PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues George F. Will: Time to Get Out of Afghanistan


Taco John
09-01-2009, 10:18 AM
Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

georgewill@washpost.com


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html

wild1
09-01-2009, 10:23 AM
If we're going to use an ineffectual strategy defined by half-measures, and with the chief aim not of creating a democratic state in afghanistan but of mitigating homefront political consequences of retreat, then I would rather we just retreated.

It would be unspeakably horrible to flush the sacrifices made there, but if our leadership is not committed to doing whatever it takes to achieve all our goals as fast as possible, then let's end the masquerade.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 10:29 AM
If we're going to use an ineffectual strategy defined by half-measures, and with the chief aim not of creating a democratic state in afghanistan but of mitigating homefront political consequences of retreat, then I would rather we just retreated.

It would be unspeakably horrible to flush the sacrifices made there, but if our leadership is not committed to doing whatever it takes to achieve all our goals as fast as possible, then let's end the masquerade.

Oh pluhease, stop with the lofty rhetoric. We didn't use half measures originally in Afghanistan. Breaking up the camps and trying to get BinLaden was a justified move. I read the our troops were not allowed on the ground at Tora Bora until too late because casualties were to be restricted.

There's your half measure. Other than that, staying there as in permanent occupation is not helping our cause. You can't just win the war, you have to win the peace and people in those countries don't like that. So we were right to go in and fulfill the original mission; but then we should have gotten out with warning that we'd be right back if AQ made any more gains. That was just as workable.

Instead, we have bases conveniently following the path of that natural gas pipeline. What does that tell you? It tells me at least, that mercantilist business interests want continued occupation—not results that win the war and win the peace. Instead we overdo things.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 10:29 AM
Our leadership was never committed to success in Afghanistan. It was a dog and pony show from day one.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 10:34 AM
I read the idea is to stay so we can encircle Russia. Also the reason for our making inroads in other parts of central Asia and the Caucusus as well as Iran.

Amnorix
09-01-2009, 10:41 AM
If Afghanistan can't be transitioned to a stable state, then we should cut our losses. I unfortunately don't have much of a plan for preventing a resurgence of Al Quada, however, but hopefully someone (in DC) would if that has to be the case.

Seems like we haven't given the new plan much time, however. The surge in Iraq took awhile to have effect also.

Calcountry
09-01-2009, 10:45 AM
I agree, this is Obama's war. We need to get out now.

Oh, btw, how come we still have troops in Iraq? We shouldn't have been there in the first place. When does that become Obama's war also?

KC Dan
09-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I unfortunately don't have much of a plan for preventing a resurgence of Al Quada, however, but hopefully someone (in DC) would if that has to be the case.I'm sure that the FBI is all over this since we have effectively removed the CIA from the intelligence gathering business.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2009, 10:55 AM
Hard to fight the enemy when you have declared war on your intel group.....

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 10:57 AM
When does that become Obama's war also?

Now

Calcountry
09-01-2009, 10:59 AM
If Afghanistan can't be transitioned to a stable state, then we should cut our losses. I unfortunately don't have much of a plan for preventing a resurgence of Al Quada, however, but hopefully someone (in DC) would if that has to be the case.

Seems like we haven't given the new plan much time, however. The surge in Iraq took awhile to have effect also.I do, it is called round up crop dusted out of c130's until there are no poppys left. Then, you continue to predator the hell out of them, and infil their cells with CIA, ooops, can't do that any more, because THE PRESIDENT thinks the CIA is the enemy.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 10:59 AM
Hard to fight the enemy when you have declared war on your intel group.....

How? I read the CIA dissidents under Bush were replaced with lackeys who'd just follow orders and bend their intel to policy.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 11:00 AM
I do, it is called round up crop dusted out of c130's until there are no poppys left. Then, you continue to predator the hell out of them, and infil their cells with CIA, ooops, can't do that any more, because THE PRESIDENT thinks the CIA is the enemy.

The Taliban destroyed the poppy crops. They were re-grown after we got in there. Someone on our side is making a hell of a profit off drug addition.

Calcountry
09-01-2009, 11:01 AM
NowNot according to the media. They don't even report on that anymore?

