Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I don't know what happened, exactly. Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam. But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

---

Nice deflection.

Quote:

---

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

---

I think the ideology is pretty simple, if you're going to fight a war fight it to win it. Anything else is "pretty stupid."

Quote:

---

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes,

---

Actually the McChrystal plan represents a significant change in strategy. The other thing that changed was the President's determination. What that indicates is a commander not ready for prime time. Heck ;even Evita predicted that last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think the ideology is pretty simple, if you're going to fight a war fight it to win it. Anything else is "pretty stupid."

---

Hello again, Steve:

You, inadvertently, pointed out yet another reason why things have changed.

Let me use myself as an example. The Wolverine's memory is short, but you haven't exhibited the same malady... I'm not anti war. I'm actually a big footprint guy, if you remember. I, too, thought Afghanistan was the "right war". I don't carry water for ANY politician.

Yet, as astute as I am, during the ensuing year, I learned MORE about the topography of Afghanistan. I learned MORE about WHO the insurgents are. I learned more about our mission, or lack thereof. I learned more about our exit strategy, or the lack thereof. I learned that the NEW regime IS corrupt. I learned that Karzi ISN'T going to help us. I learned that every victory we won over the last 8 years was only temporary, because we had no intention to HOLD the ground we won.

Most importantly, I learned what you learned - that in order to win, even if we can, is going to take a minimum of 500,000 troops, and that might not be enough... Anything short of that is pretty stupid, I agree.

Given that LOTS has changed, if only in my mind, the war went from the "good war", to one we'd better exit from.

excon

PS> (edited) Let me just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what happened, exactly.

---

You should have just stopped there... at least it would have been intellectually honest.

Quote:

---

Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam.

---

Uh huh... in the past year the country grew tired of Afghanistan and came to see Afghanistan as another Vietnam... while at the same time becoming more supportive of Iraq. Yeah... that makes sense. NOT!!

Quote:

---

But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

---

Yep. Obama got elected and no longer has to pay lip service to the concept of protecting the country in his rhetorric.

Quote:

---

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

Excon

---

As opposed to your loony-lib ideology which says that American can never win any war, because every war is another Vietnam, and America is evil anyway and deserves to lose.

If forced to choose between the two, I'll take the ideology that you have labeled as "neo-con" but which is just simply a possitive attitude toward national security. You can stick to your defeatism and self-hatred toward America if you prefer.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You can stick to your defeatism and self-hatred toward America if you prefer.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

And, YOU spilled your blood defending this country WHERE?? Nahh. You and your buddy war mongers like vice had OTHER things to do.

I understand. Truly, I do.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

And, YOU spilled your blood defending this country WHERE???? Nahh. You and your buddy war mongers like vice had OTHER things to do.

I understand. Truly, I do.

excon

---

And which war to defend the USA have you defended? What action was "the right war"? Which action have you supported without bashing the troops and their abilities? Which war that we have been involved in are we not "losing"?

Fact is, excon, since Vietnam you haven't been able to support any action the US military has taken, because you don't really believe that the USA deserves to be defended. You don't think that there is an war we can or should win. Iraq is still a screwup according to you, despite the fact that every military leader and almost every political leader (including Obama) has admitted that the surge was a massive success. Afghanistan is a major failure too, despite the fact that we have had incredibly low casualties and haven't lost a battle yet. We're losing, and nothing can convince you otherwise.

Elliot

Quote:

---

"Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office.

---

Read the rest of this here
Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, March 2009 - Council on Foreign Relations

This was the point that the President supposedly concluded his policy review of Afghanistan . Everything since then is dithering .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This was the point that the President supposedly concluded his policy review of Afghanistan . Everything since then is dithering .

---

Hello again, tom:

Just before the surge, when we were getting our a$$'s handed to us, Bush concluded SEVERAL policy reviews about Iraq including one with LOTS of high powered dudes like James Baker. He dithered. The he dithered some more before he came up with the surge.

In fact, during the entire conduct of the war, I'm sure he had LOTS, of policy reviews about Iraq, and then he had some more. Now, I don't know if he dithered, but for sure MOST of his decisions during that time were WRONG. I simply suggest that maybe, just MAYBE if he dithered, 4,000 of our young soldiers might be alive.

As a matter of fact, the worst decisions this country has ever made, were made in haste.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

"Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. .

---

If only that were true!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

You, inadvertently, pointed out yet another reason why things have changed.

Lemme use myself as an example. The Wolverine's memory is short, but you haven't exhibited the same malady... I'm not anti war. I'm actually a big footprint guy, if you remember. I, too, thought Afghanistan was the "right war". I don't carry water for ANY politician.

Yet, as astute as I am, during the ensuing year, I learned MORE about the topography of Afghanistan. I learned MORE about WHO the insurgents are. I learned more about our mission, or lack thereof. I learned more about our exit strategy, or the lack thereof. I learned that the NEW regime IS corrupt. I learned that Karzi ISN'T going to help us. I learned that every victory we won over the last 8 years was only temporary, because we had no intention to HOLD the ground we won.

Most importantly, I learned what you learned - that in order to win, even if we can, is gonna take a minimum of 500,000 troops, and that might not be enough... Anything short of that is pretty stupid, I agree.

Given that LOTS has changed, if only in my mind, the war went from the "good war", to one we'd better exit from.

excon

PS> (edited) Lemme just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

---

Good points and I agree with the PS solution. They should have already have known the geography, the history, the culture and its peoples prior to going in.


G&P


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Good points and I agree with the PS solution. They should have already have known the geography, the history, the culture and its peoples prior to going in.

---

Quote:

---

PS> (edited) Let me just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

---

Let's recap a little here. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda in because Al Qaeda were helping them in their fight against the Northern Alliance, that is the other afghans, in their civil war. Al Qaeda are still helping them today, albeit there are fewer AQ fighters maybe 100.

It matters that AQ don't have a base at all, but as they no doubt have one in Pakistan all this chasing terrorists around Afghanistan is a lot of political grandstanding, reassuring the "good folks" back home "our boys are keeping them safe". This lie was exposed in the last week with a Muslim terrorist hiding in the US military. There is a similar grandstanding effort taking place on the other side of the border

The Taliban unfortunately are not only a threat to Afghanistan, a place that matters little, but they are also a threat to Pakistan, an unstable nation with a nuclear arsenal. Without the Afghanistan base there will be no drones bombing the Taliban in Pakistan. So the fight goes on because of fear and this fight fuels the problem, because the Taliban feel threatened by enemies on two sides, the US in the west and Pakistan in the east. Pakistan gave the Taliban the opportunity to take over Afghanistan in the first place and endorsed them, now they bite the hand that feeds them.

So as much as I think things would settle down if the US pulled out of Afghanistan they won't do it because of fear that Al Qaeda will rise again and destablise Pakistan.