PDA

View Full Version : Afgahnistan?



road kill
07-28-2009, 09:18 AM
What are we doing there?
When will we get out?
Our men & women are in harms way and dieing.
Why?
What is the end game?

Why is this one OK?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5b430a1bfbfbc74247c1011203310f7 6.1e1&show_article=1

Can't find the link on this being the deadliest month since we have been there.
Where is the media/press on this?

stan b

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 09:26 AM
Maybe because in Afghanistan we are actually going after the group that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- a goal we lost sight of when we decided it would be more fun to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing at all to do with the attacks. Afghanistan became a haven for terrorist training following the withdrawal of Russian troops and the lack of support from us or any other country in helping them to recover from years of war. GWB oversaw a masterful invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, only to withdraw troops before the job was done, to free up resources for the war in Iraq. As a result the Taliban reestablished itself both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, becoming even more dangerous than it was before our original invasion. Now it's time to do the job right. Unfortunately, now it will be harder than ever.

road kill
07-28-2009, 10:09 AM
Maybe because in Afghanistan we are actually going after the group that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- a goal we lost sight of when we decided it would be more fun to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing at all to do with the attacks. Afghanistan became a haven for terrorist training following the withdrawal of Russian troops and the lack of support from us or any other country in helping them to recover from years of war. GWB oversaw a masterful invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, only to withdraw troops before the job was done, to free up resources for the war in Iraq. As a result the Taliban reestablished itself both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, becoming even more dangerous than it was before our original invasion. Now it's time to do the job right. Unfortunately, now it will be harder than ever.

And who made this distinction for you?

youtube, Snopes?

I mean where did you get the information condenming Bush & Iraq and praising "The Obama" and Afgahnistan?

The mainstream media??

And you beleive them due to your fervent desire to discredit all things Bush??



stan b

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 10:16 AM
And who made this distinction for you?

youtube, Snopes?

I mean where did you get the information condenming Bush & Iraq and praising "The Obama" and Afgahnistan?

The mainstream media??

And you beleive them due to your fervent desire to discredit all things Bush??



stan b
Are you questioning the accuracy of any of my statements? If so, please indicate which ones and your understanding of the truth. I don't think that I said anything very controversial, but would be happy to discuss any misstatements you believe I made in my post.

road kill
07-28-2009, 10:21 AM
Are you questioning the accuracy of any of my statements? If so, please indicate which ones and your understanding of the truth. I don't think that I said anything very controversial, but would be happy to discuss any misstatements you believe I made in my post.
I asked you where you get your information on the 2 wars?
What is your criteria for what you choose to beleive?

I question the facts in all stories.

In the entire history of the universe there have been 2 sides to every story.
What prompts you to beleive 1 war is noble and 1 was a fraud?

I offered that it may be tarnished by your desire to discredit all things Bush.
You did not answer the question, but deflected to me questioning your facts.

Well, I can dig up links that support my side with facts as well.

Won't change your mind, you'll just discredit the sources, as though yours are far superior.

They are not.
They are just different.

stan b

Pete
07-28-2009, 10:33 AM
Its been almost 8 years and we aren't an inch closer than we were.
Its time to try something totally different.
If what your doing just isn't working and you keep doing it than guess what. The results will be the same.


Time to CHANGE:)

Pete

road kill
07-28-2009, 10:35 AM
Its been almost 8 years and we aren't an inch closer than we were.
Its time to try something totally different.
If what your doing just isn't working and you keep doing it than guess what. The results will be the same.


Time to CHANGE:)

Pete

I think Al Einstein addressed that issue.

Ask Russia about the whole Afgahnistan exoerience.
It broke them.

Soon this will take a toll on President Obama as well.

stan b

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 11:18 AM
I asked you where you get your information on the 2 wars?
What is your criteria for what you choose to beleive?

I question the facts in all stories.

In the entire history of the universe there have been 2 sides to every story.
What prompts you to beleive 1 war is noble and 1 was a fraud?

I offered that it may be tarnished by your desire to discredit all things Bush.
You did not answer the question, but deflected to me questioning your facts.

Well, I can dig up links that support my side with facts as well.

Won't change your mind, you'll just discredit the sources, as though yours are far superior.

They are not.

stan b
Actually, it would be refreshing to see you contribute any factual analysis. You seem to be saying that all "facts" are arguable and that therefore all facts are simply matters of opinion and not worthy of consideration unless they support the opinion you prefer. That would be laughable if it were not so disturbingly close to the quality of what passes for "balanced" reporting.

With respect to my post, I made certain specific observations:
When we invaded Afghanistan we were going after the group that actually attacked us: Afghanistan was home base for the Taliban. The relationship was not covert. The Taliban happily accepted responsibility for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. The Bush administration identified the Taliban as the responsible party and demanded that the Taliban leaders be turned over by the Afghan government following the attacks.
Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11: Are you really disputing this statement? The Bush administration repeatedly admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks and no credible evidence has ever surfaced to suggest that there was any substantive link between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
Afghanistan was a haven for the Taliban and this problem grew following the withdrawal of Russian troops and was exacerbated by lack of support from other countries: Bin Laden and the mujadin were recipients of military training and aid funnelled through the CIA which viewed these religious extremists as a strong weapon to combat the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Once the Russians withdrew, Afghanistan, and the force we had helped to create fell of of our radar. Beginning in the 1990's it began to become apparent that the Taliban was terrorizing the population of Afghanistan and branching out into terroristic attacks around the world. Much of this is described in some detail in Richard Clark's Against All Enemies and is confirmed through numerous other sources.
GWB oversaw a masterful invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban: This is of course simply a statement of my opinion but, I believe, is justified by the facts. The wr was waged by harnessing and supporting the effors of the northern warlords and involved the dedication of very small numbers of special forces troops. By building on indigenous opposition, we avoided the problems of having the action being identified solely as an American effort. The Taliban was displaced quickly.
We withdrew troops before the job was done to free up resources for Iraq: This is not actually a completely fair statement on my part. We did not actually withdraw troops. What we did was to consolidate our positions to certain key areas of Afghanistan and leave most of the country open for a resurgence of the Taliban because the only way to eliminae the Taliban as a threat was to expand our forces at a time when we were preparing for an invasion of Iraq. There are many sources of information on the progress and stages of the war. Wikipedia is as good as any at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29)
As a result of our failure to pursue the war to its conclusion, the Taliban has stregthened its position in Afghanistan and Pakistan and will be harder than ever to remove: This has actually been apparent for several years. In 2008 Admiral Mike Mullen, Staff Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while the situation in Afghanistan is "precarious and urgent," the 10,000 additional troops needed there would be unavailable "in any significant manner" unless withdrawals from Iraq are made. However, Admiral Mullen stated that "my priorities . . . given to me by the commander in chief are: Focus on Iraq first. It's been that way for some time. Focus on Afghanistan second."

Hew
07-28-2009, 11:26 AM
GWB oversaw a masterful invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, only to withdraw troops before the job was done, to free up resources for the war in Iraq. I don't recall ever reading about our troop levels in A-stan being reduced in any given year. They may not have been as high as some field commanders would have wanted (how often does a field general or colonel say, "I've got just the right amount of men and materials so if I don't win I'm a dolt and should be sacked."), but a strategic concern in Afghanistan was, and remains, that we don't have such a huge footprint as to appear like an invading/occupying force. The Afghanis are pretty peculiar that way and have a long history of showing their displeasure towards "occupiers." As a result the Taliban reestablished itself both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, becoming even more dangerous than it was before our original invasion. By what yardstick or unit of measurement do you make that claim? Before we invaded the Taliban had near total control of the country, ruled with an iron fist, and harbored jihadist terror camps, al Qaeda and UBL. Moreover, do you think it's just a coincidence that the violence in Afghanistan began rising measureably at the same time it was drastically ebbing in Iraq? Or could it be that we made Iraq a very unhealthy place to be a jihadist so they moved on to A-stan? Now it's time to do the job right. Unfortunately, now it will be harder than ever. Right. So if Obama isn't successful, it has to be Bush's fault. Who woulda guessed?

What's your criteria for determining when the job has been "done right?" What will A-Stan look like then?

...............

Goose
07-28-2009, 11:31 AM
There is no end game in our Dear Leader's 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. Didn't you hear him last week when he said VICTORY isn't the United States' goal?

He said, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur"

So let's just continue to stuff bodies in body bags for shipment back home because our President doesn't really want to win this war. He's such a coward.

Bring back the draft or bring everybody home. And with the draft let's start with the President's two daughters. Fit them with JROTC uniforms and teach them 'left, right, left' on the White House lawn. When they're old enough to serve ship the girls over there to fight. And do the same for all sons and daughters of all politicians in this country.

Maybe then Dear Leader will try to achieve victory as quickly as possible. What a disgrace.

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 11:38 AM
HEW, as I noted in my subsequent post, I agree that I was wrong in saying troop levels had been reduced. The issue was that following the Tora Bora battle it was pretty clear that more troops would be needed to eliminate the Taliban. The administration basically adopted the posture that it was no longer important to capture bin Laden or to eliminate the Taliban because they had been effectively contained. The resurgence in Afghanistan and the destabilization in Pakistan have proven how wrong that judgment was.

My basis for saying the problem is worse now than it was originally is based on the growth of the power of the Taliban in Pakistan -- with the related destabilization of that gpvernment -- and the strength of the Taliban in the mountain regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where they are much harder to dislodge militarily. At the time of our initial actions, there was no reason for the Taliban to hide in the mountains because the controlled the country. As a result, they were much easier to find and kill. A msjor increase in resources between mid 2002 and mid 2003 had the potential of permanently dislodging the Taliban and locating and killing bin Laden. That was not done because we were building up for an invasion of Iraq and were downplaying the importance of Afghanistan. As it became clear during our invasion of Iraq that the Taliban had fortified its positions in the mountain regions and were gaining new reinforcements, we responded by consolidating our forces into limited areas and ceding mush of the rest of the country to the Taliban.

Hew
07-28-2009, 11:49 AM
A msjor increase in resources between mid 2002 and mid 2003 had the potential of permanently dislodging the Taliban and locating and killing bin Laden. That was not done because we were building up for an invasion of Iraq and were downplaying the importance of Afghanistan.
That was not done because bin Laden and and a goodly chunk of the Taliban had taken refuge in Pakistan; not because we didn't have the manpower or will to fight them. Now if you want to make the case that we didn't have the willpower to invade Pakistan in pursuit, I'll agree with you. But I don't think you would have been in favor of that, would you?

Back to the larger question. In your opinion, what will constitute our job in A-Stan being "done right." Total peace? Total elimination of the Taliban? etc.

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 12:39 PM
That was not done because bin Laden and and a goodly chunk of the Taliban had taken refuge in Pakistan; not because we didn't have the manpower or will to fight them. Now if you want to make the case that we didn't have the willpower to invade Pakistan in pursuit, I'll agree with you. But I don't think you would have been in favor of that, would you?