WTF? If it isn't plain to see the duplicity in the media with this one fact alone, then you are just a blind homer for Obama.

Calcountry
09-01-2009, 11:02 AM
The Taliban destroyed the poppy crops. They were re-grown after we got in there. Someone on our side is making a hell of a profit off drug addition.This has troubled the hell out of me. Perhaps the real reason we went in there was to restore a stable cash flow to some twisted arrangement with the elites who benefit, after money laundering, from this trade.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 11:18 AM
This has troubled the hell out of me. Perhaps the real reason we went in there was to restore a stable cash flow to some twisted arrangement with the elites who benefit, after money laundering, from this trade.

I've wondered about that myself. Never read anything on it, just wondered about it.

What a lot of people don't know is the reason Pakistan supported the Taliban was because they destroyed the poppies and Pakistan has a bad drug problem too.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 11:26 AM
This has troubled the hell out of me. Perhaps the real reason we went in there was to restore a stable cash flow to some twisted arrangement with the elites who benefit, after money laundering, from this trade.

Yeah... The CIA.

wild1
09-01-2009, 11:33 AM
Hard to fight the enemy when you have declared war on your intel group.....

:clap:

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 11:41 AM
:clap:

Too bad it's not true. :clap:

wild1
09-01-2009, 11:58 AM
Too bad it's not true. :clap:

Shouldn't you be off storing beans and ammunition somewhere?

RINGLEADER
09-01-2009, 12:13 PM
If Afghanistan can't be transitioned to a stable state, then we should cut our losses. I unfortunately don't have much of a plan for preventing a resurgence of Al Quada, however, but hopefully someone (in DC) would if that has to be the case.

Seems like we haven't given the new plan much time, however. The surge in Iraq took awhile to have effect also.

Would agree with this but I'm reading the military on the ground there says they have inadequate forces to accomplish the same thing. Also not sure how much intelligence we get by being "on the ground". It's nice to assume that we'd have the same success with Predator strikes (and we might -- I just don't know), but there also may be certain kinds of intelligence we're getting by being able to communicate directly with the locals. That's a point that George Will doesn't really address.

Amnorix
09-01-2009, 12:21 PM
Would agree with this but I'm reading the military on the ground there says they have inadequate forces to accomplish the same thing. Also not sure how much intelligence we get by being "on the ground". It's nice to assume that we'd have the same success with Predator strikes (and we might -- I just don't know), but there also may be certain kinds of intelligence we're getting by being able to communicate directly with the locals. That's a point that George Will doesn't really address.

Agree with all of this.

Problem with "enough military" is how much is enough. Afghanistan is big. The size of Texas, or France for that matter, but with absurd terrain. It's just hard to "control" anything that big.

Or more than triple the size of South Vietnam. :-O

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 12:36 PM
Shouldn't you be off storing beans and ammunition somewhere?

I don't own a gun. I think that's what you should be doing or returning to your herd while locking down your paddock.

patteeu
09-01-2009, 02:58 PM
I've been skeptical of our chances of building Afghanistan into anything reliable and self-sustaining for a while now. I'd much rather see us focus our energy on sealing the deal in Iraq, which is more important anyway.

With Obama in charge though, we're destined to fail in both places, IMO. Mainly because his base is unreliable when it comes to matters like this and he's more interested in domestic politics than GWoT success.

Chocolate Hog
09-01-2009, 03:03 PM
I've been skeptical of our chances of building Afghanistan into anything reliable and self-sustaining for a while now. I'd much rather see us focus our energy on sealing the deal in Iraq, which is more important anyway.

With Obama in charge though, we're destined to fail in both places, IMO. Mainly because his base is unreliable when it comes to matters like this and he's more interested in domestic politics than GWoT success.

Why is Iraq more important? It had nothing to do with 9-11.

wild1
09-01-2009, 03:04 PM
With Obama in charge though, we're destined to fail in both places, IMO. Mainly because his base is unreliable when it comes to matters like this and he's more interested in domestic politics than GWoT success.

:clap:

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2009, 03:09 PM
This has troubled the hell out of me. Perhaps the real reason we went in there was to restore a stable cash flow to some twisted arrangement with the elites who benefit, after money laundering, from this trade.

