Log in

View Full Version : Out of Afghanistan - George Will


excon
Sep 1, 2009, 07:28 AM
Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't going to win in Afghanistan.

excon

tomder55
Sep 1, 2009, 08:07 AM
I have asked here and elsewhere what the strategic value of Afghanistan is and have not gotten satisfactory answers .

In Obama's simpleton rhetoric Iraq =bad and Afghanistan =good. The logical next step in the strategy being employed there is a request for more troops . It will be interesting to see if Congress complies.

There is no graceful exit now that it appears that Karzai made an attempt to steal the elections ala the Mahdi-hatter's methods. Viceroy Richard Holbrooke had a screaming match with Karzai over the elections that was widely covered around the world . If Karzai remains in power he will have lost what little credibilty he has left.
Holbrooke told Karzai to change the magnitude of his fraud to ensure a 2nd round of elections .

Karzai's base of support is Pashtuns . He has no credibility at all with the Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek clans ;and frankly the only people we owe any loyalty to are those groups that made up the Northern Alliance.

Unlike in Iraq ; tribal factions have not reorganized into political coalitions . This would be a basic need to continue any democratization efforts.

Our mission in Afghanistan was to prevent AQ from using it as a base of operations to train and attack the west . They have been driven out of Afghanistan and have been largely defeated wherever they pop their head out of their mole holes.
We can continue to wage our war on jihadistan without any more attempts to change the way Afghan rules itself .

However ; we are still doing significant damage to AQ and Taliban leadership with drone strikes and the war is clearly not an issue of Afghanistan alone . It is in fact an AfPaki war . It is in our interest to prevent Pakistan and their nukes from falling to the Taliban .For that reason I would not favor an increase in troops strength to defend the Karzi regime ,but for now I don't think leaving is wise.

inthebox
Sep 1, 2009, 09:52 AM
Why isn't Cindy Sheehan and her ilk not marching on Obama?

There is no oil in Afghanistan :eek:




G&P

tomder55
Sep 1, 2009, 09:56 AM
Actually she did stand a lonely vigil at Martha's Vineyard listening to the crickets chirping .


There is no oil in Afghanistan :eek:


Yes but it is a very interesting transportation route for oil if it ever could be tamed.

tomder55
Sep 1, 2009, 10:15 AM
Prediction . Forgetting the lesson of the hasty exit from Mogadishu(the perception by the jihadists that we are “paper tigers”),before the 2010 election cycle ,the President will be "compelled" to exit Afghanistan by the Pelosi controlled purse strings. Both the President ,Madame Mimi and the Obots will blame Bush .

ETWolverine
Sep 1, 2009, 10:43 AM
Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't gonna win in Afghanistan.

excon


I agree. Obama's war is a failure. We should retreat completely with our tails between our legs. Obama had no business adding troops to the ground in Afghanistan. There's no connection between Afghanistan and 9-11. It's an unwinable war.

Our evil soldiers there are killing innocent terrorists and are guilty of scaring the locals by shooting the people who threaten them. The mountains are too high, the bad guys are running away too quickly, and they die too quickly when shot. Our evil soldiers are poisoning Afghani children by giving them cheap toys and trinkets that are made in China and probably have too much lead in them. Not to mention the evils of giving food, water and drugs to Muslim men, women and children without consulting the local Taliban leadership first for religious permission.

Any of this sound familiar?

Has there been a war in your lifetime that you WOULDN'T have had the US run away from, excon?

Elliot

paraclete
Sep 1, 2009, 10:33 PM
Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't gonna win in Afghanistan.

excon

I agree with you, ex, history tells us no one wins in Afghanistan. If the US leaves Afghanistan there will be no need to bother with the border areas of Pakistan and logistically there will be no base for the drones. The Pakistani's don't want the US bombing their people even if they are militants and they aren't too interested in al qaeda. No, we should give it back to the barbarians who live there and go back in a hundred years to see if they have emerged from the stone age.

tomder55
Sep 2, 2009, 02:13 AM
No, we should give it back to the barbarians who live there and go back in a hundred years to see if they have emerged from the stone age.

The barbarians figured out that they could take flying lessons and use planes as wmd.

Other of those barbarians established a nuclear weapon program that built the Paki bomb and exported the know how to Iran and N.Korea.

You cannot pull back to fortress Australia or US and hope those barbarian can't breach your walls anymore.

paraclete
Sep 2, 2009, 03:18 AM
the barbarians figured out that they could take flying lessons and use planes as wmd.

other of those barbarians established a nuclear weapon program that built the Paki bomb and exported the know how to Iran and N.Korea.

You cannot pull back to fortress Australia or US and hope those barbarian can't breach your walls anymore.

The barbarians I speak of are the Afghans, not the Pakistani, and yes, we can pull back to the fortress because nothing we do will change the attitudes of the people in that region. These people are a barbaric people and left alone they will go back to what they know best which is subsistence in a hrash environment.

Don't confuse the Afghans with Al Qaeda who were Saudi's and Egyptians. The US created Al Qaeda in their cold war fight with Russia and wore the consequences of being on the wrong side once again. On the wrong side in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central america, South america, Iraq. How is you don't get it, the rest of the world doesn't need the US foreign policy messes and the next will be Iran, another US foreign policy mess.

