Ask Me Help Desk - Afghanistan

Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort .

Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all of our supplies flow either through or over Pakistan.40 percent of the fuel shipped to U.S. forces comes directly from Pakistani refineries.

How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.

I have my thoughts on the subject but I'd like to hear yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.

Hello tom:

Personally, I don't think we need LONG term operations. Maybe we should just bring 'em home and let their mamma's feed them.

Why not? Are you going to tell me that we need 'em?? For what?? So they can let Ben Laden go again, and maybe shoot another football player and lie about it??

Or, maybe we can install another puppet dictator in Pakistan when our current one runs afoul of his own people. We're good at that. Yeah, that's how you spread democracy - install a tyrant! The people in the world love us for that……

You think you need to figure out the teeny logistical stuff. I guess that allows you to MISS the big picture. Of course, Bush lost the big picture years ago, so it's not surprising you have too.

excon

Tom- I'm on my way out the door for work. Just curious what purpose did the Democrats cite for troop movement? Personally at this point since OBL long escaped, any future military actions should come against Iran. They are the ones with the big mouthed dictator wanting to annihilate Americans and Jews from the planet. Otherwise the one thing I need addressed is what it will take for a reduction in oil prices. Republican candidate Romney said we are least twenty years away from breaking away from being dependent on other nations for oil. If the Democrats can prove that going to Afghanistan is good for lowering prices at the pump, I might take them seriously.

Bobby

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

If the Democrats can prove that going to Afghanistan is good for lowering prices at the pump, I might take them seriously.

Hello Bobby:

The PUMP?? Da stinkin PUMP?? Bobby! You want the Dems to fix what Bush broke, and it's THEIR seriousness you doubt??

I suppose you took Bush seriously, who is an oilman after all, when he said that going to Iraq would guarantee us a cheap supply of oil.

Plus, you're right about the Republicans. War with Iran'll REALLY bring down the price of crude. Bwa, ha ha.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

tomder55 agrees: For what it's worth . I don't think we need to redeploy large numbers to Afghanistan either . It's the Dems obsessed with OBL not me. But my question would equally apply to the NATO forces and US troops currently there.

Hello again, tom:

If you're suggesting that Bush didn't learn any lessons from the Soviet Unions history in Afghanistan, then I absolutely agree.

Upon second thought, I think I was being TOO kind. Bush COULDN'T have learned any history about Afghanistan, because I'm also absolutely certain that he didn't bother to check.

excon

I have not mentioned President Bush at all. Are you suggesting that we should not have gotten into Afghanistan ?

By the way ;I'd say the scenario I mentioned is more in line with the British experiences in Afghanistan and their reliance of a supply line through the Kyber Pass.

First, there is no tactical or strategic benefit to moving 150,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Second, Tom is right, there would be no way to supply troops in Afghanistan without Pakistani support. Oh, we could probably do it by flying over Uzbekistan which has US bases and is a friendly nation, but that's a very small fix for a very big problem. We don't have the infrastructure in Uzbekistan to supply that many troops in Afghanistan. In Pakistan we do. And coming in from the north instead of the south would be problematic and much more costly. It could be done, but why would we want to?

Elliot

Bobby . When exploration was stalled by the opposition at ANWR one of the lines was that we would not begin to see the benefit for 6 or more years . That was 6 years ago.

I think the days of cheap oil are over . We will adapt despite the opposition to almost all the alternatives to petroleum .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Bobby:

The PUMP??? Da stinkin PUMP???? Bobby! You want the Dems to fix what Bush broke, and it's THEIR seriousness you doubt????

I suppose you took Bush seriously, who is an oilman afterall, when he said that going to Iraq would guarantee us a cheap supply of oil.

Plus, you're right about the Republicans. War with Iran'll REALLY bring down the price of crude. Bwa, ha ha.

excon

Excon, I don't know where you have been, but Bush is the only guy in town who HASN'T mentioned oil availability and oil prices as a reason for going to war against Saddam or Ahmadinejad. It's the DEMS who keep saying that Bush went to war for oil. Bush has never mentioned oil prices as a reason for going to war. Neither have the Republicans. That's a liberal position.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Bush has never mentioned oil prices as a reason for going to war. Neither have the Republicans. That's a liberal position.

Hello El:

I love stirring you guys up. But, the truth hurts...