Britain tried and lost, Russia tried and lost, USA is trying...for what reason? Money for a select few, and addiction for the masses.

patteeu
09-01-2009, 03:21 PM
Why is Iraq more important? It had nothing to do with 9-11.

Iraq is more important because it's in the center of the islamist world, because it's a counter to Iran and Syria, and because it's a viable, advanced society in which a freedom-based ideology (as opposed to the radical islamist ideology that is our real adversary in the GWoT) can succeed and prosper.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2009, 03:24 PM
Iraq is more important because it's in the center of the islamist world, because it's a counter to Iran and Syria, and because it's a viable, advanced society in which a freedom-based ideology (as opposed to the radical islamist ideology that is our real adversary in the GWoT) can succeed and prosper.

In other words Expansionism, Team America world police.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 03:45 PM
Iraq is more important because it's in the center of the islamist world, because it's a counter to Iran and Syria, and because it's a viable, advanced society in which a freedom-based ideology (as opposed to the radical islamist ideology that is our real adversary in the GWoT) can succeed and prosper.



:whackit:

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 05:14 PM
Iraq is more important because it's in the center of the islamist world, because it's a counter to Iran and Syria, and because it's a viable, advanced society in which a freedom-based ideology (as opposed to the radical islamist ideology that is our real adversary in the GWoT) can succeed and prosper.

Have you seen a map of Chaostan? And it had a secular govt before we got there. Center of the muslim world my arse! :spock:

patteeu
09-01-2009, 05:24 PM
In other words Expansionism, Team America world police.

You can call it whatever you want, but continuing to win in Iraq is better for us than losing there. and it's better for us than an equal win in Afghanistan.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 05:25 PM
You can call it whatever you want, but continuing to win in Iraq is better for us than losing there. and it's better for us than an equal win in Afghanistan.

What is there to lose though? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just face.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 05:27 PM
You can call it whatever you want, but continuing to win in Iraq is better for us than losing there. and it's better for us than an equal win in Afghanistan.


Iraq was never won. It's always been lost. Engaging there at all was a loss. Barack isn't going to be able to do like Bush, and pay off the warlords forever in order to keep the peace. At some point in time, they're going to have their civil war. The only thing that we can do is prolong the amount of time until it happens.

patteeu
09-01-2009, 05:33 PM
What is there to lose though? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just face.

In addition to opportunity costs, we lose if Iran gains additional regional power by subverting the Iraqis who would be friendly to us through the establishment of an Iraqi branch of their Hezbollah proxy. We also lose diplomatic leverage against anyone who might decide that they can withstand short term fury from the US knowing that in the long run we'll give up. I could go on and on, but I know that none of it will be convincing to you because I'm not writing it on Lew or Justin's site.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 05:37 PM
In addition to opportunity costs, we lose if Iran gains additional regional power by subverting the Iraqis who would be friendly to us through the establishment of an Iraqi branch of their Hezbollah proxy. We also lose diplomatic leverage against anyone who might decide that they can withstand short term fury from the US knowing that in the long run we'll give up. I could go on and on, but I know that none of it will be convincing to you because I'm not writing it on Lew or Justin's site.

Oh stop! Iran is already aligned with the Shia's in Iraq and we made that possible. In fact Iran has even assisted us somewhat there. It's actually the Sunnis that don't want us to leave because they know they're going to be slaughtered.

However, the Shi'a of Iraq is Arab whereas the Shi'a of Iran are Persian so the Arab ones aren't exactly amenable to being swallowed up by Iran nationally. Meanwhile the Kurds still want to be their own country. Iraq as we knew it no longer exists. I doubt either Iraq Sunnis or Shi'as want to see Israel flourish and prosper either. It changes NOTHING! Keep dreamin' though.

banyon
09-01-2009, 05:41 PM
Iraq was never won. It's always been lost. Engaging there at all was a loss. Barack isn't going to be able to do like Bush, and pay off the warlords forever in order to keep the peace. At some point in time, they're going to have their civil war. The only thing that we can do is prolong the amount of time until it happens.