Back to the larger question. In your opinion, what will constitute our job in A-Stan being "done right." Total peace? Total elimination of the Taliban? etc.
I don't know how I would have reacted to be honest. In retrospect (always an easier perspective) it would have been better than what we face now since the consequence of chasing them into Pakistan was the creation of a new and much more dangerous safe haven. Unfortunately, the administration simply seemed happy to have an excuse for focusing on Iraq instead. If Afghanistan and Pakistan had remained our primary focus I am convinced we would be much better off today. Unfortunately I believe the admininstration was more interested in having a more visible proving ground for deterring other countries from asymmetric challenges against the US than it was in actually tracking down and destroying the Taliban.

road kill
07-28-2009, 12:43 PM
I don't know how I would have reacted to be honest. In retrospect (always an easier perspective) it would have been better than what we face now since the consequence of chasing them into Pakistan was the creation of a new and much more dangerous safe haven. Unfortunately, the administration simply seemed happy to have an excuse for focusing on Iraq instead. If Afghanistan and Pakistan had remained our primary focus I am convinced we would be much better off today. Unfortunately I believe the admininstration was more interested in having a more visible proving ground for deterring other countries from asymmetric challenges against the US than it was in actually tracking down and destroying the Taliban.

Could you explain how we would be better off??
Using only "factual analysis."

And how do YOU know this?

(this should be "refreshing!!")

Roger Perry
07-28-2009, 01:09 PM
There is no end game in our Dear Leader's 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. Didn't you hear him last week when he said VICTORY isn't the United States' goal?

He said, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur"

So let's just continue to stuff bodies in body bags for shipment back home because our President doesn't really want to win this war. He's such a coward.

Bring back the draft or bring everybody home. And with the draft let's start with the President's two daughters. Fit them with JROTC uniforms and teach them 'left, right, left' on the White House lawn. When they're old enough to serve ship the girls over there to fight. And do the same for all sons and daughters of all politicians in this country.

Maybe then Dear Leader will try to achieve victory as quickly as possible. What a disgrace.

I did not see the Bush girls signing up to help out with the war rheir dad started. they were too busy partying and having a good time.

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 01:23 PM
Could you explain how we would be better off??
Using only "factual analysis."

And how do YOU know this?

(this should be "refreshing!!")
You cannot explain hypotheticals based on facts, only theories. Commanders in Afghanistan were clearly told that the war there was a secondary priority. There were no resources to support aggressive pursuit of the Taliban, few resources to support reconstruction, and a lot of pressure to keep things as quiet as possible (see, for example, my earlier quote of Admiral Mullen). Had resources been available and had commanders known that they were being judged on their effectiveness in challenging and displacing the Taliban in both AQfghanistan and Pakistan, I am convinced they would have been relatively successful. Had the administration been as committed to getting rid of the Taliban as it was to getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I suspect that it would have been effective at addressing the issues in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In that hypothetical circumstance, we would not be as worried now about the fact that we have a nuclear nation, Pakistan, that could collapse under pressure from the Taliban. We would probably have a stronger government in Afghanistan that was less likely to fall back to exactly the position it held in 2001. We would still have Saddam Hussein, assuming he was not otherwise overthrown. However, with time his position would probably be weaker than it was in 2003 and the country might be moving towards a more locally driven post Saddam era with possibly less religious strife than exists now. Would it be better than what exists now? I don't know. However, it would have been less threatening to the stability of the area with the added benefit of what probably would have been a weaker Iran.

How do I lnow any of this? I don't. Discussions of hypotheticals are simply speculation. If you are asking for my "credentials" for formulating opinions (which is how I actually interpret your question), they are similar to anyone else's. I read three newspapaers a day (WSJ, Philadelphia Inquirer, Bucks County Courier News), I watch news on CNN and MSNBC (not Fox unless I lose a bet), I listen to BBC News and NPR, I did my udergraduate and graduate work in economics and international and public affairs, I lived a large part of my life overseas, graduating from high school in a class of 100 students from over 30 different countries, I have studied more economics than many PhD economists, have studied multiple languages and speak three, etc. Does any of that make my opinions more valid than yours? No. But I think I am a littlle more committed researching facts and verifying sources than most.

Henry V
07-28-2009, 01:49 PM
There is no end game in our Dear Leader's 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. Didn't you hear him last week when he said VICTORY isn't the United States' goal?

He said, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur"

So let's just continue to stuff bodies in body bags for shipment back home because our President doesn't really want to win this war. He's such a coward.

Bring back the draft or bring everybody home. And with the draft let's start with the President's two daughters. Fit them with JROTC uniforms and teach them 'left, right, left' on the White House lawn. When they're old enough to serve ship the girls over there to fight. And do the same for all sons and daughters of all politicians in this country.

Maybe then Dear Leader will try to achieve victory as quickly as possible. What a disgrace.
Goose, you do know that the previous administration changed its rhetoric about the war on terror from use of "win" and "victory" to use of "success". In fact, in a 2004 interview, when asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.” So, continuing the use of terms consistent with the previous administration and focusing our efforts on Afgahnistan makes him a coward. That does not seem very fair and balanced.
Mission accomplished in 2003 regards......
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.samefacts.com/archives/20060627-bush%252520mission%252520accomplished.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dearkitty.blogsome.com/2006/12/26/activists-toy-ducks-anger-bush-delegates/&h=259&w=460&sz=27&tbnid=kz8Ty2dfe9edfM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bmission%2Baccomplished&hl=en&usg=__C6iPTGgF66ex-Ja_rcN4_7ZFGvs=&ei=-UZvSu7jD4WuswP6vcX6Ag&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image

Henry V
07-28-2009, 01:54 PM
There is no end game in our Dear Leader's 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. Didn't you hear him last week when he said VICTORY isn't the United States' goal?

He said, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur"

So let's just continue to stuff bodies in body bags for shipment back home because our President doesn't really want to win this war. He's such a coward.

Bring back the draft or bring everybody home. And with the draft let's start with the President's two daughters. Fit them with JROTC uniforms and teach them 'left, right, left' on the White House lawn. When they're old enough to serve ship the girls over there to fight. And do the same for all sons and daughters of all politicians in this country.

Maybe then Dear Leader will try to achieve victory as quickly as possible. What a disgrace.
Goose, you do know that the previous administration changed its rhetoric about the war on terror from use of "win" and "victory" to use of "success". In fact, in a 2004 interview, when asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.” So, if I have this straight, you are saying that continuing the use of terms consistent with the previous administrations but with clear redetermined efforts to eliminate the Taliban from Afghanistan makes him a coward. OK, but that does not seem very fair and balanced.
http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:kz8Ty2dfe9edfM:http://www.samefacts.com/archives/20060627-bush%2520mission%2520accomplished.jpg Regards..........

road kill
07-28-2009, 02:17 PM
This just in....

....George Bush is NOT President, I repeat for those of you who may have missed it, George Bush is NOT President!!

road kill
07-28-2009, 02:20 PM
I did not see the Bush girls signing up to help out with the war rheir dad started. they were too busy partying and having a good time.

Oh, well, there you have it.
That pretty much ends this entire debate!!

BTW--You know this for a fact how??

Hew
07-28-2009, 02:36 PM
If Afghanistan and Pakistan had remained our primary focus I am convinced we would be much better off today. Unfortunately I believe the admininstration was more interested in having a more visible proving ground for deterring other countries from asymmetric challenges against the US than it was in actually tracking down and destroying the Taliban.
I don't think our strategy or operations would have changed much with or without Iraq to contend with. It's not like we would have ever a) entered Pakistan (which is what would have been required if we wanted to "track down" the Taliban) or b) positioned tens of thousands of US troops along the Afghani/Pak border. Even now, with a surge in troops, it's not like we're making any meaningful effort to contest/guard the border. If your goal is to kill Taliban and arab jihadists, and you're not prepared to enter Pakistan to do it, wouldn't the only solution be to let them re-enter Afghanistan where you can kill them?

I've asked you twice now what your definition of a "job done right" is in A-stan. OK, I'll go first. I think that the Taliban are a bunch of dim bulbs who can be bought off (and as I understand it, that's what we've been trying to do since the success of the Iraqi surge). Their time has come and gone. While Afghanistan is still a third world s-hole, I don't think that the people want, or would accept, any type of rule by them or their significant representation in any govt. I think it is the Arab jihadists that are at the root of the problem and they can't be bought off. Instead they should be killed and starved of funding and support (aka The Global War on Terror). I think pouring a bunch of troops into A-Stan is a recipe for disaster. I think incursion into Pakistan would be a disaster. I'm in favor of the status quo, and as other fronts on the GWoT are won, the Taliban that can't be bought and the Arab jihadists that can't be killed will wither on the vine in mountain caves. In the meantime, in A-Stan we keep killing them whenever/wherever the opportunity arises and keep tyring to win hearts and minds.

Hew
07-28-2009, 02:42 PM
I did not see the Bush girls signing up to help out with the war rheir dad started. they were too busy partying and having a good time.
My IQ drops measurably ervery tim I red one of yur posts.

YardleyLabs
07-28-2009, 02:53 PM
I don't think our strategy or operations would have changed much with or without Iraq to contend with. It's not like we would have ever a) entered Pakistan (which is what would have been required if we wanted to "track down" the Taliban) or b) positioned tens of thousands of US troops along the Afghani/Pak border. Even now, with a surge in troops, it's not like we're making any meaningful effort to contest/guard the border. If your goal is to kill Taliban and arab jihadists, and you're not prepared to enter Pakistan to do it, wouldn't the only solution be to let them re-enter Afghanistan where you can kill them?

I've asked you twice now what your definition of a "job done right" is in A-stan. OK, I'll go first. I think that the Taliban are a bunch of dim bulbs who can be bought off (and as I understand it, that's what we've been trying to do since the success of the Iraqi surge). Their time has come and gone. While Afghanistan is still a third world s-hole, I don't think that the people want, or would accept, any type of rule by them or their significant representation in any govt. I think it is the Arab jihadists that are at the root of the problem and they can't be bought off. Instead they should be killed and starved of funding and support (aka The Global War on Terror). I think pouring a bunch of troops into A-Stan is a recipe for disaster. I think incursion into Pakistan would be a disaster. I'm in favor of the status quo, and as other fronts on the GWoT are won, the Taliban that can't be bought and the Arab jihadists that can't be killed will wither on the vine in mountain caves. In the meantime, in A-Stan we keep killing them whenever/wherever the opportunity arises and keep trying to win hearts and minds.
I think if Afghanistan were the only issue I might agree, although that is the thinking that allowed it to become an open training ground for terrorists in the 1990's. However, Pakistan is another question altogether. It is too important in the world to be permitted to become a failed state under the control of the Taliban or jihadists.

The politics are difficult enough that it is not easy to figure out productive ways to help. A strategy that encompasses the potential for intervention in hot pursuit (the stick) helps give incentives to the military to take action since it is harder to conceal their lack of action. Carrots in the form of direct military and economic assistance can help bolster the government. Long term, the most important thing we could probably do would be to help build and finance a broad system of public education. This would probably be a lot cheaper than fighting future wars against the products of their existing schools.

EDIT: A job "well done" in Afghanistan leaves a nation with a functioning government and economy and a Pakistan that is basically stable.

Hew
07-28-2009, 03:33 PM
I think if Afghanistan were the only issue I might agree, although that is the thinking that allowed it to become an open training ground for terrorists in the 1990's. Ah, but back then it wasn't a big deal if wahabist Saudis were transferring wads of cash into AQ bank accounts. That tends to raise some eyebrows and unfortunate repurcussions nowadays. However, Pakistan is another question altogether. It is too important in the world to be permitted to become a failed state under the control of the Taliban or jihadists. Totally agree.