So, oil had nothing to do with it even though those words may not have passed his lips??

Gosh, El. I really think it did.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort .

Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all of our supplies flow either through or over Pakistan.40 percent of the fuel shipped to U.S. forces comes directly from Pakistani refineries.

How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.

I have my thoughts on the subject but I'd like to hear yours.

“Although supplies through Pakistan were not currently affected, Morrell said, "we are not taking it for granted. There are efforts underway right now to figure out contingency supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan if it becomes necessary."

In Islamabad, Pakistan's director-general of military operations, Lt.-Gen. Ahmad Shujaa Pasha told reporters that the state of emergency made no difference one way or another to the war against terrorism.

He vowed that the army would bring stability back to Swat within six weeks.”

This is just another case of Idealism in action; the sacrifice of the pragmatic for a principle.

Just as our government has had to do on so many occasions, we need to stay the course with Musharraf, not because it is the ‘Good’ thing to do, but rather the ‘Right’ thing to do.

Pakistan Army Says Anti-Terror Campaign Not Affected by Emergency -- 11/15/2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

This is just another case of Idealism in action; the sacrifice of the pragmatic for a principle.

Hello DC:

The principle being what?? That even though we mouth the words about supporting democracy and freedom in the world, we support a despot??

And you think the world is fooled??

There's only one group of people in the world who are being fooled - and they are us.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon, I don't know where you have been, but Bush is the only guy in town who HASN'T mentioned oil availability and oil prices as a reason for going to war against Saddam or Ahmadinejad. It's the DEMS who keep saying that Bush went to war for oil. Bush has never mentioned oil prices as a reason for going to war. Neither have the Republicans. That's a liberal position.

Elliot

Why let a fact get in the way of a good conspiracy? In all fairness though, he did mention oil in 2005:

Quote:

If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.

But leave it to the left to profoundly misinterpret that:

Quote:

in comments yesterday at California’s North Island Naval Air Station, Bush rolled out a new rationale for why we should stay in Iraq

To which the moonbats left these comments:

Quote:

1. That’s why he went there! He isn’t known to be one to change his mind, as if he had one to change. Daddy won’t let him leave anyway; he can go AWOL from the National Guard but not from Uncle .

Comment by Clyde the Ripper — August 31, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

2. The prosecutions rests its case.

Comment by Ohioan — August 31, 2005 @ 1:43 pm

3. There is nothing like stating the obvious.

Comment by Nick Caine — August 31, 2005 @ 1:45 pm

4. Duh. Most of us read between the lines and saw that as soon as he started mentioning Iraq & Al Quada in the same sentence.

Let’s see, no WMD, no nukes, no biliogical/chemical weapons and we end up with a theocracy and the oil companies get oil contracts. Yea, that’s bushco to a T.

Comment by kindness — August 31, 2005 @ 1:46 pm

5. bushie sounds a litte ‘desperate’….how about the man who was strip searched at the airport because security saw a ‘NO OIL FOR BLOOD’ bumper sticker on his car.

Comment by wisedup — August 31, 2005 @ 1:47 pm

6. How many terrorist attacks per gallon does your car get?

Comment by cynical ex-hippie — August 31, 2005 @ 1:48 pm

7. SURELY we’d buy oil from the “terrists” for the right price. It’s not like that’s a new policy.

Comment by Brian — August 31, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

8. “..bin Laden gain control of Iraq..”

Who is he still trying to BS?

Comment by Darth Filibustrous — August 31, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

9. What a massive disconnect. Does Bush really think people didn’t know he went over there for the oil? He wants to seize the oil fields for HIS OWN ambitions. And really, he’s the greatest creator of terrorists in the world, and he’s given them quite the training ground in Iraq. No points for honesty this far into the war.

Comment by Zookeeper — August 31, 2005 @ 1:54 pm

10. Where are the trolls? Haven’t you received your instructions yet?

Here’s one to get you started. “Going to war with Iraq was never about oil, but because of WMD’s and the imminent threat that they posed to the United States of America.” “We were fighting them there, so we wouldn’t have to fight them here.”
“Saddam Hussein and Iraq broke UN resolutions.” “George W. Bush isn’t a whore to the oil companies of America.” “It’s all Clinton’s fault.”