This I agree with and have said since before we entered the war.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 05:49 PM
In addition to opportunity costs, we lose if Iran gains additional regional power by subverting the Iraqis who would be friendly to us through the establishment of an Iraqi branch of their Hezbollah proxy. We also lose diplomatic leverage against anyone who might decide that they can withstand short term fury from the US knowing that in the long run we'll give up. I could go on and on, but I know that none of it will be convincing to you because I'm not writing it on Lew or Justin's site.



None of it is convincing because it's all based on a
http://arcade.svatopluk.com/video_system/pipe_dream/pipe_dream_01.png
...and history proves it pretty thouroughly.

You sound like the Raiders talking about their Superbowl hopes. There's a chance, right?

patteeu
09-01-2009, 06:01 PM
Iraq was never won. It's always been lost. Engaging there at all was a loss. Barack isn't going to be able to do like Bush, and pay off the warlords forever in order to keep the peace. At some point in time, they're going to have their civil war. The only thing that we can do is prolong the amount of time until it happens.

That's a nice story to help the appeasers sleep at night. :thumb:

Taco John
09-01-2009, 06:05 PM
That's a nice story to help the appeasers sleep at night. :thumb:


Hahahaha!

What do you mean at night? People have been sleeping through this in history classes for a good long time now. Just because some dipshit cowboy got the idea that this is 'Merika and we can do anything we want isn't going to turn the tide of history on this thing.

At the end of the day, the Iraqi people are going to have to determine how this thing ends, whether you can accept the reality that history has taught us or not.

patteeu
09-01-2009, 06:11 PM
Oh stop! Iran is already aligned with the Shia's in Iraq and we made that possible. In fact Iran has even assisted us somewhat there. It's actually the Sunnis that don't want us to leave because they know they're going to be slaughtered.

However, the Shi'a of Iraq is Arab whereas the Shi'a of Iran are Persian so the Arab ones aren't exactly amenable to being swallowed up by Iran nationally. Meanwhile the Kurds still want to be their own country. Iraq as we knew it no longer exists. I doubt either Iraq Sunnis or Shi'as want to see Israel flourish and prosper either. It changes NOTHING! Keep dreamin' though.

You make my head hurt with your un-self-conscious half-knowledge at times.

While some factions of shia are aligned and working with Iran, others, including the top shia cleric in Iraq are firmly against Iranian domination or even modeling Iraq on the Iranian model.

You and Taco need to get your stories straight. Are we paying the sunnis to be our friends or are they the ones who want us to stay because they know they'll be slaughtered?

Taco John
09-01-2009, 06:24 PM
While some factions of shia are aligned and working with Iran, others, including the top shia cleric in Iraq are firmly against Iranian domination or even modeling Iraq on the Iranian model.



Yeah, like I said - sounds like civil war... I don't doubt that there are shia who would like to keep as much power for themselves and fend off Iranian domination. Do you doubt that there are shia who are tied into Iran and would just as soon have their own grasp on the power politics of the area through their Iranian ties?

You and Taco need to get your stories straight. Are we paying the sunnis to be our friends or are they the ones who want us to stay because they know they'll be slaughtered?

I depends on the politics between the ones aligned and working with Iran, and the ones who would rather carve out some power for themselves, now doesn't it?

You've disputed nothing.

patteeu
09-01-2009, 06:29 PM
Yeah, like I said - sounds like civil war... I don't doubt that there are shia who would like to keep as much power for themselves and fend off Iranian domination. Do you doubt that there are shia who are tied into Iran and would just as soon have their own grasp on the power politics of the area through their Iranian ties?

Of couse not. That's one of the big reasons we still have a constructive role to play.

I depends on the politics between the ones aligned and working with Iran, and the ones who would rather carve out some power for themselves, now doesn't it?

You've disputed nothing.

Not really. The ones working with Iran aren't being paid by us and they aren't the ones who want us to stay to keep them from being slaughtered. So yeah, I've shined a light on a dispute. The dispute between your version of the Iraqi sunnis and BEP's version.

Taco John
09-01-2009, 06:35 PM
Of couse not. That's one of the big reasons we still have a constructive role to play.