One day you will have professionals directing foreign policy in the US and you may get change

tomder55
Sep 2, 2009, 04:23 AM
The US created Al Qaeda in their cold war fight with Russia and wore the consequences of being on the wrong side once again.

A completely false urban legend. We helped the Afghan mujahideen fight the Soviets .We did not "create " AQ .The Arabs who went to fight the Soviets had their own source of funding and worked independent of our effort.
If the charge was that US money was being funneled through the Paki ISI ,then you would be closer to the truth . But in no way did we fund ,or create either AQ ,or support in any way OBL's independent effort there .

tomder55
Sep 2, 2009, 04:32 AM
the world doesn't need the US foreign policy messes

Right now the Taiwan government is on the ropes . Why ? Because they failed to use US assets during the typhoon .


On the wrong side in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central america, South america, Iraq.

I suppose you think we should back the commie thugs like Hugo Chavez . You who have lived under the American umbrella since the 1940s(even though you have contributed to every war effort since then and we thank you ) are pretty good at ankle biting . Soon you will fall under the sphere of the Chinese . I wish you luck .

ETWolverine
Sep 2, 2009, 06:35 AM
I agree with you, ex, history tells us no one wins in Afghanistan.

Nobody else in history has had man-portable thermobaric explosives that completely destroy everything hiding inside caves.

Where it was possible for the Muj to hide in Afghani caves against every enemy of the past, including the Soviets, and use hit-and-run raid tactics to fight their wars, they cannot effectively use that tactic against the US military IF THE US MILITARY IS WILLING TO USE ALL THE TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL.

With modern technology that was not available just 20 years agao, we have the ability to both track and kill the enemy even when they go to ground in the mountains and caves.

Modern thermal-vision equipment allows us to track the path of man as much as 45 AFTER he has been there. The heat of his passage persists long after her is gone, leaving a trail that can be tracked.

Modern thermobaric rounds allow us to destroy anything hidden in a cave from a distance, without ever having to enter the cave... the overpressure of the explosion does all the work.

Simply put, the factors that made the Muj so hard to track and fight in the Afghani mountains no longer apply against modern military technology.

The key point is that the USA has to be willing to use such tactics to kill the enemy. And so far, the USA has not been willing to do so.

War in Afghanistan is VERY winable, if we use the right tactics. What is unbeatable is a defeatist attitude that so many Americans seem to have about war in Afghanistan... the same attitude that we had about Iraq before the surge.

Elliot

excon
Sep 2, 2009, 06:41 AM
Hello Elliot:

I don't know what part of my post you didn't understand... But, I see your knee jerked...

Are you telling me that the man-portable thermobaric explosives you mentioned can't be launched by drones?? I think they can...

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 2, 2009, 06:54 AM
Hello Elliot:

I dunno what part of my post you didn't understand... But, I see you knee jerked....

Are you telling me that the man-portable thermobaric explosives you mentioned can't be launched by drones??? I think they can....

excon

Theremobarics have to be launched from the opening of the cave. They're short-ranged explosives with a big kick. And they are specifically designed for mountain/cave fighting. But they have limitations on range. Firing from the air won't work... unless you want an explosion with the power of a mini-nuke or bigger (like the "bunker-buster" or "MOAB"). That would probably be overkill for fighting the Muj, I think.

I don't know of any drones that can 1) fly through the dense mountain ranges of Afghanistan without crashing, b) get a low enough altitude to fire through the opening of the cave with a short-range, unguided munition, and iii) do so in all weather conditions (the enemy doesn't only fight in good weather).

Predators fire guided munitions only. They are subject to very strict weather condition limitations. And because they are remote-controlled, they are not very good for close-approach runs.

Sorry, but as good as our tech is, it ain't a substitute for boots on the ground and never will be. All thechnology has limitations that can only be overcome by human-beings that are on site and able to take quick action and make quick decisions. Tech only goes so far. That was the mistake Rumsfeld made at the beginning of the Iraq war. He assumed that technology would overcome all obstacles and put too few people into Iraq because he thought that technology was a substitute for numbers. He was wrong, and you obviously didn't learn his lesson.

Elliot

tomder55
Sep 2, 2009, 08:03 AM
As far as I can tell aggressively killing the enemy is not on the table. The option being proposed in the OP is the Biden approach . On the other side is General McChrystal (and I assume General Petraeus ) who is looking to duplicate the successes of the Iraq counter-insurgency . That is a plan that requires a greater presence and a long term commitment .

The General's plan is wrought with danger in my view because of a number of factors ,including supply logistics ,and a feckless Congress who I don't believe has an appetite for an escalated presence.

What congress and the President wants I think is a way to declare victory and make a hasty retreat . They don't want it said that they lost the "good war". But they'd rather use resources to slay domestic dragons.

excon
Sep 2, 2009, 08:12 AM
Hello again,

I think tom is right... Afghanistan is NOT Iraq.

IF Afghanistan WAS the good war, it lost its luster after EIGHT YEARS of mismanagement... But, it isn't congress who's feckless on the issue. The people are - as is evidenced by our agreement. We should have got Bin Laden when we had the chance... But the dufus got distracted...

