[excon]

Hello:

I am a Vietnam war veteran. I was a supporter of that war until one serendipitous moment in 1968. I was watching the news one night. First they showed the body count. Then they nonchalantly discussed the SHAPE of the table they were going to sit it... whilst my brothers were being slaughtered..

It was one of those life changing moments for me... I IMMEDIATELY became rabidly anti-war, even though I, myself, was a veteran of that war.

I had another one of those moments today... On ALL the Sunday morning news shows, the pundits wondered whether our fighting men and women should stay in Afghanistan... They wondered what there was to win? Then on This Week, they told us that 14 of our young people gave their lives on the battlefield... while pinched nosed people, again pondered inanity.

Time to go.

excon

[inthebox]

Thanks for your service EX, I agree.


G&P

[Catsmine]

Central America here, Ex, but I understand your feelings. I truly do. I do think, however, that we need to accomplish something while we're there, or our brothers (and sisters) sacrifice will be wasted.

[jmjoseph]

If you compare the attitude of Americans during WWII, and all of the conflicts since, it shames me to no end. We, Americans, should be ashamed of the large percentage of arrogant, selfish, non-appreciative, citizens that call themselves patriotic.

Every day, men and women all over the world, away from their loved ones, risk their lives to protect our freedom. The very freedom that our ancestor's died for. The founding fathers would ship them all to an island somewhere if it happened back then.

How dare people take for granted the death of ONE soldier, much less thousands? During WWII, we rationed, banned, worked, did without, whatever it took to win the war effort, and protect our country, and the world, from aggressors. If another world war were to happen today, what would be the collective attitude?

Every day, in the news, people complain about something that's wrong with this country. I say, leave. That's right, leave if you don't like it. This is absolutely the best country in the world( sorry to all the others), I don't complain about my atxes, my income, or our government as a whole. Because I love this country with all my heart. And I will until the day I die. There is an American flag on our house today, and will be one there until I'm gone. And I hope I instill the same patriotic attitude in my two young sons.

GOD bless America, and may GOD bless all the soldiers that protect her.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving the ultimate sacrifice.

Blood and sweat made this country, and blood and sweat will keep her free.

[paraclete]

If you compare the attitude of Americans during WWII, and all of the conflicts since, it shames me to no end. We, Americans, should be ashamed of the large percentage of arrogant, selfish, non-appreciative, citizens that call themselves patriotic.

Every day, men and women all over the world, away from their loved ones, risk their lives to protect our freedom. The very freedom that our ancestor's died for. The founding fathers would ship them all to an island somewhere if it happened back then.

How dare people take for granted the death of ONE soldier, much less thousands? During WWII, we rationed, banned, worked, did without, whatever it took to win the war effort, and protect our country, and the world, from aggressors. If another world war were to happen today, what would be the collective attitude?

Every day, in the news, people complain about something that's wrong with this country. I say, leave. That's right, leave if you don't like it. This is absolutely the best country in the world( sorry to all the others), I don't complain about my atxes, my income, or our government as a whole. Because I love this country with all my heart. And I will until the day I die. There is an American flag on our house today, and will be one there until I'm gone. And I hope I instill the same patriotic attitude to my two young sons.

Hi Joseph even though I'm not from your country I agree with you, There is a sacrifice being made in Afghanistan. I'm unsure that the sacrifice will yield the desired result to free the world of the tyranny of terrorism, or to create a fair society for the Afghans, but the sacrifices being made by troops of many nations there should not be treated lightly and routinely

[Wondergirl]

Afghanistan is not a "normal" country with a central government and a national army. It's made up of desert tribes that don't even get along with each other. Their warfare is done with booby traps and other deviousnesses. How can we fight under such conditions? We end up killing innocents, not the instigators. There is little to accomplish, and why sacrifice even more of our troops? Staying there will not justify earlier sacrifices.

I say let's leave.

[paraclete]

Afghanistan is not a "normal" country with a central government and a national army. It's made up of desert tribes that don't even get along with each other. Their warfare is done with booby traps and other deviousnesses. How can we fight under such conditions? We end up killing innocents, not the instigators. There is little to accomplish, and why sacrifice even more of our troops? Staying there will not justify earlier sacrifices.

I say let's leave.

I agree, every army that entered Afghanistan was ultimately defeated. There is no point to fighting this primitive people. The land is worthless, the country morally bankrupt, they are better left to themselves. They have the ability to survive in this hostile place, let them.

I cannot help but think there must be an ulterior motive to fighting this war. It really can't be about chasing a few terrorists around the Hindu Kush. Have you noticed that neither of Afghanistan's neighbours have shown interest in taking advantage of the disarray. That should tell you something, the presence of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan must make Iran nervous, paranoid even.

[Catsmine]

, the presence of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan must make Iran nervous, paranoid even.

You begin to see the strategy. I just wish more American politicians did.

[paraclete]

You begin to see the strategy. I just wish more American politicians did.

I saw the strategy a long time ago, but it is poor strategy, brinkmanship.