Yeah... Heh. Constructive... ROFL

Why do I get the feeling that this "constructive" role means more Americans dying for a lost cause?


Not really. The ones working with Iran aren't being paid by us and they aren't the ones who want us to stay to keep them from being slaughtered. So yeah, I've shined a light on a dispute. The dispute between your version of the Iraqi sunnis and BEP's version.


I'm not familiar with BEP's version. I considered the war a failure on Bush's part when it was clear he was going to have to hand it off to somebody else to clean up. I'm just glad that the fellows that I know who are over there are both coming home this month (one of them, my cousin, has already come home).

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 10:48 PM
You make my head hurt with your un-self-conscious half-knowledge at times.
So you got nuthin but mostly ad hominems these days.

While some factions of shia are aligned and working with Iran, others, including the top shia cleric in Iraq are firmly against Iranian domination or even modeling Iraq on the Iranian model.
I just said Shia's in Iraq are Arabs and not likely to submit to this. You said I had the reading comprehension problem? Geesh!


You and Taco need to get your stories straight. Are we paying the sunnis to be our friends or are they the ones who want us to stay because they know they'll be slaughtered?
Does it have to fall into some two-valued logic? Why can't it be some of both. However, I didn't make the argument about Sunni's being paid so I think you need to get our stories straight.

I think you're out of personal attack material in this post. Ya' know "you" this and "you" that kinda stuff you rely on heavily. Nice try though.

BigRedChief
09-02-2009, 06:33 AM
Afganistan is a quagmire that will not end well for us. But, if we leave the Taliban will surely come back and soon after safety and refuge for Al-quaeda. I don't think there is a "good" solution.

And this is Bush's fault. They dropped the ball and didn't make sure the Taliban stayed down, instead they focused on Saddam for who knows what reason...

patteeu
09-02-2009, 07:45 AM
Afganistan is a quagmire that will not end well for us. But, if we leave the Taliban will surely come back and soon after safety and refuge for Al-quaeda. I don't think there is a "good" solution.

And this is Bush's fault. They dropped the ball and didn't make sure the Taliban stayed down, instead they focused on Saddam for who knows what reason...

:rolleyes: If Bush could have made sure the Taliban "stayed down", why can't Obama do it now? There have been no game changers here (unlike there will be if/when Obama lets Iran get nuclear weapons).

If you're really interested in why Bush focused on Saddam, Doug Feith explains it quite well in his book War and Decision (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0061373664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251899255&sr=8-1).

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 09:17 AM
Only a fool would trust Doug Feith because he's a poor liar. He writes a book and blames others.

patteeu
09-02-2009, 09:34 AM
Only a fool would trust Doug Feith because he's a poor liar. He writes a book and blames others.

Speaking of liars and fools, did you read his book?

BigRedChief
09-02-2009, 09:50 AM
:rolleyes: If Bush could have made sure the Taliban "stayed down", why can't Obama do it now? There have been no game changers here (unlike there will be if/when Obama lets Iran get nuclear weapons).

If you're really interested in why Bush focused on Saddam, Doug Feith explains it quite well in his book War and Decision (http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0061373664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251899255&sr=8-1).
Thats just not true. The political and military landscape in Afghanistan is totally different now than it was when we first invaded Iraq.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 09:57 AM
Speaking of liars and fools, did you read his book?

I use "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I don't need to I know he was a chief architect of the Iraq invasion.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 09:59 AM
Afganistan is a quagmire that will not end well for us. But, if we leave the Taliban will surely come back and soon after safety and refuge for Al-quaeda. I don't think there is a "good" solution.

And this is Bush's fault. They dropped the ball and didn't make sure the Taliban stayed down, instead they focused on Saddam for who knows what reason...

Taliban is not our enemy. And Bush rejected their offer to extradite BL so long as evidence for 9/11 was provided which was easy to do.
They've also not too long ago made more pleas they'd make concessions if the bombing would stop. But our goal is conquest and control over resources so no concessions will be made.

donkhater
09-02-2009, 10:08 AM
Where does Pakistan and Afghanistan get a majority of their terrorist money? Drugs. The region is full of poppy fields. Yet another by-product of the insane 'war on drugs'. Legalize drugs in this country and many, many problems will solve themselves.

patteeu
09-02-2009, 10:19 AM
I use "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I don't need to I know he was a chief architect of the Iraq invasion.

