 |
If the taliban can contol Afghanistan, and harbor and train terrorists like they did pre-9/11, then yes it will be a defeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Para:
I won't call ALL 22 million Pashtun equivalent to the Taliban. Even so, the Anbar awakening demonstrates that power, security, working with the natives, and leading to a better alternative can be successful, unless you think Taliban rule is a good thing.
G&P
Why shouldn't the Taliban control Afghanistan? Then the mission will be to make sure the Taliban does not harbor and train terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
No Taliban rule is not a good thing but sometimes the ideal cannot be attained immediately. While you fight with them, there is no opportunity to move forward, but if you could reach an accommodation where they will not harbour terrorists, then you could disengage and help the people to develop. You cannot stop an idea with a gun. They see a theocratic regime without western ideas of morality as desirable. Development will ultimately kill the ideas the Taliban have, they know this, this is why they fearcely oppose education, modern music, televisionQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Opinion | Afghanistan's women again face Taliban oppression | Seattle Times Newspaper
This is what the last 2 posters are looking at - defeat. I can accept that if national security and more American lives were no longer at stake. What makes you think that the pre 9/11 mindset will change if we leave now? Because we asked them "pretty please?" Get real, we leave, they will justifiably see weakness and be even more emboldened. These jihadists saw leaving Somalia, in the 90s, as the US being a "paper tiger." History will repeat itself. See ET's posts on their mindset.
G&P
It is you who needs to get real and realise that their mindset will not change no matter what you do. The Taliban are not the Jihadists who attacked America on 9/11. Yes, they may have been fellow travellers, or they may have been opportunists, but they already see weakness, eight years of weakness, and many years before that. The US allowed the Taliban to establish themselves in Afghanistan and they could have cared less until Al Qaeda was found sheltering in Afghanistan. If the US had any sort of intelligence capability they would have known about Bin Laden and done something about him long before 9/11. It demonstrates that Clinton and Bush were asleep at the wheel and the people of Afghanistan suffer as a result. Clinton though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed, he had no interest in the Taliban. Bush though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed. Obama continues the same mistake but this time he is dealing with many more people. Afghanistan is just another US foreign policy failure, they just stack up year by yearQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
"Fellow travelers" wow, what an understatement. All these jihadists have the same mindset - anti US, anti - Western civilization. Clinton knew and did nothing of it. Bush knew after 9/11 and did something about it, damaging Al Queda, and no more attacks by them since 9/11 on US soil. Now what is Obama going to do?
G&P
It's Bush and his administration's fault we were attacked! And what he did he do after the attack that was so brilliant? Whatever it was, that's not why no more attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
How does being in a war justify the horrible treatment of women by the thugs .I swear the left hates women . How else can you explain them siding with the likes of the Taliban ?Quote:
Not necessarily, The Taliban were fighting a war which may have affected their judgement,
Quote:
Afghanistan's stable government will be a theocracy.
Not necessarily there are other Muslim governments that are clearly not theocracies.Pakistan is democracy ;not a perfect one but it is .Besides I never said they had to be "true democracies" .There are other Central Asian tribal nations bordering Afghanistan that are not theocracies . These nations have Presidential Republics .They are not democracy by choice but they are stable nations not harboring terrorists.Quote:
True democracy is allowing people to determine for themselves the form of government they will have, even if it is theocratic
Ah yes the boilerplate argument of last resort which we will hear over and over again the next 3 years for any Obama policy failures.The most recent example of this was it's use by Roland Burris who said that the reason Chicago didn’t win the Olympics is because BO did not have enough time to make up for the hatred caused by GW Bush.:confused:Quote:
It's Bush and his administration's fault
Hardly. The US was attacked because of US foreign policy failures over many years, Bush wasn't in office long enough to have directly provided the excuse for attack, he was asleep at the wheel. Now if you were speaking of the policies of Bush senior and his presence in Saudi Arabia which continued for years after you may have found a reason. Bib Laden gave it as a reason for the attacks. You should think more about Clinton, he had more ability to influence events before 9/11Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes Bush succeeded in undermining the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan but it is only good luck that the US hasn't suffered a direct attack. Bush's war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda was the right move. Nothing brilliant but the right move, but eight years on it is time for a new strategy.The US became paranoid about security after 9/11 which would have disrupted Al Qaeda plans. Bush's action in Afghanistan didn't prevent attacks in Spain, Britain and Indonesia. It is just that the US doesn't have a base of home grown jihadistsQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
During the summer of 2001, there were intel reports that terrorists were planning to use planes to attack the US. Those reports were discounted with the belief that anti-aircraft would take care of them. "In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned." ("The System Was Blinking Red," The 9-11 Commission Report)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And the attackers were already in the US, as I said Bush was asleep at the wheel, but the policies which caused the attack existed before Bush came to office. Warning the public would have done nothing but promote panic and another "reds under the bed" pogrom this time searching for Muslims. I think Americans have an unrealistic view that the attacks could have been prevented when in fact there were only suspicions that an "attack" might take place. It is easy to be an arm chair critic after the event and be able to say that something is obvious. Yes with hindsight it is obvious but don't be a rear gunnerQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Bush administration was thinking the attack would come from a foreign country, and discounted reports about a bunch of Mideastern student pilots at several US flight schools who wanted to know only how to fly a plane, but not to take off or land. No one envisioned an attack using domestic aircraft even though the evidence was there and available and being talked about!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes there was even a game with the scenario which is suspicious in itself. Look their behaviour was suspicious but if those who were instructing them didn't see a need to report or stop training them, then how could it be expected that politicians in such rarefied places as the White House would see a need to be suspicious of everything. Today we talk about reporting suspicious talk and actions but it was beyond comprehension before 9/11, just not part of the ethos. Al Qaeda was some obscure organisation in an even more obscure place. Aircraft hijacking had ceased to be a terrorist operation, they had graduated to hotel and embassy bombings so obviously highjacking was dismissed as a possibility. Using a plane as a bomb just wasn't in the thinkingQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I already answered that question.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2009672
The Taliban is 100% Pashtun . The Pashtuns are not 100% Taliban. This is similar to Iraq and much less complicated in my view because the factionalism in the country had broken out into open combat .