The politics are difficult enough that it is not easy to figure out productive ways to help. Gosh, that's an understatement. A strategy that encompasses the potential for intervention in hot pursuit (the stick) helps give incentives to the military to take action since it is harder to conceal their lack of action. Carrots in the form of direct military and economic assistance can help bolster the government. Long term, the most important thing we could probably do would be to help build and finance a broad system of public education. Gee, we should probably sprinkle magical pacifying pixie dust over the whole country from the International Space Station while we're at it. :rolleyes:;-) We can't properly educate our own kids. Moreover, the notion that madrassas in America and Europe are educating future jihadists amongst us is galling enough to me, a relatively educated fella. Just imagine the reaction from the average Paki when told that Americans will be educating kids in his country. I'm thinking they're going to say, "I am not liking dis so much." This would probably be a lot cheaper than fighting future wars against the products of their existing schools.


............

whelchel
07-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Maybe because in Afghanistan we are actually going after the group that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- a goal we lost sight of when we decided it would be more fun to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing at all to do with the attacks. Afghanistan became a haven for terrorist training following the withdrawal of Russian troops and the lack of support from us or any other country in helping them to recover from years of war. GWB oversaw a masterful invasion and overthrow of the Taliban, only to withdraw troops before the job was done, to free up resources for the war in Iraq. As a result the Taliban reestablished itself both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, becoming even more dangerous than it was before our original invasion. Now it's time to do the job right. Unfortunately, now it will be harder than ever.

100% With Yardleylabs on this one. These are the people (Afghan -- taliban) who led the effort to fly planes into our buildings. Iraq presented it's own issues, but a link to the taliban and terrorism was not one of them. The American people were mislead in that respect. GWB inaccurately used this for a sales pitch point. We were also mislead about the WMD in Iraq, but much of that was bad intelligence, and not knowlingly misleading Americans. I twice served in Iraq, and would still be serving in the military today had it been toward the end of destroying the regime who was responsible for 9/11. I anticipate that I will soon serve in Afghanistan as a civilian. That is and always was the correct place to be.

dnf777
07-28-2009, 06:47 PM
This just in....

....George Bush is NOT President, I repeat for those of you who may have missed it, George Bush is NOT President!!

Of course he's not. But does that mean we should blame the utter mess he left this country in on someone else? What happened to the conservative motto of "personal responsibility"??? I guess that's only when someone ELSE screws up? I would have more respect for W if he would just say, "my whole presidency was based on lies, padding the MIC pockets, and appeasing the extreme right-wing, and man did I screw things up!" The average American sure as heck didn't benefit. Sure, most of us got enough in tax breaks to buy a set of golf clubs or a few wingers, but at what long-term cost? We still don't know. But many don't have jobs or houses to put those clubs in anymore.

Thank God he's not still president, but yes, blame needs to be properly assigned, so that we don't make the same mistake again. His policies were like a cancer on this nation, sapping our resources to feed it's own appetite, and I don't think we can handle a recurrence. There's another conservative principle out the window....small government. Clinton's federal budget looked like the Rotary Clubs budget compared to 2007-08! And yes, I worry that Obama will merely continue Bush's expansion of the budget deficit.

dback
07-28-2009, 07:22 PM
And yes, I worry that Obama will merely continue Bush's expansion of the budget deficit.

?????????????????? :shock: :? :shock: You ARE shittin us?? right?? Mr "I pay more taxes than everyone else"???????? MERELY CONTINUE???????? :shock:

dnf777
07-28-2009, 07:47 PM
?????????????????? :shock: :? :shock: You ARE shittin us?? right?? Mr "I pay more taxes than everyone else"???????? MERELY CONTINUE???????? :shock:

Call it what you want. If we agreed to not start paying off Mr. Obama's debt contributions until we have paid off Mr. Bush's, YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT!

In case you haven't attended your local "tea-bagging" party, LOTS of folks are paying lots of taxes. Gives us the right to complain when we don't like how morons are running this country into the ground, whether they have a D or an R next to their name.

And if I were paying more taxes than everyone else, I wouldn't still be begging my wife to let me get a JD gator! :oops:

luvalab
07-28-2009, 07:57 PM
I've been listening pretty closely to recent statements made about the administration's goals in Afghanistan. I certainly haven't heard them all, but those I have heard say nothing about 9/11, capturing or killing Bin Laden, or even making the US safer from muslim extremism. What the various generals are saying are things like stability, renewed infrastructure, safety and security for the people of Afghanistan, educating the children of, etc. Lots of examples about women and children and horror. Heartstring stuff, to be sure.

Now--I think there can be some convincing lines drawn in the dot to dot that might paint a picture of a more secure US should Afghanistan be a better place and the Taliban be minimized or defeated, but it's just not being done. In listening to recent statements, it's like the US has nothing to do with Afghanistan--except for sending troops and resources.

I'd like to hear a clear statement that addresses the question, what do these things have to do with the safety of this country's citizens? The administration and its spokesmen have not been doing this. As far as articulating why the US should be involved in Afghanistan in the year 2009??? I'm not hearing it.

I can make all sorts of my own arguments in my own little head, but I don't want a conversation with myself--I want my government to tell me what good it thinks will come to the United States to have our men, women, and resources there. I don't want to be debating presumed motivations.

whelchel
07-28-2009, 09:00 PM
I've been listening pretty closely to recent statements made about the administration's goals in Afghanistan. I certainly haven't heard them all, but those I have heard say nothing about 9/11, capturing or killing Bin Laden, or even making the US safer from muslim extremism. What the various generals are saying are things like stability, renewed infrastructure, safety and security for the people of Afghanistan, educating the children of, etc. Lots of examples about women and children and horror. Heartstring stuff, to be sure.

Now--I think there can be some convincing lines drawn in the dot to dot that might paint a picture of a more secure US should Afghanistan be a better place and the Taliban be minimized or defeated, but it's just not being done. In listening to recent statements, it's like the US has nothing to do with Afghanistan--except for sending troops and resources.

I'd like to hear a clear statement that addresses the question, what do these things have to do with the safety of this country's citizens? The administration and its spokesmen have not been doing this. As far as articulating why the US should be involved in Afghanistan in the year 2009??? I'm not hearing it.

I can make all sorts of my own arguments in my own little head, but I don't want a conversation with myself--I want my government to tell me what good it thinks will come to the United States to have our men, women, and resources there. I don't want to be debating presumed motivations.

I seem to remember hearing that the administration line was to counter the resurgence of taliban. Additionally, a hot topic has been the drug/poppy industry, which funds terrorist activities. Obama recently replaced the commanding General. This would not have happened so that we could better rebuild schools and infrastructure.

luvalab
07-28-2009, 09:51 PM
I seem to remember hearing that the administration line was to counter the resurgence of taliban. Additionally, a hot topic has been the drug/poppy industry, which funds terrorist activities. Obama recently replaced the commanding General. This would not have happened so that we could better rebuild schools and infrastructure.

Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2009, 04:34 AM
Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.
Your question is a fair one. From a human rights perspective, the Taliban makes Saddam Hussein look relatively benevolent. However, that does not represent an inherent threat against the US. The Taliban was the group that provided Al Quaeda with the freedom to operate needed for it to organize and launch its terror attacks on the US. Put in the position of controlling a country again, I suspect that the Taliban would be happy to host its allies for another try. Al Quaeda needs failed, outlaw states to provide it with training grounds, opportunities for escape, and the ability to hide under the wings of a friendly government. At different times they have used the Sudan for that purpose, Somalia, and more recently post Saddam Iraq. While Al Quaeda would have been happy to trade up from being based in Afghanistan to controlling post Saddam Iraq, the stabilization of the government in Iraq has made that less of a possibility. Afghanistan and Pakistan start looking better and better, particularly if Al Quaeda can gain control over any of Pakistan's military resources. In addition, the strength of Afghanistan as a source of heroin provides Al Quaeda with a needed source of financing.

luvalab
07-29-2009, 09:52 AM
Your question is a fair one. From a human rights perspective, the Taliban makes Saddam Hussein look relatively benevolent. However, that does not represent an inherent threat against the US. The Taliban was the group that provided Al Quaeda with the freedom to operate needed for it to organize and launch its terror attacks on the US. Put in the position of controlling a country again, I suspect that the Taliban would be happy to host its allies for another try. Al Quaeda needs failed, outlaw states to provide it with training grounds, opportunities for escape, and the ability to hide under the wings of a friendly government. At different times they have used the Sudan for that purpose, Somalia, and more recently post Saddam Iraq. While Al Quaeda would have been happy to trade up from being based in Afghanistan to controlling post Saddam Iraq, the stabilization of the government in Iraq has made that less of a possibility. Afghanistan and Pakistan start looking better and better, particularly if Al Quaeda can gain control over any of Pakistan's military resources. In addition, the strength of Afghanistan as a source of heroin provides Al Quaeda with a needed source of financing.

Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

dnf777
07-29-2009, 10:08 AM
Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

Which administration? The one who inherited the wars, or the one who started them? The reasons changed like the wind direction.

If I recall my recent history, we launched military operations in Afghanastan to 1) punish/kill/capture Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11
2) disable the terrorist network's ability to wage terror which at the time was felt to be centered in A-stan.

Those were "just causes" for waging war. What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?

Afghanastan has a long history of being the regions "whipping boy". They have endured eons of invasion and occupation, and have through their perserverance, brought down major empires, such as the Romans and the USSR. (not totally, but played MAJOR roles)

luvalab
07-29-2009, 10:32 AM
Which administration? The one who inherited the wars, or the one who started them? The reasons changed like the wind direction.

If I recall my recent history, we launched military operations in Afghanastan to 1) punish/kill/capture Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11
2) disable the terrorist network's ability to wage terror which at the time was felt to be centered in A-stan.

Those were "just causes" for waging war. What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?

Afghanastan has a long history of being the regions "whipping boy". They have endured eons of invasion and occupation, and have through their perserverance, brought down major empires, such as the Romans and the USSR. (not totally, but played MAJOR roles)

Initially with Bush, I thought it was a fair argument (though I didn't believe they would follow through--unfortunately, I think I was right), though it made me very unhappy to be doing it anyway; somewhere in the middle, the articulation of the mission got fuzzy; right now, in the year 2009, it's THIS administration I'm looking for articulation from, and not getting it. Again--I don't hang on the wires all day long--so if anyone is seeing a good statement on our mission there, would love to see it.

Hew
07-29-2009, 10:50 AM
What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?
Why we're in Iraq? You've insinuated that one of the reasons was so Dick Cheney could enrich himself and his cronies so any further discussion with you on that subject is an abject waste of time.

What have we accomplished?
- Assured ourselves, the Middle East and the world that Saddam Hussein would never again produce and use WMDs or export them to others who would
- Removed a dictator who was destabilizing a region crucial to our national security
- Upheld UN sanctions (I don't particularly care about that, but that seems to be important to folks like you)
- freed 25 million people from a tyrant who would feed his own people to plastic shredders and gas women and children
- established a sustainable democracy in a region sorely in need of a democratic examplar. A stable, free, and democratic Middle East is a crucial US security and economic interest.
- We established a precedent that we will not sit back and wait to be attacked before acting in our self-interests and self-preservation
- We established that we are willing to risk national treasure in the effort to prevent rogue nations from aquiring WMDs
- We scared the bejeebers (and the WMD aspirations) out of Libya
- We spooked Pakistan to the extent that they dropped dime on the grandfather of their nuke program who was suspected of passing on nuke technology to rogue states
- A military presence in Iraq and other areas of the Persian Gulf allows us to pull out of Saudia Arabia; giving us greater latitude to apply more pressure to them to stop funding militant jihadists
- A likely unintended consequence was that Iraq served as a magnet to concentrate jihadists and make it easier to slay them in great numbers. Al Queda's reputation as a top notch terror outfit took a beating in Iraq

What is our end point? You're seeing it. A relatively stable, free and democratic Iraq that is gaining strength at the same time we're removing troops.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2009, 11:25 AM
Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just." [Obama, 3/20/2009]

luvalab
07-29-2009, 12:36 PM
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just." [Obama, 3/20/2009]

Okay, that's better. (And just because I'm difficult, now I'd like to hear the new general say it, too.)

dnf777
07-29-2009, 06:40 PM
Why we're in Iraq? You've insinuated that one of the reasons was so Dick Cheney could enrich himself and his cronies so any further discussion with you on that subject is an abject waste of time.