In other words, you don't have a clue about what he says in his book. Pretty much par for the course for you. You're just a dummy for Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. Here's an avatar for you:

http://www.nightmarefactory.com/NA56.jpg

patteeu
09-02-2009, 10:21 AM
Thats just not true. The political and military landscape in Afghanistan is totally different now than it was when we first invaded Iraq.

So what part of that change made putting the Taliban down permanently doable under Bush but impossible under Obama? You're going to have to do better than waving your hands about vague differences here.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 10:53 AM
In other words, you don't have a clue about what he says in his book. Pretty much par for the course for you. You're just a dummy for Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. Here's an avatar for you:]

I have a clue just by knowing what he's said without it. That's enough for me. He's not a creditable source to me. Now deal with a differing opinion like a mature adult instead of being like kcnative.

KC native
09-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I have a clue just by knowing what he's said without it. That's enough for me. He's not a creditable source to me. Now deal with a differing opinion like a mature adult instead of being like kcnative.

Ah this is rich. Like a mature adult? ROFL Bitch you can't even admit I'm not really on ignore.

patteeu
09-02-2009, 11:04 AM
I have a clue just by knowing what he's said without it. That's enough for me. He's not a creditable source to me. Now deal with a differing opinion like a mature adult instead of being like kcnative.

I've seen your reading comprehension failures first hand so I don't believe for a minute that you "know what he's said" and that you actually understand it. Your track record on these things has been worse than spotty.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 11:20 AM
*chortles* at pat having nuthin' again.

BigRedChief
09-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Taliban is not our enemy. And Bush rejected their offer to extradite BL so long as evidence for 9/11 was provided which was easy to do.
They've also not too long ago made more pleas they'd make concessions if the bombing would stop. But our goal is conquest and control over resources so no concessions will be made.
Huh? Why not? you provide shelter, comfort and money to Al-Quaeda, that makes you our enemy.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Huh? Why not? you provide shelter, comfort and money to Al-Quaeda, that makes you our enemy.

AQ was not state-sponsored. Nor in the case of the Taliban. AQ sponsored the Taliban. However, in case you missed it, the Taliban offered to extradite BL which Bush refused. And have also offered more concessions if we'd halt the bombing. It's just another unconditional surrender demand that can't be lived up to that is contributing to the continuation of occupying a country that has never been tamed by anyone.

As I have also stated many times before, occupation is the cause of terrorism. So it is not the cure.

The last anti-war movement was more an anti-R movement. It's starting up again in protest of Democrat wars.

RNR
09-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Afganistan is a quagmire that will not end well for us. But, if we leave the Taliban will surely come back and soon after safety and refuge for Al-quaeda. I don't think there is a "good" solution.

And this is Bush's fault. They dropped the ball and didn't make sure the Taliban stayed down, instead they focused on Saddam for who knows what reason...

I posted this already....


People I have talked to always throw up why are we in Iraq? This is just Jr trying to finish up Dads war. Well it is rather simple. If you are going to engage the enemy you must be able to sustain a assault you must have the infrastructure to maintain it. This is much like the if you build it they will come thing. Anyone who thinks we have been fighting Iraq enemies only is naive to say the least. We have a gateway through Kuwait. This allows us a staging area for supplies and personnel.

We have built our infrastructure north through out Iraq. We are formable presence in Iraq. Now we have this debate about how we should per sue the enemy where ever we think they may be. Obama now sets his sights on Afghanistan. Well Russia tried this when we were allies with those we are now against. What would be funny if it was not so tragic is the Bush sucks crowd does not understand the war profiteers that they cursed will make billions more on this debacle.

We will also lose this war once the low laying fruit we are engaging now, retreats to the mountains. The Left and the right walked into this hand in hand. Much like the mess we are with our economy "hand and hand". Now the left claims innocent on this just like they have on the rest of the things going on in this country lol. Anyway at least Bush was smart enough to engage the enemy where we could win.