Yes, Elliot. We're STILL cleaning up the mess left by the dufus. Oh, you can call it Obama's war... But, there's live people watching you... And, they're going to laugh at that suggestion...

Why not declare victory and leave? Isn't that what we did in Iraq?

excon

tomder55
Sep 2, 2009, 08:21 AM
I knew you would get to that . But there is no evidence that OBL would've been captured with an increased US presence . That is another myth that has been in the public narrative that is just plain wrong.

Edit by the way I predicted a blame Bush response in reply #5

ETWolverine
Sep 2, 2009, 09:07 AM
Why not declare victory and leave? Isn't that what we did in Iraq?

excon

I guess you forgot about the whole "troop surge" thing. Y'know... actually WINNING the war before "declaring victory and leaving". We DIDN'T just leave Iraq, even though that's what so many people like you wanted us to do. We buckled down, sent in more troops, and FOUGHT THE DAMN WAR.

And we won.

And we COULD do it again in Afghanistan.

But you... being the military genius that you are... think it's impossible. Just like you thought winning in Iraq was impossible.

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Yes, Afghanistan is different from Iraq. The terrain is different, and therefore the tactics have to be different. The players are different, and therefore the diplomacy of getting them to work with us has to be taylored appropriately. BUT THE OVERALL STRATEGY is the same... more boots on the ground, more liberal ROEs, a capture-and-maintain strategy with appropriate force levels, aggressive patrolling and sweep & clear operations, etc. All of it is the same as the "surge" strategy.

That is how wars are won.

Problem is, excon, that you grew up in the era of Vietnam. You think that the way that the Vietnam War was fought is the way wars are supposed to be fought... capture some hill and then give it back to the enemy... don't fight to win...

And when you look at that type of strategy, you're right... there's no way to win in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And that is the only strategy that you know, because it is the only one you experienced when you were in the military.

I come from a different military tradition... the Israeli military of the late 80s. My grunt-level understanding of how military strategy works is different from your experience. The Israeli military fights to win, not to capture and return land. And the tactics they use are aggressive. And they work.

(Israeli POLITICIANS are another matter entirely... they tend to be Vietnam-era "take it then give it back" types. But that's a discussion for another day.)

The US military today can go one of two ways. It can use the Vietnam-era tactics and strategies... which is what we saw for too long in the first 3 years of the Iraq war. Ot it can use the more aggressive approach of the Israeli tradition... the strategy used by David Patreus in the "troop surge".

You choose the Vietnam-era strategy, because it is what you know.

I choose a more aggressive approach, because it works.

And that is why you think that Afghanistan is unwinable and Iraq is unwinable, while I know that both Iraq and Afghanistan can be won handily, and with very low casualty rates. If we are willing.

Elliot

excon
Sep 2, 2009, 09:22 AM
while I know that both Iraq and Afghanistan can be won handily, and with very low casualty rates. If we are willing.Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with you at all, cepting for the casualty rates. We AIN'T willing... We NEVER were willing. That's why I WAS against Iraq, and why I've TURNED against Afghanistan..

If you look back, and I will if you want, you'll find that I was for a MUCH wider conflict from the get go. I wanted to go after Saudi Arabia and the wahabbi's... I wanted to let Israel CRUSH the Palestinians and bomb the Iranian reactors. I wanted to include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... I wanted to smash Al Quaida in Pakistan. I WASN'T for pu$$yfooting around.

But, we DID pu$$yfoot, I don't support pu$$yfooting. Better to do NOTHING, than pu$$yfoot.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 2, 2009, 09:37 AM
Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with you at all, cepting for the casualty rates. We AIN'T willing... We NEVER were willing. That's why I WAS against Iraq, and I've TURNED against Afghanistan..

I seem to remember a point of time during which support for the Iraq war was at about 80%. So in the words of Tonto to the Lone Ranger, "Whadya mean 'we', White Boy?"


If you look back, and I will if you want, you'll find that I was for a MUCH wider conflict from the get go. I wanted to go after Saudi Arabia and the wahabbi's... I wanted to let Israel CRUSH the Palestinians and bomb the Iranian reactors. I wanted to include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... I wanted to smash Al Quaida in Pakistan. I WASN'T for pu$$yfooting around.

OK, I agree.

However, you assume that the war in Iraq somehow deterred us from being able to take action elsewhere. I have seen nothing to evidence that.

We have over 1.2 million people in the US military. Only 40,000 of them are in Iraq. At the highest level, only 130,000 people were in Iraq at any one point in time, and that was in the opening weeks of the war... the invasion period. What makes you think that we couldn't take action elsewhere if we needed to? And what makes you think that "getting out of Iraq" would have made it any easier to do those things.

Furthermore, if you think that the mountains of Afghanistan are too hard to fight in, what makes you think that the mountains of Pakistan (the same mountain range, BTW) are any easier to fight in? If you bring your defeatist attitude of "we can't win in Afghanistan" to the table in an invasion of Pakistan, what would the difference be?

The problem, excon, isn't who we are fighting or where we're fighting them. The problem is your "we can't win" attitude, which is shared by way too many Americans.

If you want to defeat AQ anywhere in the world, if you want to win wars, if you want to maintain a strong military, you've got to drop that attitude... especially when the facts on the ground have proven that we CAN win and HAVE won using the tactics and strategies I suggested.