What have we accomplished?
- Assured ourselves, the Middle East and the world that Saddam Hussein would never again produce and use WMDs or export them to others who would
- Removed a dictator who was destabilizing a region crucial to our national security
- Upheld UN sanctions (I don't particularly care about that, but that seems to be important to folks like you)
- freed 25 million people from a tyrant who would feed his own people to plastic shredders and gas women and children
- established a sustainable democracy in a region sorely in need of a democratic examplar. A stable, free, and democratic Middle East is a crucial US security and economic interest.
- We established a precedent that we will not sit back and wait to be attacked before acting in our self-interests and self-preservation
- We established that we are willing to risk national treasure in the effort to prevent rogue nations from aquiring WMDs
- We scared the bejeebers (and the WMD aspirations) out of Libya
- We spooked Pakistan to the extent that they dropped dime on the grandfather of their nuke program who was suspected of passing on nuke technology to rogue states
- A military presence in Iraq and other areas of the Persian Gulf allows us to pull out of Saudia Arabia; giving us greater latitude to apply more pressure to them to stop funding militant jihadists
- A likely unintended consequence was that Iraq served as a magnet to concentrate jihadists and make it easier to slay them in great numbers. Al Queda's reputation as a top notch terror outfit took a beating in Iraq

What is our end point? You're seeing it. A relatively stable, free and democratic Iraq that is gaining strength at the same time we're removing troops.

I'm sure the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate not living under dictatorship. When we send out SecState Rice to open new trading lanes with Libya and Khadaffi ("we will not negotiate with terrorists") it was for economic reasons they gave up their budget-draining nuke program. Your take of UN resolutions is complete whackadoodle. I really don't have the energy to waste by going on.

I actually wrote more, but decided to erase it, its a waste of time.

whelchel
07-29-2009, 06:58 PM
Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.

You asked "What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US?" These are people who publicly state that their sole interest in life is to cause us harm. (Which by the way is the same thing they repeatedly stated before 9/11, our bad for not taking care of business first). Do you think that our country, as well as our interests/citizens overseas, are steadfastly safe? Where there is a will, there is a way, especially when they are indiscriminant about targets.

As far as the administrations reasoning for build up...Rather than me post all the url's here, which I just deleted, a google search on-- obama, troops in afghanistan, resurgent-- will give you all you want. You said that you've followed the issue closely?? The resurgence of the Taliban is at the heart of the build up, a point which has been stated time and time again.

How do you propose that we handle the drug issue to cut off terrorist financing? As of this week they are bombing poppy crops. It's a boots on ground military job, since their own government cannot stop it.

whelchel
07-29-2009, 07:15 PM
For clarification I'll call myself out. Al Qaeda is the foremost terrorist group of concern, however the Taliban provide safe haven for them, support their activities, and are essentially partners in terrorism.

So many terrorist, so few people to pull the trigger.

Franco
07-29-2009, 07:55 PM
For clarification I'll call myself out. Al Qaeda is the foremost terrorist group of concern, however the Taliban provide safe haven for them, support their activities, and are essentially partners in terrorism.

So many terrorist, so few people to pull the trigger.

Here is to wishing you safe tour of duty and good hunting!
If I can help you with your puppy in anyway while you are serving, let me know.

luvalab
07-30-2009, 09:27 AM
You asked "What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US?" These are people who publicly state that their sole interest in life is to cause us harm. (Which by the way is the same thing they repeatedly stated before 9/11, our bad for not taking care of business first). Do you think that our country, as well as our interests/citizens overseas, are steadfastly safe? Where there is a will, there is a way, especially when they are indiscriminant about targets.

As far as the administrations reasoning for build up...Rather than me post all the url's here, which I just deleted, a google search on-- obama, troops in afghanistan, resurgent-- will give you all you want. You said that you've followed the issue closely?? The resurgence of the Taliban is at the heart of the build up, a point which has been stated time and time again.

How do you propose that we handle the drug issue to cut off terrorist financing? As of this week they are bombing poppy crops. It's a boots on ground military job, since their own government cannot stop it.

I believe that under the Taliban in the nineties and first year or two of 2000 that poppy production was at an all-time low. And yet, 9/11... Then, when the Taliban were under attack, poppy production again rose.

My point is: none of this is a strict if-this-then-that computation.

I'm not questioning the motives of those being sent, nor do I think we're in an automatic failure situation.

I'm just saying that based on a more-than-average number of lengthy interviews I've heard with generals and administration officials in recent weeks, I'd like more clarification from my government as to why people I know and kids I've taught are being put in harm's way. What I've heard is just not convincing me, and all of the googling in the world is not going to sway me if I continue to spend 5 or 10 radio minutes listening to inadequacy every couple of days.

If everyone else is happy with the explanations, well--good. Be happy; perhaps you are wiser than I am. But I guess I've become middle-aged, because I've come to the conclusion that I'll only be happy when I'm good and ready.

road kill
07-31-2009, 03:10 PM
Awful news, and no known plan for victory (not the goal according to "The Obama") or withdrawal!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSP44175820090731?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Roger Perry
08-01-2009, 09:20 AM
Awful news, and no known plan for victory (not the goal according to "The Obama") or withdrawal!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSP44175820090731?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Excuse me? Bush had 7 years to win a victory or even come up with a plan for victory and could not do it, how do you expect Obama to do it in 6 months? :shock:

Steve Amrein
08-01-2009, 09:26 AM
Excuse me? Bush had 7 years to win a victory or even come up with a plan for victory and could not do it, how do you expect Obama to do it in 6 months? :shock:

So Bush 7 years bad...... Obama indefinate amount of time Good ??

dnf777
08-01-2009, 09:43 AM
So Bush 7 years bad...... Obama indefinate amount of time Good ??

Far too early to tell. Getting out of Iraq is definately good...better late than never

road kill
08-01-2009, 09:43 AM
Excuse me? Bush had 7 years to win a victory or even come up with a plan for victory and could not do it, how do you expect Obama to do it in 6 months? :shock:

And all you did is bitch about it, but this is OK??

BTW--Bush is not President, Obama is.

Gerry Clinchy
08-01-2009, 09:43 AM
Excuse me? Bush had 7 years to win a victory or even come up with a plan for victory and could not do it, how do you expect Obama to do it in 6 months? :shock:

1) They have had the opportunity to review all the things that don't work.
2) They can draw upon the most knowledgeable strategists who have observed the things that have not worked, and could provide the alternative strategies that could work.
3) Their campaign rhetoric implied that they knew how to employ the correct strategy.

Truthfully, we have a lot of material on what will NOT work in trying to bring A'stan intot he 21st century. We could surely learn a lot from the Soviet failures. In fact, we were actually involved with the forces that sent the Soviets home. We should certainly have gained knowledge from that experience.

I can't believe that our military is so devoid of military strategists to not use the lessons learned from history. If I am correct, then is there some other reason (i.e. political) that we are not doing better at this? Are the people sitting safe & cozy in DC not allowing the military to use the knowledge they have available?

Roger Perry
08-01-2009, 09:48 AM
And all you did is bitch about it, but this is OK??

BTW--Bush is not President, Obama is.

Bush started the war Obama did not. Why did Bush not clean up his own mess?

Richard Halstead
08-01-2009, 10:28 AM
I certainly hope any left over weapons brought into the country by former Democrat Congressman Charlie Wilson covert arms supplied to the Afghan freedom fighters (Mujahideen) to help drive out the Russians aren't used on American troops.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2009, 10:38 AM
1) They have had the opportunity to review all the things that don't work.
2) They can draw upon the most knowledgeable strategists who have observed the things that have not worked, and could provide the alternative strategies that could work.
3) Their campaign rhetoric implied that they knew how to employ the correct strategy.

Truthfully, we have a lot of material on what will NOT work in trying to bring A'stan intot he 21st century. We could surely learn a lot from the Soviet failures. In fact, we were actually involved with the forces that sent the Soviets home. We should certainly have gained knowledge from that experience.

I can't believe that our military is so devoid of military strategists to not use the lessons learned from history. If I am correct, then is there some other reason (i.e. political) that we are not doing better at this? Are the people sitting safe & cozy in DC not allowing the military to use the knowledge they have available?
I wouldn't go too far down the road of thinking the military is omniscient. It has a long history of applying lessons learned in one war to the next, without necessarily paying attention to whether or not all of those lessons are appropriate. For now, however, the administration appears to be taking its lead from the military in Afghanistan.

We are very familiar with the enemy since we helped to create them to combat the Russian forces. We helped train them to use small, lightly armed forces in conjunction with the difficult terrain of the mountain regions and the proximity of safe havens in Pakistan to fight an effective guerrilla war against a stronger foe. They learned well and we will be paying the price.

However, failure means that we will be paying an even greater price by leaving our foe with a base for launching terror attacks against us in the future comparable to what they launched in 2001. We would also be giving them a safe haven for continuing their attacks on the stability of Pakistan. If they are successful in gaining control of Pakistan, the consequences will be worse than a repetition of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

This is the war we should have been fighting in 2002 and 2003 when we decided to shift our attention to Iraq. As a consequence of that decision, we strengthened our enemy and weakened ourselves. The war will be harder to fight as a result and will not end quickly. Having spent ourselves in the wrong place, we are now likely to end up with a less desirable result that will haunt us in years to come. The public has a limited stomach for continuing to fight after eight years, and the Republicans who supported the earlier disastrous policies, calling all opponents traitors, are now in the forefront of the opposition trying to shift the onus of the blame to Obama, who said fight in Afghanistan, not Iraq, all the way back in 2002.

If George Bush's name keeps coming up, it is because not everything he broke can be fixed no matter what the new administration chooses to do. A President does not work from a clean slate. He begins with the good and the bad left behind by his predecessors. In George Bush's case, I am hard pressed to see the good.

luvalab
08-01-2009, 10:42 AM
1) They have had the opportunity to review all the things that don't work.
2) They can draw upon the most knowledgeable strategists who have observed the things that have not worked, and could provide the alternative strategies that could work.
3) Their campaign rhetoric implied that they knew how to employ the correct strategy.

Truthfully, we have a lot of material on what will NOT work in trying to bring A'stan intot he 21st century. We could surely learn a lot from the Soviet failures. In fact, we were actually involved with the forces that sent the Soviets home. We should certainly have gained knowledge from that experience.

I can't believe that our military is so devoid of military strategists to not use the lessons learned from history. If I am correct, then is there some other reason (i.e. political) that we are not doing better at this? Are the people sitting safe & cozy in DC not allowing the military to use the knowledge they have available?

Seven months... seven years... seven hundred years...

There are in fact thousands of years of history of failure in Afghanistan to study; apparently only Alexander the Great had any success... or maybe not. There is evidence he just said he did, and no one cared to refute him.