One of the reasons the surge in Iraq worked so well is because there was a parallel "Sunni Awakening ". They began to trust the Americans more than they trusted to terrorist Sunni's working among them. Not surprising is that when the terrorists controlled territory they implemented a Taliban-like Sharia-law . The Sunnis that were fence sitters did not like that at all. Yet ,they were never going to trust the Americans if they cleared the terrorist out and then moved on to let the terrorists reoccupy the town. The effective doctrine of clear and hold followed by good will convinced them that the Americans were the ones to back .
This is the stategy I'm sure General Petraeus and McCrystal expect to initiate . But what that requires is the temporary increase in troop strength. Once that happens not only will the Pashtun turn on the Taliban... but elements of the Taliban will also flip.
Then I fail to see why we should be leaving Afghanistan and feeding in to that mindset that says those perceived as weak are to be attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Nah... they're just another group of Jihadists who want us dead and who support the ones who DID attack us on 9/11. That's different, right?Quote:
The Taliban are not the Jihadists who attacked America on 9/11.
I thought that the complaint about Iraq coming from the Left was that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11, none of the terrorists came from Iraq and Iraq didn't do anything to support the attacks against us.
Well, then, we have Afghanistan, a country in which 17 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us came through before the attack. They were supported by the Afghani government which, at the time, was run by the Taliban. The terrorists received direct monetary and logistical support from Afghanistan's government.
So, the argument that the Taliban wasn't involved doesn't hold water. The argument that Afghanistan wasn't responsible for the attacks doesn't hold water.
Not in the past 8 years. You'll note that the Taliban have been unable to excersize any power over Afghanistan's military or political infrastructure for most of those 8 years. That's because in the past 8 years, we have NOT been acting weak... not until recently, anyway.Quote:
but they already see weakness, eight years of weakness, and many years before that.
Yep. And if there had never been a 9/11, we still wouldn't care. But there WAS a 9/11, and so we DO care. Are you arguing that we, as a nation, SHOULDN'T care after being attacked?Quote:
The US allowed the Taliban to establish themselves in Afghanistan and they could have cared less until Al Qaeda was found sheltering in Afghanistan.
Yep... lay that one at the feet of Clinton who had the intelligence information to take out bin Laden but didn't.Quote:
If the US had any sort of intelligence capability they would have known about Bin Laden and done something about him long before 9/11.
Oh... I get it... The USA suffered an attack of epic proportions on 9/11. It was OUR fault for not only being the evil people who ignored the plight of the poor Arab, but for lacking effective intelligence strategies to deal with terrorism, and for causing the suffering of the poor Afghanis by letting bin Laden (who, BTW, had nothing to do with the Taliban according to your previous argument) continue to live. And we should, therefore, take no action against the Taliban, because WE, not they are to blame.Quote:
It demonstrates that Clinton and Bush were asleep at the wheel and the people of Afghanistan suffer as a result.
That seems to be your logic.
Yes he did.Quote:
Clinton though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed, he had no interest in the Taliban.
How do you figure that? What "bombing" did Bush do? He didn't bomb them... he sent in 68,000 troops to kill them. There's a HUGE difference between the two.Quote:
Bush though he could bomb Al Qaeda out of existence and he failed.
Obama's failure is the failure to commit to a specific strategy. His failure is the inability or unwillingness to make a decision one way of the other with regard to Afghanistan.Quote:
Obama continues the same mistake but this time he is dealing with many more people. Afghanistan is just another US foreign policy failure, they just stack up year by year
Elliot
ElliotQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You have missed my point. The Taliban have no interest in the US other than removing the US troops from their country. It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US not the Taliban. There were no Afghani in the 9/11 squad, they were Eqyptians, etc. Why didn't the US attack Egypt? Because it would have been absurd and your argument is absurd. Bush attacked Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda and it had the effect of removing the Taliban from power, fair enough. The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them. Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it. The Taliban has now been turned into a terrorist group because they have embraced the tactics of the jihadists. The Pustun may not be all Taliban but they have sympathy with the religious views, this is why you will not change their thinking and certainly not by "protecting" them from their own people. You cannot protect a Muslim from Islam, it is an absurd idea but that is in fact what is being tried in Afghanistan.
The US losses nothing but international "prestige" by leaving Afghanistan. The Afghan people will cheer for a day and go back to their sixth rate lives in a tenth rate country. In fifty years they may once again begin to emerge but only if they are left alone to work it out for themselves and not spend another generation fighting.
My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy
I have laid this falsehood to rest more than once already on these boards. To refresh your memory (#24 and #26 ) .Quote:
The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them. Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-392462-3.html
Tomorrow is the 438th anniversary of the naval battle of Lepanto. It was the last major battle between navies using oared vessels. This was an epoch sea change battle won by a European coalition primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria ,against the Ottomans that stemmed the advance of the Ottomans and their goal of subjugating the West into the Ummah. You will note that there was no US policy to use as a casus belli nor was there any Israel. Nor have the jihadists ever needed a pretext beyond the words of the prophet and his succeeding kindred of Cain to attack the infidel.Quote:
My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM. |