Elliot


But, we DID pu$$yfoot, I don't support pu$$yfooting. Better to do NOTHING, than pu$$yfoot.

Excon

So do I. I'd prefer no action at all to the pussyfooting your are talking about.

But WHY did we pussyfoot?

Simple. There's still a large group of Americans who think we can't win. So instead of going in and winning, they instead pussyfoot.

It's all about attitude. And yours doesn't win wars.

Proof? The troop surge strategy worked... we stopped pussyfooting around, stopped listening to the libs who said we couldn't win and we should just get out. We started fighting the damn war, and we won it.

All I'm suggesting in Afghanistan is that we stop pussyfooting around, start fighting the war, and win it.

Elliot

paraclete
Sep 2, 2009, 04:57 PM
a completely false urban legend. We helped the Afghan mujahideen fight the Soviets .We did not "create " AQ .The Arabs who went to fight the Soviets had their own source of funding and worked independent of our effort.
If the charge was that US money was being funneled through the Paki ISI ,then you would be closer to the truth . But in no way did we fund ,or create either AQ ,or support in any way OBL's independent effort there .

Do you seriously think Bib Laden would have been emboldened to fight in Afghanistan if it had not been for the US covert campaign? Do you think Bin Laden started the war against the soviets on his own? So the Taliban were a US ally, one more US ally who proved to be a horse of a different colour.

tomder55
Sep 3, 2009, 02:29 AM
Where do you get this stuff ? No Bin Laden did not start the war against the Soviets ;they invaded Afghanistan and then Saudi Arabs went there on their own... our efforts there had nothing to do with the Saudi Arab jihadists;nor did we materially support their efforts.

Who said the Taliban was a US ally ? More fractured fairy tales and rewriting of history! The mujahideen were a lose collection of various networks and tribes fighting the Soviets. Perhaps some US money made it to Pashtuns that later became the Taliban via the ISI ;but they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underway. If any one person could claim credit for defeating the Soviets it was Ahmed Shah Massoud ;the ethnic Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by AQ in the days before 9-11 .

The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. Now this is when it can be argued that the US got involved. Briefly ;the Clintoons were seduced by Benazir Bhutto into thinking the idea that the Taliban could stabilize the country and act as a counterweight to Iran. But there was no material support for them... instead the Clintoons considered sit down talks etc.. . and even those dopey Clintonoids quickly soured on the Taliban because of the way they treated women.

paraclete
Sep 3, 2009, 03:50 AM
where do you get this stuff ? no Bin Laden did not start the war against the Soviets ;they invaded Afghanistan and then Saudi Arabs went there on their own .....our efforts there had nothing to do with the Saudi Arab jihadists;nor did we materially support their efforts.

Who said the Taliban was a US ally ? More fractured fairy tales and rewriting of history !! The mujahideen were a lose collection of various networks and tribes fighting the Soviets. Perhaps some US money made it to Pashtuns that later became the Taliban via the ISI ;but they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underway. If any one person could claim credit for defeating the Soviets it was Ahmed Shah Massoud ;the ethnic Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by AQ in the days before 9-11 .

The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. Now this is when it can be argued that the US got involved. Briefly ;the Clintoons were seduced by Benazir Bhutto into thinking the idea that the Taliban could stabilize the country and act as a counterweight to Iran. But there was no material support for them...instead the Clintoons considered sit down talks etc. .... and even those dopey Clintonoids quickly soured on the Taliban because of the way they treated women.
Tom I start by not listening to what Washington wants me to know and I think you have some basic comprehension problems reading what I actually said. The Taliban didn't just appear, they existed and they filled the vacuum created when the Russins departed. On the one hand you tell me the Taliban was not a US ally and a little later you tell me Clintoon was prepared to negotiate with them. Who did he think he was negotiating with, the mujahideen the US had been financing and supplying, or someone completely different, and by the way OBL was part of the mujahideen. I define ally as someone who is fighting for the same cause we are, or to use a more recent definition giving material support. That doesn't mean there is a formal political agreement spelling out all the possible responses on both sides

What you are trying to tell me is that because Pakistan was used as a go between, the US couldn't be said to have a relationship and what I say is plausiable denyibility doesn't wash with me. Any way Tom a good conspiracy theory is an unprovable theory

tomder55
Sep 3, 2009, 04:55 AM
Seems to me the comprehension problems are at your end of the pond.


The Taliban didn't just appear, they existed and they filled the vacuum created when the Russins departed.

Clearly that is not what I said . What I wrote was The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. And... they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underway

They filled no vacume ;they defeated all rivals in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan.. they never truly controlled northern Afghanistan.


On the one hand you tell me the Taliban was not a US ally and a little later you tell me Clintoon was prepared to negotiate with them.

So now negotiations makes allies ? Where do you get that ?



And by the way OBL was part of the mujahideen.