There is a whole lot of history to argue we should get out, which is why any argument to stay had better be pretty compelling in my mind. It's not that I think it's impossible--but it will be hard, and it had better be worth it.

Also, ditto what Richard said.

road kill
08-01-2009, 10:49 AM
Bush started the war Obama did not. Why did Bush not clean up his own mess?

BUSH IS GONE!!!
(and he didn't start it)

This is Obama's war!!
This is where he, and your party, says we should be.
With NO plan.

road kill
08-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I wouldn't go too far down the road of thinking the military is omniscient. It has a long history of applying lessons learned in one war to the next, without necessarily paying attention to whether or not all of those lessons are appropriate. For now, however, the administration appears to be taking its lead from the military in Afghanistan.

We are very familiar with the enemy since we helped to create them to combat the Russian forces. We helped train them to use small, lightly armed forces in conjunction with the difficult terrain of the mountain regions and the proximity of safe havens in Pakistan to fight an effective guerrilla war against a stronger foe. They learned well and we will be paying the price.

However, failure means that we will be paying an even greater price by leaving our foe with a base for launching terror attacks against us in the future comparable to what they launched in 2001. We would also be giving them a safe haven for continuing their attacks on the stability of Pakistan. If they are successful in gaining control of Pakistan, the consequences will be worse than a repetition of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

This is the war we should have been fighting in 2002 and 2003 when we decided to shift our attention to Iraq. As a consequence of that decision, we strengthened our enemy and weakened ourselves. The war will be harder to fight as a result and will not end quickly. Having spent ourselves in the wrong place, we are now likely to end up with a less desirable result that will haunt us in years to come. The public has a limited stomach for continuing to fight after eight years, and the Republicans who supported the earlier disastrous policies, calling all opponents traitors, are now in the forefront of the opposition trying to shift the onus of the blame to Obama, who said fight in Afghanistan, not Iraq, all the way back in 2002.

If George Bush's name keeps coming up, it is because not everything he broke can be fixed no matter what the new administration chooses to do. A President does not work from a clean slate. He begins with the good and the bad left behind by his predecessors. In George Bush's case, I am hard pressed to see the good.


One excuse after another.

I am realizing that, unless it's "The Obama," then it's all good.

Roger Perry
08-01-2009, 11:25 AM
BUSH IS GONE!!!
(and he didn't start it)

This is Obama's war!!
This is where he, and your party, says we should be.
With NO plan.

If Bush did not start the war in Afghanistan then who did? Next thing you will say is Bush did not start the war in Iraq.

It is not Obama's war. It is a war he inherited.

Read my lips, Obama's party is not my party. I an a registered Independent, free thinking American.

Bush's name will be synonymous in the history books with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Richard Halstead
08-01-2009, 12:09 PM
Obama wanted to be president and any conflicts and all are part of the job, didn't he campaign to bring the Iraq soldirs home by a given date and set a date for the closure of Gitmo? Being president you don't get too choose an ala carte presidency you take what's on your plate and don't complain that you inherited the mess. This is what was over promised on the campaign trail if elected he would solve our problems. Never did he say elect me and I'll complain for six months.

Roger Perry
08-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Obama wanted to be president and any conflicts and all are part of the job, didn't he campaign to bring the Iraq soldirs home by a given date and set a date for the closure of Gitmo? Being president you don't get too choose an ala carte presidency you take what's on your plate and don't complain that you inherited the mess. This is what was over promised on the campaign trail if elected he would solve our problems. Never did he say elect me and I'll complain for six months.

Obama also did not set a time frame to have all our troops home and safe. If McCain had been elected, he said we would be there 100 years.

Gerry Clinchy
08-01-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=479134#post479134)
I wouldn't go too far down the road of thinking the military is omniscient. It has a long history of applying lessons learned in one war to the next, without necessarily paying attention to whether or not all of those lessons are appropriate. For now, however, the administration appears to be taking its lead from the military in Afghanistan.


The military may not be omniscient, but surely there are some in the military who have the expertise & wisdom needed. It would be the POTUS' job to find that person/people.

If Bush couldn't do it, then that does not mean that O is "forgiven" if he doesn't find the right person. He has just changed commanders, and I would give the new guy a chance to have some effect.

Agreed, each new POTUS must take on the mistakes of a previous POTUS. The new POTUS gets elected by promising that he/she has the answers to fix the mistakes. The electorate had to choose whether that would be McCain or Obama. The new POTUS has a period of time to convince the electorate that he/she is making choices that are improving the situation. Once the new POTUS takes action on the situation, it becomes the new POTUS's problem ... since the action taken is that of the new POTUS.

I do think there is a "basic" plan for A'stan ... quoted in the news media ... "clear, build, protect" (might have gotten the last one wrong going by memory). This strategy has worked when it is used ... give the people (not the government) something to improve their daily lives and protect, and make them safe from the rebels who would take it away, and the people are smart enough to know a good thing when they have it. They will protect what they have.

I believe this strategy worked in Vietnam, but we pulled out before it could take firm hold. (That has no bearing on whether we should have been in Vietnam or not. That's a different discussion.) It was working in Iraq. It could work in A'stan. In each case the strategy has to adapt to the individual cultural environment.

Yardley

They learned well and we will be paying the price.

So, if we taught them, we should also know how to counteract it.

Yardley

This is the war we should have been fighting in 2002 and 2003 when we decided to shift our attention to Iraq.

If this is correct, and I won't say it is not, then the next step is to "do it". You can't undo the past. Maybe you are also correct that it will be harder than if we had done it before, but that does not absolve O or the military from proceeding to do what will lead to success.

Yardley

If George Bush's name keeps coming up, it is because not everything he broke can be fixed no matter what the new administration chooses to do.

Are you saying that we should throw in the towel ... because the mistakes of the past have created a situation that cannot be fixed?

Richard Halstead

Never did he say elect me and I'll complain for six months.
That gets to the heart of it!!

Gerry Clinchy
08-01-2009, 01:06 PM
Obama also did not set a time frame to have all our troops home and safe. If McCain had been elected, he said we would be there 100 years.

But McCain was not elected.

Richard Halstead
08-01-2009, 01:30 PM
Obama also did not set a time frame to have all our troops home and safe. If McCain had been elected, he said we would be there 100 years.

Obama clarifies: can remove combat troops in Iraq in 16 months. Iraq speech Tuesday 7/14/2008
Obama: As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. in carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.

Selective memory?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/07/obama_clarifies_can_remove_com.html

Roger Perry
08-01-2009, 01:33 PM
But McCain was not elected.

And George Bush is not President anymore.;)

road kill
08-01-2009, 02:42 PM
And George Bush is not President anymore.;)
Correct, Rahm Emmanuel is.

HuntsmanTollers
08-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Far too early to tell. Getting out of Iraq is definately good...better late than never

As a member of the military currently in Iraq, I hope you are right. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 10 years. Iran is starting to push the envelop again. What else is going to happen in the Middle East. The only real deterrent is our word. Now that only means something if its popular. We are a want it now society. Our enemies are willing to wait.

HuntsmanTollers
08-01-2009, 02:57 PM
1)

I can't believe that our military is so devoid of military strategists to not use the lessons learned from history. If I am correct, then is there some other reason (i.e. political) that we are not doing better at this? Are the people sitting safe & cozy in DC not allowing the military to use the knowledge they have available?

We took too much credit for the failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan. There has been fighting in this area for centuries. One of the first lessons taught in War College is to have a successful land campaign you have to be able to hold the ground after you advance. The Soviets couldn't hold the ground. The question is are we going to be able to hold it? Listening to the news, we are asking for more Afghani forces and more troops for this very reason. The strategy part is easy executing that strategy in that environment is not.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2009, 02:58 PM
Obama clarifies: can remove combat troops in Iraq in 16 months. Iraq speech Tuesday 7/14/2008
Obama: As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. in carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.

Selective memory?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/07/obama_clarifies_can_remove_com.html
I also remember clearly both the 16 month time frame and the statement that any such plans must be managed carefully and with some flexibility but that it was essential for the Iraqis to understand that were were leaving. That plan was laid out in some detail following the inauguration and signed off on by both the US and Iraq. It has been getting implemented, most recently involving the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq from primary combat responsibilities. Hopefully the plan will continue on schedule and the Iraqis will be successful in fulfilling their responsibilities under the plan. But so far, it appears to me, that Obama has been carrying through on his campaign pledge with some precision.

In Afghanistan, Obama pledged to step up our forces to confront Taliban and al-Quaeda insurgents, including addressing actions needed to prevent those insurgents from finding safe haven in Pakistan. It seems to me that he is also following through on this pledge. Obama has never suggested that this would be easy. He actually said it would be hard because of the errors already made. That was not an excuse for inaction, but an explanation for the magnitude of the actions needed. Once again, it seems to me that he is simply doing what he promised. The situation that was left behind by Bush is Bush's fault. What Obama does with that situation -- good or bad -- is Obama's fault. Nothing that Obama does mitigates Bush's responsibility for the past, and nothing that Bush did will excuse mistakes that Obama makes on his own. However, there are no guarantees that a good result is possible. That is not an excuse, it is a statement of fact.

HuntsmanTollers
08-01-2009, 03:12 PM
I'm sure the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate not living under dictatorship.

I actually wrote more, but decided to erase it, its a waste of time.

How many Iraqis have you seen interviewed on the news? Have you seen opinion polls asking if they are better now or before Hussein was overthrown? You are right writing more is a waste of time because you will never see the other side. Always believe what you see in the media. They always get the story right. The quality of life for Iraqis has not improved? Nation building takes time. The Iraqis are forming a democratic nation faster than we did especially considering that they didn't have any voice during his regime and they are just learning how to compromise and share power. You do a disservice to their dead. Most of the "dead civilians" you are referring to were killed by AQ or other warring factions trying to suppress their struggle for democracy. I have met a Police Chief here who has lost most of his family because he is supporting the new government. He has been blown up at least twice, yet he refuses to surrender and is still fighting for his dream of a democratic Iraq. I would guess from his actions and the costs he has personally endured that he would continue to fight.

HuntsmanTollers
08-01-2009, 03:21 PM
If Bush did not start the war in Afghanistan then who did? Next thing you will say is Bush did not start the war in Iraq.

It is not Obama's war. It is a war he inherited.

Read my lips, Obama's party is not my party. I an a registered Independent, free thinking American.

Bush's name will be synonymous in the history books with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Technically, by your logic Afghanistan should technically be Clinton's War because they were a threat and were planning the attack during his tenure. Iraq was Bush senior's war that has lasted thru 3 presidency's to date. The 4th president has promised to withdraw all the troops.

Gerry Clinchy
08-01-2009, 03:30 PM
Yardley

Nothing that Obama does mitigates Bush's responsibility for the past, and nothing that Bush did will excuse mistakes that Obama makes on his own.

Absolutely. So, re-hashing of how it's Bush's fault we are where we are, does not help us focus on how to move forward. Our focus must be on evaluating what we are doing now. Past events are relevant for what they teach us about how to handle the future.

Yardley

However, there are no guarantees that a good result is possible. That is not an excuse, it is a statement of fact.
I think we have to be careful how we accept that statement. If we do not believe that we can effect a good result, that attitude alone will assure defeat.

If one believes that A'stan is key to the safety of the U.S. from Al Queda's terroristic goals, then do we have a choice to give up trying to establish a stable A'stan?

If we do not believe that we can secure a good result ultimately, then is this just an exercise in futility?

