Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[Raven]

Obama's not as interested in reading History as he is in making History.

Well, Nebe that was done long before there were so called ethics in fighting a war and would not fly .

[Raven]

how ever something that could make them hallucinate
is ok by me.

[Fly Rod]

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

[Raven]

BULLSH1T ......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan.

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns. this is so riddled with lame drivel, but i still love ya JD...

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.so, all of the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" poured into the country after we invaded..all of their leadership and memebership just showed up so that we could kill them, they aren't very smart are they?

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta. And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before Bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

[scottw]

I thought Obama was going to have a beer with he "good" Taliban and straighten this all out right after he had tea with Amadinajad?....so easy to pontificate when you have no accountability, just soaring rhetoric for the entranced... now the shoes is on the other foot for Obama, it's his RESPONSIBILITY and he's tripping all over his untied laces....what a fraud...just keeps blaming someone else as he continues to display utter incompetence...maybe he'll GROW into the job...we can all HOPE...

[spence]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them. weren't they just a "paper tiger" or something, going to collapse anyway?

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit. right, there's probably noone there that actually wants a peaceful existence...those animals..can you similarly apply those beliefs to Oh, I don't know...certain areas of Detriot, Chicago, LA, NY...just wondering

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. because there is none Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.
that's how they do elections in tribal, nationalistic countries
-spence

[spence]

I'd offer up a counter argument, but I don't really see one to counter.

Could you please try to actually make a point?

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;709431]The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

I believe what stcroixman meant by 100% commitment was, not only a government policy, but the full backing of the people. The USSR NEVER had that. It was a militarily enforced federation of irredentist minded citizens, most of whom didn't see Afghanistan as an important matter. We failed in Vietnam because our populace was persuaded that it was not worth American life. The war against the Iraqi "insurgents" was made difficult because they saw the left's portrayal of the war as another Vietnam and so hoped that continued resistance would, similarly, break the American populist will to fight.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

"Nationalistic country" is redundant. All nations are nationalistic. And, if war is resisted change, war is not only a "habit", but a necessity for those entities who wish to maintain their integrity.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.-spence[QUOTE]

Sounds similar to the Bush strategy. As for NATO, without a US, Afghani, and Pakistani defeat of the Taliban, NATO, as already demonstrated, can do nothing.

[scottw]

see Spence...I had some points

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=detbuch;709445]


[COLOR="darkgreen"] All nations are nationalistic.

I would say that is one of our country's problems, we are not nationalistic anymore.
We are a nation split on what we stand for. Where immigrants used to come here, take pride in their citizenship and be grateful for the opportunities,
they left their countries behind and became Americans and believed in our country and what it stood for.

We are becoming more divided everyday. Way to many ideas of who we are and
what we believe to be nationalistic anymore, imho.

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?