grow up. Yeah, because that worked really well the last time. We went into Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda used that country as their HQ and main stagin
27 AustinAirport: It Takes Time. And that's how wars will always be fought, "Well, just a couple more years, and a couple more billion dollars." Yeah, that's real smar
28 FuturePilot16: These things take time. What we need to realize is that, even though we have the most technologicallly advanced military in the world, the Taliban an
29 AustinAirport: Good points. I have no arguments that the Taliban is pure evil. And feel a deep sorrow for the oppressed, citizens of Afghanistan. However, i just do
30 GDB: Last I looked, no one was leaving. You really do live in a total fantasy world don't you, all those silly conspricay threories you reckon you believe
31 Baroque: 1. Well OBL, just join the Bush club and forget the letters were ever important - the laugh being that they might never have been all that important,
32 QANTAS077: not every Afghan was responsible, tip for you, try smashing a few in Saudi Arabia too, wasn't that were 15 of the 19 hijackers came from? You can't k
33 Babybus: erm..have you actually read the article? This is step one to an intended retreat. They don't wave white flags anymore. To my mind it is the right thi
34 Baroque: OMG, a bolt of lightning will surely strike you down putting joke, pseudo and democracy in one phrase and even more allowing it to be related to the
35 QANTAS077: the whole thing is a joke, and yea, that dog Hekmatyar deserves a mention too, another woman hater and human rights abuser that manages to get a seat
36 TheCol: That pretty much sums it up. No point waving the white flag just yet. Canada won't being staying past 2011. If the last two objectives aren't achieve
37 AustinAirport: I sure hope America will follow Canada out of there.
38 StasisLAX: Agreed. The Afghans have previously chased the British (at the height of its Empire) and the Russians out of their territory before. What a twisted,
39 GDB: No anxiety form me, just that many of your pronouncements are nonsense conspiracy stuff, so hard to take you seriously on anything. Such things alway
40 QANTAS077: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...zai-under-fire-in-Afghan-TV-debate and some call this democracy..
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3228 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