So ? I already addressed the fact that the Arab's were not part of our effort at all. Their jihad efforts there was self funded and self directed . Peter Bergen in Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden wrote :



Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the a** ." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, 'Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"
... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other.. . the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill."
[Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Ayman al-Zawahiri AQ #2 man wrote in Knights Under the Prophet's Banner



"While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different."
"... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid."
"The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. Imagine how much aid was sent by popular Arab organizations in the non-military fields such as medicine and health, education and vocational training, food, and social assistance ...."
"Through the unofficial popular support, the Arab mujahidin established training centers and centers for the call to the faith. They formed fronts that trained and equipped thousands of Arab mujahidin and provided them with living expenses, housing, travel and organization."
(Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)

Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:


"No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders. Their presence in Afghanistan was very small and they did not participate in any significant fighting."



Any way Tom a good conspiracy theory is an unprovable theory

And if you tell a lie and misinformation long enough it becomes the truth . The REAL truth is that neither did the US create or support bin Laden ;nor did we ever support the Taliban .

ETWolverine
Sep 3, 2009, 07:01 AM
seems to me the comprehension problems are at your end of the pond.



Clearly that is not what I said . What I wrote was The Taliban really did not emerge until 1994 when the ISI supported them to guard trade routes. And... they were virtually unknown until after the Soviets withdrew and an Afghan civil war among rival militias was underway

They filled no vacume ;they defeated all rivals in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan ..they never truely controlled northern Afghanistan.



So now negotiations makes allies ? Where do you get that ?

So ? I already addressed the fact that the Arab's were not part of our effort at all. Their jihad efforts there was self funded and self directed . Peter Bergen in Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden wrote :


[Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Ayman al-Zawahiri AQ #2 man wrote in Knights Under the Prophet's Banner


(Al-Sharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2001, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), GMP20011202000401)

Marc Sageman worked closely with the Afghan mujahideen from 1987 to 1989. In his book, Understanding Terror Networks, he writes:






and if you tell a lie and misinformation long enough it becomes the truth . The REAL truth is that neither did the US create or support bin Laden ;nor did we ever support the Taliban .

Facts? FACTS? You expect people to actually listen to FACTS? C'mon Tom, your dreamin'. Paraclete has made up his mind... don't confuse him with the facts.

Great sources, BTW. Do you have any of them in electronic format? Can you pass them on? I'd like to add them to my library.

Elliot

tomder55
Sep 3, 2009, 07:13 AM
I could've listed more if pressed.

bin Ladin links to the CIA (http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html)

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden)

tomder55
Sep 3, 2009, 10:04 AM
Afghanistan Deputy Intelligence Chief Abdullah Laghmahni was wacked by a human Predator this week .

Similar to Iraq is the reality that the fence sitters will side with the strongest tribe. The surge in Iraq worked because we proved we were the strongest tribe . In Afghanistan we are losing that edge.

The Taliban used to come down from their lair in the spring to get their butt's kicked . Now they are still around and twice in a short period have penetrated the inner security perimeter .

Both Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have as much as admitted that the Taliban has the initiative. Both have asked for greater troops strength. Drones ,missile and satellites are not enough to keep Taliban at bay. Not when they can match our missiles shot from the drones with human missiles and a seemingly superior intel presence.

Obama called Afghanistan the good war;a war of necessity... and Iraq the bad war .But his strategy seems to be the same for both... retreat before the mid-term elections.

paraclete
Sep 3, 2009, 03:31 PM
The Taliban used to come down from their lair in the spring to get their butt's kicked .
Obama called Afghanistan the good war;a war of necessity .... and Iraq the bad war .But his strategy seems to be the same for both ......retreat before the mid-term elections.

Tom, your post suggests that the Taliban are a few brigands hiding away instead of realising that the situation is like Vietnam, the enemy is right there in the midst of the population, the Pustun people number millions and are spread over a wide area in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the idea that the Taliban is a small part of that population, just a few thousand militants, is flawed. The longer the US stays there, the bigger will be the resistance. The US is not fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan, it is fighting a religious war, an ideological war, and the only necessity is that the US go home and allow these people to determine their future for themselves, however repugnant that idea might be to western thinking. The lines are confused you actually have two of america's wars in Afghanistan; the war on terror and the war on drugs, and each is equally elusive.

A war cannot be fought on the vague allegiences of the US political system which is constructed to prevent anything from actually being done. What is they say in the US; congress is the opposite of progress:D

tomder55
Sep 4, 2009, 02:55 AM
Tom, your post suggests that the Taliban are a few brigands hiding away instead of realising that the situation is like Vietnam, the enemy is right there in the midst of the population, the Pustun people number millions and are spread over a wide area in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the idea that the Taliban is a small part of that population, just a few thousand militants, is flawed.


That's like saying every hispanic in Los Angeles is a member of the Latin Kings or is affiliated with the Aztlan movement . The Taliban is a fairly loose collection who even at it's strongest never controlled the whole country .

ETWolverine
Sep 4, 2009, 06:24 AM
Tom, your post suggests that the Taliban are a few brigands hiding away instead of realising that the situation is like Vietnam, the enemy is right there in the midst of the population, the Pustun people number millions and are spread over a wide area in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the idea that the Taliban is a small part of that population, just a few thousand militants, is flawed.

How does that differ from the situation we faced in Iraq?

And yet, here we are, two years after the Surge, and the "insurgency" is pretty much done. We WON. They can place a few IEDs, blow up some cars... but that's about it. The terrorists will never control the country. We won.