O may have set a time frame on withdrawal from Iraq. Maybe it will work. Maybe not. I don't believe he set a time frame on withdrawal from A'stan.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2009, 03:45 PM
Technically, by your logic Afghanistan should technically be Clinton's War because they were a threat and were planning the attack during his tenure. Iraq was Bush senior's war that has lasted thru 3 presidency's to date. The 4th president has promised to withdraw all the troops.
I think that the logic for calling Iraq and Afghanistan Bush's wars is that GWB is the one, as Commander in Chief, who decided to invade those countries. In the case of Afghanistan he did it with broad national and international support because of the clear role of Afghanistan in the 9/11 attacks.

In the case of Iraq, he did it without broad national or international support following substantive particular.g a massive and misleading propaganda campaign alleging conditions that proved to be false with respect to every There was nothing inevitable about either war and neither war would have happened without his direct commitment.

If you want equivalents, you could say that the first Gulf War was entirely based on decisions by Bush Sr. and that the war in Bosnia had its roots under Bush Sr. but was prosecuted by Clinton. You could say that the war in Kosuvo rested entirely on decisions made by Clinton. All of these disputes have roots that go back a long way. However, responsibility for the decisions made is pretty clear.

HuntsmanTollers
08-01-2009, 03:58 PM
I think he had broader international support than you give credit for. The Multinational Coalition in Iraq was very broad. I also think you are having selective memory. Many nations were convinced he had WMDs and Saddam himself was furthering that belief to strengthen his position in the region. Not to mention he was not following the conditions set forth by the UN resolutions. You are right however that no WMDs were reportedly found.

Richard Halstead
08-01-2009, 04:36 PM
I think that the logic for calling Iraq and Afghanistan Bush's wars is that GWB is the one, as Commander in Chief, who decided to invade those countries. In the case of Afghanistan he did it with broad national and international support because of the clear role of Afghanistan in the 9/11 attacks.


I always thought that GWB was mopping up what Bush Sr. started. It's ironic that part of the reason for invading was to end ethnic cleansing of 5000 Kurds in the meantime collateral damage kills over 100,000 Iraqis but we got Saddam. mission accomplished we were able protect "our oil".

YardleyLabs
08-01-2009, 05:20 PM
I always thought that GWB was mopping up what Bush Sr. started. It's ironic that part of the reason for invading was to end ethnic cleansing of 5000 Kurds in the meantime collateral damage kills over 100,000 Iraqis but we got Saddam. mission accomplished we were able protect "our oil".
Richard,

I think most wars have their roots in unfinished business. But in our government a President must make that terrible decision and accept responsibility for the consequences.

The first Gulf War was a very limited action that sought to end Iraq's ability to pursue its efforts to gain over the Kuwaiti oil fields and expand its general influence in the Middle East. We were successful in meeting our limited objectives and in improving our overall position in Saudi Arabia because GB Sr knew when to get out. He did not pursue total regime change even though we knew that Iraq possessed WMD's because of the belief that we would get bogged down for years.

However, GWB believed a mistake has been made and his neo-Con advisors wanted a clear example that could be used to convince the world that we would not give in to asymetric threats. They believed that our overwhelming military strength assured a relatively quick victory as long as we had the will. We invaded and managed to prove yet again that the notion of our military invincibility was a mirage. Our military power, however great, is still finite and is not necessarily well suited to all types of conflicts. Ultimately I think GWB managed to prove his father's wisdom in the first war.

mjh345
08-01-2009, 07:09 PM
How many Iraqis have you seen interviewed on the news? Have you seen opinion polls asking if they are better now or before Hussein was overthrown? You are right writing more is a waste of time because you will never see the other side. Always believe what you see in the media. They always get the story right. The quality of life for Iraqis has not improved? Nation building takes time. The Iraqis are forming a democratic nation faster than we did especially considering that they didn't have any voice during his regime and they are just learning how to compromise and share power. You do a disservice to their dead. Most of the "dead civilians" you are referring to were killed by AQ or other warring factions trying to suppress their struggle for democracy. I have met a Police Chief here who has lost most of his family because he is supporting the new government. He has been blown up at least twice, yet he refuses to surrender and is still fighting for his dream of a democratic Iraq. I would guess from his actions and the costs he has personally endured that he would continue to fight.

Huntsman, I will agree that you can take a "RANDOM" poll of a few "RANDOMLY" selected people in a country of millions and get just about any result you want. I have seen a number of polls showing that Iranians did not feel they were better off for our involvement there. I also recall a poll in "Stars and Stripes" where our troops also opposed our actions in Iraq. So I'll leave it to you to put whatever credence you desire in whichever poll you choose to believe
Obviously, otherwise rational people can sometimes lose their objectivity when they spend months or years without water, electricity, schools, homes etc. They must have missed it when Bush said that we would be "welcomed as liberators".

You state that nation building takes time. While I would take issue with your rosy depiction of the progress in Iraq in that regard, I would point out that we were assured by Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney et. al. that that would not be the case.

I don't really recall them talking much about nation building in their process of making the case for invading Iraq. They focused on the horror of 911, the worst act of terror ever committed in the U.S.
They told us they were going to seek out and punish those responsible, and take the war on terror to them. They assured us that resistance in Iraq would be minimal and that we would be welcomed as liberators, whom the Iraqis would ally themselves with. That in itself would seem to obviate most of the need for "nation building"

They assured us that Iraq had WMD's and was a key sponsor who gave support and safe haven of the terrorists behind 911. Further they assured us that the war wouldn't take long, and wouldn't cost much. They implied that oil revenues could help defray whatever cost.
All of these assurances they built their case for war on Iraq turned out to be 100% inaccurate, and tremendously costly and counterproductive to an effective offensive on the war on terror

You also state that most of the dead citizens were killed by AQ and others. You are aware that AQ had no presence in Iraq when Bush started his war aren't you?

I don't put a lot of credence in "UNBIASED" opinion polls. However, I did find it rather telling when Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense was interviewed on one of the Sunday morning news shows last year. He was asked whether we as a nation were any safer from terrorists after committing over 6 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, countless numbers of dead and wounded in the war in Iraq. His answer was very succinct. He said NO!!
I'm sure that little nugget of honesty got him a warm reception from Bush, Cheney, Rove and company.

I respect and thank you for your service and contributions. My own family as have many others have also been affected by this conflict. The men and women in uniform have my utmost respect and support

The same can't be said for the politicians, either the current administration or their predecessors

mjh345
08-01-2009, 07:20 PM
I think he had broader international support than you give credit for. The Multinational Coalition in Iraq was very broad. I also think you are having selective memory. Many nations were convinced he had WMDs and Saddam himself was furthering that belief to strengthen his position in the region. Not to mention he was not following the conditions set forth by the UN resolutions. You are right however that no WMDs were reportedly found.

After much cajoling, threatening, lying and arm twisting Bush got support on a UN resolution regarding Iraq.

The true measure of a strong support from a Multinational Coalition in Iraq would be a measure of their contribution both financially and in boots on the ground

Since the U.S. represents less than 5% of the worlds population you could assume that in the presence of broad international support that we would only contribute 5% of the cost and manpower of the war.

Check the figures and see how strong the international support really was!!

YardleyLabs
08-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Personally, I disagreed with GWB in 2000 on foreign policy because he overstated the case against nation building. However, had he stuck with the policies he stated then, we would have been better off. For a reminder of his campaign positions, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc.

The fact is that a non-functioning government is more dangerous than a tyrannical government. Saddam Hussein was bad for his people but was not a significant threat to the rest of the world even if he had had some of the weapons capabilities stated by the administration.

We displaced a tyrant in Iraq but in the process we also destroyed the basic infrastructure for governance and opened the country to terrorists. Knowledgeable people in this country and around the world understood that this would embroil us and the Iraqi people in a quagmire that would take years and cost over a trillion dollars to fix. The administration accused those people of lying, of being weak, and even of being traitors. The issue was not whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy, it was whether or not it was worth 8-10 years of war and what will ultimately be trillions in costs to finance the war and the reconstruction to displace that dictator.

Hopefully the sacrifices we have made and the sacrifices the Iraqi people have made will ultimately produce a better life and a more stable country for Iraqis. However, it was not worth the cost and was not our war to start.

HuntsmanTollers
08-02-2009, 02:23 AM
Yardley I agree with most of your last statement. However, I still think it will take 10-20 years to evaluate the success. Bush did play down the nation building and he was wrong. At the point we overthrew the government we were responsible for ensuring a stable government was established. I also understand that AQ was not a significant presence in Iraq before the reinvasion (to be clear I still believe that by international law it was a reinvasion and not a new war. We were under a conditional cease fire that Saddam had agreed to but was no longer complying with. At the point he stopped complying he sacrificed his protection under the cease fire agreement.). Politically it was a new war. However there were elements in Iraq that liked the status quo, for example the Mahdi Army who was trying to establish power control. I am sure not all Iraqis welcomed our presence, hell we don't agree all or even most of the time.

road kill
08-02-2009, 06:43 PM
The Brits don't think much of our efforts.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6c394a230bece3a4943ecb703a1405f 3.e01&show_article=1

Hew
08-03-2009, 06:52 AM
My quotes are bolded...


Huntsman, I will agree that you can take a "RANDOM" poll of a few "RANDOMLY" selected people in a country of millions and get just about any result you want. Right. Who cares what the Iraqis say. You've formed your opinions. I have seen a number of polls showing that Iranians did not feel they were better off for our involvement there. I also recall a poll in "Stars and Stripes" where our troops also opposed our actions in Iraq. That would be a pretty significant poll indeed. So significant that it would be trumpeted by every anti-war group. So it should be pretty easy to find a link to this poll. Perhap you'll have better luck than me in finding it a reference to it. So I'll leave it to you to put whatever credence you desire in whichever poll you choose to believe
Obviously, otherwise rational people can sometimes lose their objectivity when they spend months or years without water, electricity, schools, homes etc. They must have missed it when Bush said that we would be "welcomed as liberators". Count me in with the Iraqis who missed it when Bush supposedly said we'd be "welcomed as liberators." And count me and the Iraqis in with Google, who also has no reference to Bush saying that.

You state that nation building takes time. While I would take issue with your rosy depiction of the progress in Iraq in that regard, I would point out that we were assured by Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney et. al. that that would not be the case. Prior to the invasion Bush repeatedly characterized our impending involvement in Iraq as a "sustained commitment." He also likened our commitment to Iraq to the commitment we had in post-war Japan and Germany. Has it taken longer and cost more than anybody wanted? Sure. But I don't recall Bush ever putting a price tag or deadline on the commitment.

I don't really recall them talking much about nation building in their process of making the case for invading Iraq. Your memory is poor or you just want to remember what is convenient to your argument. Nation building was indeed discussed prior to, during and after the invasion. You can make the argument that it was hypocritical of Bush to engage upon nation building when he campaigned against it (but 911 kinda changed a lot of folks' outlooks on the world), and you can make the claim that Bush mismanaged the nation building process in Iraq, but you can't claim (with a straight face) that it wasn't discussed prior to the invasion. They focused on the horror of 911, the worst act of terror ever committed in the U.S.
They told us they were going to seek out and punish those responsible, and take the war on terror to them. They assured us that resistance in Iraq would be minimal and that we would be welcomed as liberators, whom the Iraqis would ally themselves with. That in itself would seem to obviate most of the need for "nation building"

They assured us that Iraq had WMD's as did the UN, nearly every country in the world, Bill Clinton, and nearly every key Democrat politician in the House and Senate and was a key sponsor who gave support and safe haven of the terrorists behind 911. Further they assured us that the war wouldn't take long, and wouldn't cost much. They implied that oil revenues could help defray whatever cost.
All of these assurances they built their case for war on Iraq turned out to be 100% inaccurate, and tremendously costly and counterproductive to an effective offensive on the war on terror If Iraq was, as you contend a blunder for the US, then it was a cataclysmic, pie-in-the-face, embarrassment of riches for the terrorists. They poured money, manpower and resources into Iraq and made it the centerpiece of their jihad. And their results? They were slaughtered on the battlefield, they alienated an entire Islamic country against them, they proved to the world that they could be beaten, and they pissed a bunch of money down a tube while doing it. If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists, disrupt their command and control, diminish their ability to wage terror and reduce their ability to win hearts and minds then I'd say Iraq was a monumental success in the WOT.