George strummed while Iraq burned and America flooded. And then went to play a nice round of golf. In a much nicer climate, than some poor Americans were suffering, at the time.

Comment by Nick Caine — August 31, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

11. Hey yeah, that was a nice country fiddle Bush had there.

Karl Rove likes pictures with symbolism.

Comment by cynical ex-hippie — August 31, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

12. Because of the invasion, thousands of tons of munitions have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists. Security forces are unable to deal with the daily expansion of terrorist activity. It’s not a matter of Iraq becoming a future haven for the followers of Zarqawi and bin Laden, it already is!

Comment by Scott — August 31, 2005 @ 2:05 pm

13. ONE WORD IMPEACH

Comment by thot's — August 31, 2005 @ 2:06 pm

14. Bin Laden controlling Iraqi oil fields? To fund their ambitions? What?? You mean Bush will only buy oil from friends? Wait, the bin Ladens invested in the Carlyle Group alongside Bush the Smarter. The bin Ladens are Bush family friends. Bush the Stupid’s concern about who controls the fields just doesn’t make sense.

Impeach Bush now! And make sure there’s a paper trail come next election.

Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — August 31, 2005 @ 2:14 pm

Let's see, he mentioned democracy, freedom, a "murderous ideology," "a test of American credibility and resolve," intimidation, terrorists, "totalitarian ideologies," "the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole," 9/11, responsibilities, "murderous regimes," insurgents, "a brutal campaign of terror," killing "innocent men and women and children" and "that when America gives its word, America keeps its word" - among other things.

The only thing the left got out of that was 'oil.'

Here are a couple of quotes from Barak Obama's National Security speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center .

Quote:

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

BarackObama.com | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Senator Obama Delivers Address on National Security

I do not think his policy is viable . But he should be taking a fresh look at former Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld's thoughts on transformation of the military .Victory there requires lighter forces and unconventional means . President Bush and Rumsfeld realized this from the beginning . That is why there wasn't a massive presence .That is why we let the Northern Alliance do the bulk of the fighting during OEF. That is why our special forces were riding horses into battle . The whole line that "we took our eyes off the prize" is baloney .

Bobby is right . Taking on Iran would open up a direct supply route to Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

The principle being what???? That even though we mouth the words about supporting democracy and freedom in the world, we support a despot????

And you think the world is fooled????

There's only one group of people in the world who are being fooled - and they are us.

excon

Perhaps if you had read further you would not need to ask the question…”Just as our government has had to do on so many occasions, we need to stay the course with Musharraf, not because it is the ‘Good’ thing to do, but rather the ‘Right’ thing to do.”

So what am I trying to hide?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Why let a fact get in the way of a good conspiracy? In all fairness though, he did mention oil in 2005:But leave it to the left to profoundly misinterpret that:

Hello Steve:

"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

I don't know. Sounds to me like he's saying we better grab it first, and they made us do it.

Yeah, I've heard that kind of spin before. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Perhaps if you had read further you would not need to ask the question…”Just as our government has had to do on so many occasions, we need to stay the course with Musharraf, not because it is the 'Good' thing to do, but rather the 'Right' thing to do.” So, what am I hiding?

Hello again, DC:

I found NO difference between the sentences. Doing a thing because it's the RIGHT thing to do, is the SAME thing as doing it for a principle?

I don't think you're hiding a thing. You believe the Bush schtick. I don't.

excon

Steve,

Bush mentioned seizure of the oil fields by terrorists as a strategic result of pulling out of Iraq, not as a justification for having gone there in the first place. He listed that among the many other strategic results of a pullout. But you are right... all the Libs got out of what he said is "oil".

The Libs are like a Beavis and Butthead cartoon...

Butthead: "Heh heh... he said the word 'oil'..."
Beavis: "Sheah heh heh...That Bush is such a buttmunch..."

Geeze, they really need to grow up.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

I found NO difference between the sentences. Doing a thing because it's the RIGHT thing to do, is the SAME thing as doing it for a principle?

I don't think you're hiding a thing. You believe the Bush schtick. I don't.

excon

Sorry you misunderstand what I said, but I can’t help you. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am and I don’t make room for word games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Sorry you misunderstand what I said, but I can’t help you. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am and I don’t make room for word games.

Hello again, DC:

That might all go away if you understood the language better. But, I'll try to work with you in any case.

excon