Why is Afghanistan any different?


The longer the US stays there, the bigger will be the resistance.

That statement has been proven false by what has happened in Iraq. If we are willing to fight the war, the "resistance" cannot hope to match us. They will die in a war of attrition because we are bigger and better funded, and they will die if they try to face us in battle. That's what happened in Iraq, and that's what will happen in Afghanistan if we fight the war correctly.


The US is not fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan, it is fighting a religious war, an ideological war, and the only necessity is that the US go home and allow these people to determine their future for themselves, however repugnant that idea might be to western thinking.

Again, this is what was said about Iraq, and it turned out not to be true.


The lines are confused you actually have two of america's wars in Afghanistan; the war on terror and the war on drugs, and each is equally elusive.

Again, I disagree.

The reason that we have failed in the war on drugs is the same as the reason we were failing in the War on Terror in Iraq before the Surge... we weren't WILLING to fight it. We weren't willing to take whatever action was necessary to beat the enemy. Once we started to fight with the right mentality, we won in Iraq. It takes a willingness to completely destroy the enemy... boot him, don't pi$$ on him. If we used that same willingness in Afghanistan, we could destroy both the Taliban AND the poppy growers who's money supports the Taliban. But it takes a willingness that YOU don't have.

Our troops are better than that, and they have proven that they DO have that willingness.


A war cannot be fought on the vague allegiences of the US political system which is constructed to prevent anything from actually being done.

That's why any "allegiences" have to be entered into by the MILITARY COMMANDER ON THE GROUND... not the State Department. It has to be a MILITARY operation, not a political or diplomatic one. The military commander has to determine who the best ally for the USA is (from a strategic point of view), open negotiations with that ally, and back that ally in helping us defeat the enemy(ies). And the State Department should either support the military commander's decision or get the hell out of the way.

Part of the problem is that every faction within the US government has their own opinion of who our allies should be. The President has his opinion, which is based on his desire to get re-elected. The State Department life-time bureaucrats have their opinions of who our allies should be, usually based on who is giving them the most graft or setting them up with the best retirement package. The Department of Defense/Intelligence Agency bureaucrats have their opinion of who our allies should be, sometimes based on who is giving them the best information about his enemies, but also often based on graft. And the Military Commander has his opinion, usually based on the current status of the war and who has been most helpful to us in fighting that war.

Everyone's got an opinion, and they usually conflict with each other.

But while the war is being fought, the only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Military Commander. He's the guy on the sharp end of the stick. HIS decisions are the ones that determine the course of the war. And if you want to win that war, you had either better back HIS position or get the hell out of the way.

We did that in Iraq. We gave Patreus the lead, let him take charge, let HIM decide where our allegiances would go, and let him set the strategy. And the result is that we have won in Iraq.

We have not done the same in Afghanistan. And THAT is why we are not in control there.


What is they say in the US; congress is the opposite of progress:D

Agreed.

That's because of politicians who practice politics.

Politics: from the word "Poli" meaning "many", and "tic" meaning "disgusting blood-sucking creature".

(With thanks to Robin Williams.)

Elliot

excon
Sep 4, 2009, 06:32 AM
Part of the problem is that every faction within the US government has their own opinion of who our allies should be. The President has his opinion, The State Department life-time bureaucrats have their opinions of who our allies should be. The Department of Defense/Intelligence Agency bureaucrats have their opinion of who our allies should be, but also often based on graft. And the Military Commander has his opinion, usually based on the current status of the war and who has been most helpful to us in fighting that war.

Everyone's got an opinion, and they usually conflict with each other.Hello El:

That's probably a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be having a war right now, no??

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 4, 2009, 06:42 AM
Hello El:

That's probably a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be having a war right now, no???

excon

Not really.

We had such factionalization during WWII too. There were factions who believed we should be supporting the Partisan movement, and others who thought we shouldn't. There were those in favor of helping the French and others who thought we shouldn't. There were those who were in favor of helping the Brits, and others who felt we shouldn't. There were those who tried to get us involved in the war earlier in order to help the Jews being killed in the Concentration camps and others (notably Poppa Joe Kennedy) who felt we shouldn't. There was even a faction who thought we should be supporting the Germans. The Department of War and the Department of State were contantly at odds with each other over these issues. There were Congressional factions that were constantly at odds with each other over these issues.

The key point is that once we got into the war, it was the military leaders who determined strategy, not politicians and bureaucrats. They detemined who we would join with, who we would ally with, and who we would have nothing to do with. It didn't matter if they were right or wrong... there was a single policy run by the most relevant leaders (the military was the most relevant leadership to the war), and we followed that policy instead of fighting among ourselves from within the bureaucracy.

That's all I'm suggesting that we do here.

Elliot

excon
Sep 4, 2009, 06:56 AM
How does that differ from the situation we faced in Iraq?

And yet, here we are, two years after the Surge, and the "insurgency" is pretty much done. We WON. They can place a few IEDs, blow up some cars... but that's about it. The terrorists will never control the country. We won.

Why is Afghanistan any different?Hello again, El:

Nope. You're wrong again... Doesn't that get tiresome?? Anyway, Iraq is lost. I've said it since the beginning, and I'm saying it now...