You also state that most of the dead citizens were killed by AQ and others. You are aware that AQ had no presence in Iraq when Bush started his war aren't you? "His war," eh? I recall a vote taken in Congress prior to the war. I recall a who's who of Democrats lining up to vote in favor of it. I also recall an American populace decidedly in favor of the war as well. Regardless, his point was that most of the civilian deaths in Iraq were caused by terrorist bombs and in-fighting amongst Iraqis; not as a direct result of US forces.

I don't put a lot of credence in "UNBIASED" opinion polls. Unless they support your case (like the Stars and Stripes poll that we're awaiting a link to) However, I did find it rather telling when Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense was interviewed on one of the Sunday morning news shows last year. He was asked whether we as a nation were any safer from terrorists after committing over 6 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, countless numbers of dead and wounded in the war in Iraq. His answer was very succinct. He said NO!! Maybe my Google skills suck, but I couldn't find reference to this either. A little help please...?
I'm sure that little nugget of honesty got him a warm reception from Bush, Cheney, Rove and company.

I respect and thank you for your service and contributions. My own family as have many others have also been affected by this conflict. The men and women in uniform have my utmost respect and support On that we can agree on all points.

The same can't be said for the politicians, either the current administration or their predecessors

HuntsmanTollers
08-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Thank you Hew. Very well stated.

Henry V
08-03-2009, 11:48 AM
My quotes are bolded...So it should be pretty easy to find a link to this poll. Perhap you'll have better luck than me in finding it a reference to it.

Here is the link to the 2003 poll which did get some media attention because 31% of troops thought the war in Iraq had little or no value at the time (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct15.html).

Yes, isn't google great, found it on the first result page. http://www.stripes.com/morale/dayonestats.html


11. How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?
542 very worthwhile 28%
359 probably worthwhile 19%
395 worthwhile 20%
390 little value 20%
211 not worthwhile at all 11%

12. How clearly defined is your mission?
400 very clear 21%
282 mostly clear 15%
523 clear 27%
348 mostly not clear 18%
326 not clear at all 17%

13. How do you rate your unit's morale?
53 very high 3%
252 high 13%
653 average 34%
540 low 28%
412 very low 21%

14. How closely is what you're doing now related to your training?
170 identical 9%
391 very close 20%
560 close 29%
396 not close 20%
379 nothing to do with training 20%

15. How much training did you receive for your current mission?
260 more than enough 13%
665 enough 34%
386 some 20%
225 very little 12%
379 learning as I go 20%

Hew
08-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Thanks for trying to be helpful Henry, but we're looking for the S&S poll showing "where our troops also opposed our actions in Iraq," not the poll that shows the exact opposite. I always appreciate your input, though. ;)

Henry V
08-04-2009, 12:02 AM
No problem Hew. Always glad to be helpful. It's my nature.

Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.

Also, since you brought it up, how about some evidence that nation building was a significant part of the pre-war rhetoric from the Bush administration. I must just be selectively remembering "greeted as liberators" and all the other spin (including testimony to congress) from Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Wolfowitz that the war would be quick and inexpensive and once released from the evil rule of Saddam that freedom would kick in and democracy would flourish. Maybe all the troubles were caused by that small group of "deadenders" ?

I particularly liked your assessment:
They poured money, manpower and resources into Iraq and made it the centerpiece of their jihad. And their results? They were slaughtered on the battlefield, they alienated an entire Islamic country against them, they proved to the world that they could be beaten, and they pissed a bunch of money down a tube while doing it. If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists, disrupt their command and control, diminish their ability to wage terror and reduce their ability to win hearts and minds then I'd say Iraq was a monumental success in the WOT.
If you use your imagination, it seems possible that with a few key modifications this is just the type of rhetoric that could still be heard on Al Jazeera or on one of Osama's videos. Of course, such rhetoric from a terrorist's perspective would just be spin and propaganda to support their point of view.

Hew
08-04-2009, 07:31 AM
[quote=Henry V;480252]
Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.
Oh, the irony...Henry pimping National Intelligence Estimates to try to prove a point. Surely you are aware that the NIEs prior to the invasion of Iraq contended that Iraq had a flourishing WMD program and it was the NIEs that provided much of the impetus and justification to go to war, right? Given your fondness and faith in NIEs, then I must assume that you believe Bush began the war with the good faith belief that Iraq had WMDs. To believe otherwise would make you a bald-faced hypocrite. You might want to go tear the "Bush Lied - People Died" bumper sticker off the back of your Prius.

But enough with your glaring hypocrisy regarding National Intelligence Estimates. Let's move on to your main contention...me needing to prove that we're safer now. For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we're safer now. So you're asking me for proof of something I never said. But I'll play along with your interesting, yet disingenuous, rhetorical style and make an argument for our being safer as a result of Iraq.

For starters, here's a partial Jihadist score card against America or American interests prior to Iraq:
- Marine barracks Lebanon
- bombing of the disco in Germany frequented by US servicemen
- Lockerbie/Pan Am
- Khobar Tower
- 2 American Embassies in Africa
- World Trade Center Bombing
- USS Cole
- 911

And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):
-
-
-

More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.

road kill
08-04-2009, 07:44 AM
[quote=Henry V;480252]
Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.
Oh, the irony...Henry pimping National Intelligence Estimates to try to prove a point. Surely you are aware that the NIEs prior to the invasion of Iraq contended that Iraq had a flourishing WMD program and it was the NIEs that provided much of the impetus and justification to go to war, right? Given your fondness and faith in NIEs, then I must assume that you believe Bush began the war with the good faith belief that Iraq had WMDs. To believe otherwise would make you a bald-faced hypocrite. You might want to go tear the "Bush Lied - People Died" bumper sticker off the back of your Prius.

But enough with your glaring hypocrisy regarding National Intelligence Estimates. Let's move on to your main contention...me needing to prove that we're safer now. For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we're safer now. So you're asking me for proof of something I never said. But I'll play along with your interesting, yet disingenuous, rhetorical style and make an argument for our being safer as a result of Iraq.

For starters, here's a partial Jihadist score card against America or American interests prior to Iraq:
- Marine barracks Lebanon
- bombing of the disco in Germany frequented by US servicemen
- Lockerbie/Pan Am
- Khobar Tower
- 2 American Embassies in Africa
- World Trade Center Bombing
- USS Cole
- 911

And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):
-
-
-

More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.

YEAH, BUT............

dnf777
08-04-2009, 07:47 AM
And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):[/B]


You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???

BTW, where's Bin Laden?

road kill
08-04-2009, 07:50 AM
You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???

BTW, where's Bin Laden?
Ask Yardley, he knows everything!!

Hew
08-04-2009, 08:18 AM
You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???
You and Henry seemingly have that angle already covered with your rhetoric that denigrates what those 4,000 fought and died for.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 10:10 AM
You and Henry seemingly have that angle already covered with your rhetoric that denigrates what those 4,000 fought and died for.

Making sure you have "just cause" before sending troops in harm's way is denigrating????????:shock::shock::shock:

You're playing with words here. Those are brothers-in-arms, and I do NOT denigrate their efforts. I will criticize 7-timers of deferrments and flightless fly-boys who do not hold their trust and responsibities sacred, then even joke about the false justifications for sending them to war. "anybody see those WMDs? They've got to be here somewhere??" At the press roast. THAT is denigrating to the troops who fought, and still are fighting.

Henry V
08-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Hew, instead of posting something that directly refutes or provides credible evidence to build an argument against the merit of the two NIE reports you divert the topic, call me a hypocrite, and then come at the question from a different angle. I appreciate the strategy.

In case you did not notice, this discussion is not about the 2002 NIE report and I have never said I agree or disagree with it. If you want to substantively discuss the merits of that report, go for it and start a new thread.

Also, just to be clear, you maintain that I would be a hypocrite if I were to substantively agree with one NIE report more than another, right? Do you hold yourself to the same standard for determining hypocrisy? If so, then you too must either agree or disagree with all three of these reports? Which is it?

You originally posted:
If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists, disrupt their command and control, diminish their ability to wage terror and reduce their ability to win hearts and minds then I'd say Iraq was a monumental success in the WOT.
and then followed up with
For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we’re safer now
Based on the first statement, I made a generalization that somehow making US citizens safer was part of the WOT being a "success". My bad. Since you now point out that you did not write or apparently intend to make the claim that we are safer because of the war in Iraq, let's move on to the question at hand. As I stated in my last post:
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments. As you point out, in your original email you listed many items of what was accomplished in Iraq and then provide a scorecard as proof that we are safer.

poured money, manpower and resources into Iraq
made it the centerpiece of their jihad.
They were slaughtered on the battlefield,
they alienated an entire Islamic country against them,
they proved to the world that they could be beaten,
they pissed a bunch of money down a tube while doing it.
If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists,
disrupt their command and control,
diminish their ability to wage terror and
reduce their ability to win hearts and minds…...
I look at the list and your scorecard and suggest that most, if not all of these items were accomplished or could have been accomplished without the war in Iraq. I am sure you disagree.
I also would reiterate that Al Qaeda could take most of the points on your list, tweak them, and use them as their own recruiting tool.

You clearly see Iraq as a centerpiece in the WOT. I do not. In my view it was primarily a diversion from the WOT. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Finally, you wrote:
More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.
In the past eight years there is little or no evidence that the war in Iraq has reaped any Middle East benefits. I doubt that 20 years from now we will say that the war in Iraq was a pivotal event that resulted in middle east peace.

TXduckdog
08-07-2009, 09:36 AM
I wonder what's so upsetting about ".... this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

First of all, the Emperor was not present at that signing, it was the Foreign Minister; is this an example of the revisionist history being put out in the Ivy League these days?

It's victory or the bloodshed will never stop.

dnf777
08-07-2009, 09:55 AM
How many Iraqis have you seen interviewed on the news? Have you seen opinion polls asking if they are better now or before Hussein was overthrown? You are right writing more is a waste of time because you will never see the other side. Always believe what you see in the media. They always get the story right. The quality of life for Iraqis has not improved? Nation building takes time. The Iraqis are forming a democratic nation faster than we did especially considering that they didn't have any voice during his regime and they are just learning how to compromise and share power. You do a disservice to their dead. Most of the "dead civilians" you are referring to were killed by AQ or other warring factions trying to suppress their struggle for democracy. I have met a Police Chief here who has lost most of his family because he is supporting the new government. He has been blown up at least twice, yet he refuses to surrender and is still fighting for his dream of a democratic Iraq. I would guess from his actions and the costs he has personally endured that he would continue to fight.


At the risk of sounding like Hew, I would ask where exactly YOU get those numbers and assumptions. I really doubt we will ever know exactly how many were killed by whom, but nonetheless, had we not started the war in Iraq, the number would likely not be nearly as high.