The dufus broke it and left it RIPE for Iran to INCREASE it's influence there, and they ARE. We didn't win. IRAN won.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 4, 2009, 07:26 AM
Hello again, El:

Nope. You're wrong again... Doesn't that get tiresome??? Anyway, Iraq is lost. I've said it since the beginning, and I'm saying it now....

The dufus broke it and left it RIPE for Iran to INCREASE it's influence there, and they ARE. We didn't win. IRAN won.

excon

You're the only one who seems to think Iraq is lost.

Even the anti-Bush press had to admit that we won Iraq.

Even OBAMA had to admit that he was wrong on Iraq.

You're alone on this one.

Elliot

excon
Sep 4, 2009, 08:07 AM
You're alone on this one.Hello again, El:

I've never been a follower.

excon

paraclete
Sep 4, 2009, 04:12 PM
How does that differ from the situation we faced in Iraq?

.


That is the essential question and Afghanistan is not Iraq. I also think the question of Iraq remains in the balance, the US may have won the battle but have they won the war? They have achieved a lower death count for US forces. The incident yesterday in Afghanistan where 90 civilians were allegedly killed is one of the reasons you won't win. The thinking of the military is too large scale. The US is fighting the wrong war. Eight years and the enemy is stronger now than when you started, that should tell you something

Afghan bombing|NATO strike (http://www.smh.com.au/world/dispute-on-civilian-toll-in-nato-air-strike-20090904-fbgz.html)What did they hope to accomplish by destroying those tankers surrounded by civilians?The Taliban has no need of fuel they were just denying supply, but the fall out from that strike in a political sense did more that the Taliban could hope to do in a month.

It seems in your remarks you wanted to make this personal. I don't think a win at all costs philosophy is what is needed in Afghanistan. The Taliban have time on their side, they only have to wait, but their religious ideology won't let them stand idly by and let an invader walk over their country and defile it with obscene acts http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/afghanistan.contractors/index.htmlas was reported recently

Until the US and its allies decide that collateral damage is unacceptable they will not win

tomder55
Sep 5, 2009, 04:04 AM
How do you win a war when you are required to read captured terrorists their Miranda Right ? In this there is a comparison to Vietnam. The troops are handcuffed by ROEs .

But Joe Biden has a secret plan. He is advising the President to mine Afghanistan's harbors.

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 04:17 AM
We were making progress in Afghanistan and then we concentrated out efforts on Iraq.
Look at two years ago,things were improving.
Schools,health care things were looking up. A change was happening.
Women back in power.The Taliban was being shut down!
Look back at what was happening two years ago.

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 04:20 AM
a completely false urban legend. We helped the Afghan mujahideen fight the Soviets .We did not "create " AQ .The Arabs who went to fight the Soviets had their own source of funding and worked independent of our effort.
If the charge was that US money was being funneled through the Paki ISI ,then you would be closer to the truth . But in no way did we fund ,or create either AQ ,or support in any way OBL's independent effort there .

We were being killed with our own weapons.
Americans I mean .
Thank you Ronald Reagan and you Contra BS!

excon
Sep 5, 2009, 04:32 AM
How do you win a war when you are required to read captured terrorists their Miranda Right ? In this there is a comparison to Vietnam. The troops are handcuffed by ROEsHello tom:

You actually WIN the war on the battlefield, not in the POW camp.

Here's the thing you righty's don't understand about war. When we've captured a terrorist, he's NO LONGER in the fight. It really doesn't make ANY difference WHAT we read him or what we don't.

You just want to punish him further. That's not very nice.

Plus, if we torture OUR prisoners, they're going to torture OUR boys, and I'm not going to like that. When they DO, who do you think I'M going to blame?? Them?? Wrong!

excon

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 05:10 AM
Hello tom:

You actually WIN the war on the battlefield, not in the POW camp.

Here's the thing you righty's don't understand about war. When we've captured a terrorist, he's NO LONGER in the fight. It really doesn't make ANY difference WHAT we read him or what we don't.

You just wanna punish him further. That's not very nice.

Plus, if we torture OUR prisoners, they're gonna torture OUR boys, and I'm not gonna like that. When they DO, who do you think I'M going to blame??? Them???? Wrong!

excon

I have no idea why I respond to any of your posts because you just ignore me.
Am I too stupid for consideration or what?
I'm feeling a little left out of the mix.
Why?

excon
Sep 5, 2009, 05:22 AM
I have no idea why I respond to any of your posts because you just ignore me.
Am I too stupid for consideration or what?
I'm feeling a little left out of the mix.
Why?Hello lady:

If you noticed, I usually respond to the guys I want to argue with, like I did here. I don't want to argue with YOU. I AGREE with you. Sometimes, NK and I commiserate with each other about the righty's, but I seldom respond directly to him...

I won't leave you out any more, though. You're one of my favorite people.

excon

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 05:31 AM
I get it ,you guys just want to fight.

You totally ignore any other comments ,your too high brow to talk to a person you consider your intellectual inferior.

I abhor hypocrites,People who profess to know and care for others but don't.

Excon,you never respond to a thing I say.

Because I am not worthy? Not bright enough to get you?

You ignore me ,you never give me any acknowledgment ever and that's hurtful.

Its all good but I just thought you should know.

I have every confidence you will ignore this as well :)
Peace out!

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 05:32 AM
Hello lady:

If you noticed, I usually respond to the guys I wanna argue with, like I did here. I don't wanna argue with YOU. I AGREE with you. Sometimes, NK and I commiserate with each other about the righty's, but I seldom respond directly to him....

I won't leave you out any more, though. You're one of my favorite people.

excon

Well,my bad ,you could have fooled me :)

artlady
Sep 5, 2009, 05:41 AM
Its all good! Sorry for being oversensitive!
Here is a graphic I made about war.Long time ago.Just sharing.. LOL! Its entitled peace. Ha ha ha

excon
Sep 5, 2009, 06:04 AM
Here is a graphic I made about war.Long time ago.Just sharing..LOL! Its entitled peace. Hello again, lady:

It's a very moving piece of artwork... Please give us more.

excon

Tokugawa
Sep 5, 2009, 08:36 AM
Very poignant depiction Artlady. God is dead, and WE have killed him. Never mind, I expect a new one will be along shortly.



KEEP ON ROCKIN IN THE FREE WORLD!!

cal823
Sep 5, 2009, 09:20 AM
Tokugawa, I do not believe we can ever kill god, no matter how terrible our actions. We probably break his heart however.

The way I see Afghanistan, and any other war, is this (An opinion I have formed reading about Vietnam and by studying Sun Tzu and other wars)
War is terrible yes, it is a failure of diplomacy and sanity and government.
However, once the government has made the decision to go to war, one which should not be made lightly, there is only one acceptable option. Victory. Appeasement, withdrawal without victory, is unnaceptable. The interference of politics in warfare, the laying down of limits and boundaries and excessive rules of engagement restricts the soldier.
In Korea, the american military was only permitted to bomb the Korean halves of bridges across their borders. General Mcarthurs reply was "In my all my fifty years of military service, I have never learned how to bomb HALF a bridge!"
A generals job is to win war. There is only one order a politician should give to a general. It is "Go fight this war and win it" not "Only bomb the southern half of that bridge" or "Dont shoot them unless they are wearing uniforms, even if they are armed" or "you can only bomb targets south of this line"
If you pull out before your objectives have been achieved, you have lost a war. You have emboldened and taught your enemies how to fight. You have weakened your position. And you have engendered hate of your people and left those who now hate you fully armed and capable of war.

tomder55
Sep 5, 2009, 12:54 PM
We were making progress in Afghanistan and then we concentrated out efforts on Iraq.
Look at two years ago,things were improving.
Schools,health care things were looking up. A change was happening.
Women back in power.The Taliban was being shut down!
Look back at what was happening two years ago.

I don't quite understand this.. perhaps because the normal critque is that we took our eyes off the prize in 2003 .Which was 6 years ago.

What happened in Afghanistan is that the Taliban retreated to sanctuaries in Pakistan . One of the ROE's that I was talking about (of which Mirandizing is only one of the newer handcuffs ) was that pursuit ended at the border .

You are right about politcal progress a couple of years ago. However the government of Afghanistan has never really stepped up to the plate (unlike the Iraqi government ) . The Karzi leadership is corrupt and ineffective . He tried to steal the elections this month.

I still ask what the strategic mission is there . If it is to keep AQ from establishing bases to attack us then we have already succeeded . If it is to prevent the Taliban from taking the country over we are succeeding . They will never have central control of the nation so long as we have a presence. If we are looking to duplicate what is happening in Iraq then we are in for a long term comittment ;and we need to rethink what a free Afghanistan would look like . It is tribal and I think the best we could get is a confederation of tribes as an alternative to bullies like the Taliban running the country by brute force.

No one wants to see that happen again .

paraclete
Sep 6, 2009, 01:43 AM
Hello tom:

You actually WIN the war on the battlefield, not in the POW camp.

Here's the thing you righty's don't understand about war. When we've captured a terrorist, he's NO LONGER in the fight. It really doesn't make ANY difference WHAT we read him or what we don't.

You just wanna punish him further. That's not very nice.

Plus, if we torture OUR prisoners, they're gonna torture OUR boys, and I'm not gonna like that. When they DO, who do you think I'M going to blame??? Them???? Wrong!

excon

I agree with ex here, why read their rights when they have no understanding of "rights". A terrorist might be reeducated but is it worth the effort, you first have to deprogram the Muslim and this is taking away their identity. You might as well summarily execute them. You can't torture them and you cannot deny their religion so lock them up and throw the key away

cal823
Sep 6, 2009, 02:16 AM
I partially agree with excon, except for the last part.


Plus, if we torture OUR prisoners, they're going to torture OUR boys, and I'm not going to like that. When they DO, who do you think I'M going to blame?? Them?? Wrong!
I am pretty sure that the Taliban already tortures its prisoners, without the need for any prompting from americans.

tomder55
Sep 6, 2009, 02:51 AM
I don't agree with Ex because what happens when you put nonsense ROEs on the soldiers like that is to deny them an intel tool. Ex thinks we should wage war like a law enforcement effort .I don't.

cal823
Sep 7, 2009, 01:29 AM
ROEs should never be placed on soldiers by politicians. They get soldiers killed and wars lost.