Funny how you assume I get all my info from the news media. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall serving in uniform for 14 years, attending command briefings regarding JFT-SWA, and speaking with representatives from numerous Middle-eastern countries while in Riyahd and Bahrain. Be careful about "assuming", you know what they say. :oops:

I do recall a particular opinion poll I did see on the media. It was an Iraqi reporter casting two opinions in rapid sequence of Mr. Bush's "help" in the region.

Ducking regards,
Dave

HuntsmanTollers
08-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Quote from DNF "Funny how you assume I get all my info from the news media. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall serving in uniform for 14 years, attending command briefings regarding JFT-SWA, and speaking with representatives from numerous Middle-eastern countries while in Riyahd and Bahrain. Be careful about "assuming", you know what they say. :oops:"

Thank you for your service. FYI, I have been in for 23 years and continue to get the briefings you are referring to. You should know the briefings don't always agree with what becomes public knowledge. Also I challenge the opinion posted by others that no apparent good has come from our involvement in Iraq. Come visit Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, or Qatar now. If you don't see the positive influence you are blind. As I have said before our enemies are willing to wait, unfortunately we are impatient. Just our presence in the region now is providing an example of the benefits of western civilization. Yes it is going to be a slow transition but the difference between now and 1991 are immense.

dnf777
08-07-2009, 11:52 AM
Thank you for your service. FYI, I have been in for 23 years and continue to get the briefings you are referring to. You should know the briefings don't always agree with what becomes public knowledge. Also I challenge the opinion posted by others that no apparent good has come from our involvement in Iraq. Come visit Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, or Qatar now. If you don't see the positive influence you are blind. As I have said before our enemies are willing to wait, unfortunately we are impatient. Just our presence in the region now is providing an example of the benefits of western civilization. Yes it is going to be a slow transition but the difference between now and 1991 are immense.

Likewise, thank you for your service.
One can find good and bad in anything, if you look for it.
My impression from speaking with "locals" in that part of the world, is that they would rather suffer under their own leaders, than thrive under ours. We are regarded an infidels to them, inferior in every way, and doomed to everlasting hell when we die. Oh, but we come with lots of money for oil, so they tolerate us. Kinda rubs me the wrong way. As china and India become large and bigger consumers of oil, I suspect you will see their allegiance to us diminish, then we'll be wondering what we were there for. Why not let others who depend on that flow of oil contribute to the cost of "peace" in the ME?

HuntsmanTollers
08-07-2009, 11:59 AM
DNF,

I will tell you of my hope. Once their citizens have drunk the cool aid and have seen the benefits of western civilization they won't be able to go back. Our enemies are willing to use time against us. I just think we should be willing to use it against them. The longer they are exposed and adopt some of the practices the more they will evolve. After all ITS A SMALL WORLD and it is getting smaller daily with improvements in communication.

dnf777
08-07-2009, 01:14 PM
DNF,

I will tell you of my hope. Once their citizens have drunk the cool aid and have seen the benefits of western civilization they won't be able to go back. Our enemies are willing to use time against us. I just think we should be willing to use it against them. The longer they are exposed and adopt some of the practices the more they will evolve. After all ITS A SMALL WORLD and it is getting smaller daily with improvements in communication.

I will agree with you on that! Have you happened to have read or heard about the book, "Three Cups of Tea"? It talks of how much of Pakistan was converted to pro-Western thinking by building schools and educating people, especially young girls, to a better way of life. This guy built something like 30 schools for the price of one cruise missile, and has reaped far more in return.

Gerry Clinchy
08-07-2009, 02:07 PM
It talks of how much of Pakistan was converted to pro-Western thinking by building schools and educating people, especially young girls, to a better way of life. This guy built something like 30 schools for the price of one cruise missile, and has reaped far more in return.

Experience with a young man from mainland China who has spent 1/2 his life (since college) here in the U.S. & still has family in China & visits them. He won't go back to China, in spite of opportunity there, because his daughters could never adjust :-)

His opinion ... the Chinese leaders fear that the Chinese people like capitalism too much.

I would imagine the theocracies of the Middle East fear women the most. If the women are allowed to be educated, it will be very difficult to keep them subjugated.

Hew
08-07-2009, 03:25 PM
In case you did not notice, this discussion is not about the 2002 NIE report and I have never said I agree or disagree with it. If you want to substantively discuss the merits of that report, go for it and start a new thread.

Also, just to be clear, you maintain that I would be a hypocrite if I were to substantively agree with one NIE report more than another, right? Do you hold yourself to the same standard for determining hypocrisy? If so, then you too must either agree or disagree with all three of these reports? Which is it?
Which is it, young feller. If'n I must start a new thread to discuss the 2002 NIE report I can't rightfully discuss whether I agree with the three reports on this thread, and if'n I discuss whether I agree or disagree with all three reports then I have violated your order to start a new thread. (sorry, was channeling "Raising Arizona")

You're asking me if I agree with an NIE report that has been proven wrong? And why would I do that? The salient question is why would you hang your hat on the relative gospelness (if that's a word) of NIEs when an eggregiously wrong one is one of the reasons we're in Iraq now? And again, I'll ask you...since you put so much stock in NIEs then surely you have not, or ever will again, make the claim that Bush lied to get us into Iraq, right?

Based on the first statement, I made a generalization that somehow making US citizens safer was part of the WOT being a "success". My bad. Since you now point out that you did not write or apparently intend to make the claim that we are safer because of the war in Iraq, let's move on to the question at hand. As I stated in my last post: As you point out, in your original email you listed many items of what was accomplished in Iraq and then provide a scorecard as proof that we are safer.
I look at the list and your scorecard and suggest that most, if not all of these items were accomplished or could have been accomplished without the war in Iraq. I am sure you disagree. You're correct.
I also would reiterate that Al Qaeda could take most of the points on your list, tweak them, and use them as their own recruiting tool. So what? The Japanese and Germans progagandized our success as we marched our way towards their capitals. Are you saying we shouldn't kill AQ lest they use it as progaganda against us?

You clearly see Iraq as a centerpiece in the WOT. I do not. In my view it was primarily a diversion from the WOT. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. True, Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. But without 9/11 there would have been no Iraq war. Being a dangerous and destabilizing despot who supported terrorism and was known/suspected to have WMDs was a particularly bad business to be in in the aftermath of the most devastating and damaging attack ever to our country.

Finally, you wrote:
In the past eight years there is little or no evidence that the war in Iraq has reaped any Middle East benefits. Which of the following are not beneficial (a distinctly different question than if we could have accomplished these without war; which is totally moot since neither of us has a crystal ball)?:

- Assured ourselves, the Middle East and the world that Saddam Hussein would never again produce and use WMDs or export them to others who would
- Removed a dictator who was destabilizing a region crucial to our national security
- Upheld UN sanctions (I don't particularly care about that, but that seems to be important to folks like you)
- freed 25 million people from a tyrant who would feed his own people to plastic shredders and gas women and children
- established a sustainable democracy in a region sorely in need of a democratic examplar. A stable, free, and democratic Middle East is a crucial US security and economic interest.
- We established a precedent that we will not sit back and wait to be attacked before acting in our self-interests and self-preservation
- We established that we are willing to risk national treasure in the effort to prevent rogue nations from aquiring WMDs
- We scared the bejeebers (and the WMD aspirations) out of Libya
- We spooked Pakistan to the extent that they dropped dime on the grandfather of their nuke program who was suspected of passing on nuke technology to rogue states
- A military presence in Iraq and other areas of the Persian Gulf allows us to pull out of Saudia Arabia; giving us greater latitude to apply more pressure to them to stop funding militant jihadists
- A likely unintended consequence was that Iraq served as a magnet to concentrate jihadists and make it easier to slay them in great numbers. Al Queda's reputation as a top notch terror outfit took a beating in Iraq

I doubt that 20 years from now we will say that the war in Iraq was a pivotal event that resulted in middle east peace. I know you won't ever say that because you've invested so much energy in convincing yourself that Bush was/is wrong. Darn it! It would have been just so much easier to pass judgement now if we'd have just tucked tail and run in 2006 and let Iraq fail just like your side wanted. Sorry 'bout that.

.............

dnf777
08-07-2009, 05:11 PM
"Which is it, young feller. If'n I must start a new thread to discuss the 2002 NIE report I can't rightfully discuss whether I agree with the three reports on this thread, and if'n I discuss whether I agree or disagree with all three reports then I have violated your order to start a new thread. (sorry, was channeling "Raising Arizona""

Give us a chance to catch your references! I had it at the first "If'n"! Good old movie...one of Cage's first hits, I think. That was my favorite scene...."Freeze....Get down!"

Hew
08-07-2009, 08:22 PM
"Which is it, young feller. If'n I must start a new thread to discuss the 2002 NIE report I can't rightfully discuss whether I agree with the three reports on this thread, and if'n I discuss whether I agree or disagree with all three reports then I have violated your order to start a new thread. (sorry, was channeling "Raising Arizona""

Give us a chance to catch your references! I had it at the first "If'n"! Good old movie...one of Cage's first hits, I think. That was my favorite scene...."Freeze....Get down!"
I knew you had to have some redeeming qualities. ;) :D j/k

That movie never gets old to me.

Uncle Bill
08-08-2009, 12:39 PM
.............


How I envy your perseverance in arguing with a desciple of Al Frankin.:rolleyes:


UB

road kill
08-11-2009, 01:44 PM
More;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89737a84-85d5-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html

This gets uglier every day!!

road kill
08-23-2009, 02:43 PM
There is ALWAYS MORE!!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23119339.htm

The Obama's undoing!!

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 03:01 PM
And this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0823/p02s01-usmi.html


"He hinted at them in a different interview on Sunday morning – on NBC's "Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32518842/ns/meet_the_press/)": "In certain ways, we're stating anew" in Afghanistan, he [Mullen] said. Given that this October will mark the eighth anniversary of American involvement in Afghanistan, that might appear a shocking statement. But Mullen intimated why, despite billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, the past eight years have brought the US no closer to its goal of a stable Afghanistan that can deny Al Qaeda refuge.
The reason: America has never before had a plan – or the resources – to do what must be done. Mullen put it this way: "This is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military side.""

road kill
08-23-2009, 06:34 PM
And this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0823/p02s01-usmi.html


"He hinted at them in a different interview on Sunday morning – on NBC's "Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32518842/ns/meet_the_press/)": "In certain ways, we're stating anew" in Afghanistan, he [Mullen] said. Given that this October will mark the eighth anniversary of American involvement in Afghanistan, that might appear a shocking statement. But Mullen intimated why, despite billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, the past eight years have brought the US no closer to its goal of a stable Afghanistan that can deny Al Qaeda refuge.
The reason: America has never before had a plan – or the resources – to do what must be done. Mullen put it this way: "This is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military side.""
Because Bush wanted nothing to do with Afgahnistan.
Everyone who has gone there has lost.
The people live in holes in the ground.
They have no infrastructure, electricity & such is primitive at best.
Bin Ladens comuniques are VHS tapes.
(state of the art technology)

The goal in Iraq was to build a free nation and stabilize the region.

Dis credit it all you want, but Afgahnistan is "another Viet Nam!!"
Cannot possibly win there.

As smart as you are, I can't beleive you don't know that.

road kill
08-26-2009, 02:46 PM
This has got to stop!!

http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINISL11764020090825

Why are we even there??
Obama trying to show up Bush??

That's all this is.