[tomder55]

The election in Afghanistan is proving the be an embarrassment ;and efforts at democratization seems futile in the near future... and no one wants the long term comittment needed to see that happen anyway. . Wondergirl is right about the tribal makeup of the country. I think it's time for them to conduct a loya jirga to select a leader . I think the best we can hope for is a loose confederation of tribes managing a central government .

I do not see it in anyone's interest to leave the country to the likes of the Taliban .No one wants al Qaeda to have sanctuary and a base to plan international jihadi war . Nor do I think it wise to leave because the strategic implications of a probable failed Pakistan state if we leave . The Obama administration correctly calls the conflict AfPak because the security issue involved is NOT contained to simply the geographic Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders and it is in our interest to help them in that battle .

The logistics makes it difficult to maintain a huge presence there ;but there are enemies located there that need to be engaged.The best I can make of the current military policy is to do limitted offensive efforts ,and otherwise hold on until a better political situation emerges. The requests for more troops by the commanders in an attempt to duplicate the Iraq surge should be put on hold until at least the President can articulate a strategic plan for the theater . Based on yesterday's interviews I don't think he can do that yet.

Also; I truly think this battle is the nail in the coffin for NATO.. They have failed to demonstrate a usefulness beyond their common defense of continental Europe and their efforts in Afghanistan have mostly been feckless . President Obama campaigned on the position that the US alienated Europe ;especially France and Germany during the Bush years. He said IRAQ=BAD WAR ;and AFGHANISTAN=GOOD WAR .
He counted on the premise that by the sheer force of his personality he could get them to commit to the effort in Afghanistan.
He has generally been rebuffed . President Bush realized he'd get nowhere begging these nations to contribute .But Obama counted on it. They have not delivered.

[ETWolverine]

Last week, Excon, you pointed to the fact that Frank Rich and Robert Gates were saying that we should get out of Afghanistan as evidence that the war in Afghanistan is lost.

At that time, I pointed out to you the fact that we could win in Afghanistan if we were willing to commit the appropriate force levels and loosen the ROE to an appropriate level. Then we could commit to a strategy that was similar to the one that worked in Iraq. You argued that you would believe the military commanders before you believed me.

Well, yesterday General Stanley McChrystal's report to Gates became public. Turns out that McChrystal, who is the current commanding officer of US Forces in Afghanistan... in other words he is THE military commander on the ground... has the same idea that I put forward. He wants more troops and he wants to conduct the war as it SHOULD be fought. And Obama is, to use military parlance, c*ck-blocking him on it.

So... who do you believe... me and the military commander on the ground? Or the politicians?

You'll probably believe the politicians... because it's about politics for you, not whether the war can actually be won or whether the job can be and should be accomplished. It's not about military realities, it's about your personal belief that war, by its very nature, must be wrong.

There ARE some wars worth fighting. There are wars that can be won, and won decisively. This happens to be one of them... if you'll get out of the way and let the soldiers do their jobs properly.

But that ain't going to happen, is it?

Elliot

[paraclete]

I do not see it in anyone's interest to leave the country to the likes of the Taliban .No one wants al Qaeda to have sanctuary and a base to plan international jihadi war . Nor do I think it wise to leave because the strategic implications of a probable failed Pakistan state if we leave .
.

Tom Al Qaeda has a santuary elsewhere, deprived of Afghanistan they will just surface in Somalia or Sudan. Pakistan is less likely to fail if it doesn't have to support the US war effort in Afghanistan by fighting its own people.

The idea that Pakistan is a failed state is incorrect, it is 3rd world with great potential, but it cannot develop whilst it has this instability on its borders and it has to put so much of its efforts into war.

The logistics makes it difficult to maintain a huge presence there ;but there are enemies located there that need to be engaged. .

The logistics make defeat probable and the larger the US contingent the greater number or targets. This cannot be fought as a conventional war. The tactics used by the Taliban were honed against the Russians. Unless the US can win the hearts and minds of the people they are wasting their time. Ethnically they are the wrong people to be fighting there, Religiously they are the wrong people to be fighting there. The Taliban are fighting because there is an invader in their land, a concept the US is blind to, but the Taliban are fighting the infidel

Also; I truely think this battle is the nail in the coffin for NATO ..They have failed to demonstrate a usefulness beyond their common defense of continental Europe and their efforts in Afghanistan have mostly been feckless .

There is no good war, this one started as righteous, but eight years on one has to ask why bother and what has been really achieved. Afghanistan has undeveloped oil and gas so I expect the US interest extends beyond Al Qaeda. NATO exists as a check to the Russians and it carries out that role well. NATO is just a US proxy and the European heart really isn't in it, after all only Britain and Spain have been attacked by Al Qaeda. The US has a great need to pull back from these offshore engagements and get its house in order and remove the "at the gates" pressure on Iran.

[inthebox]

Last week, Excon, you pointed to the fact that Frank Rich and Robert Gates were saying that we should get out of Afghanistan as evidence that the war in Afghanistan is lost.

At that time, I pointed out to you the fact that we could win in Afghanistan if we were willing to commit the appropriate force levels and loosen the ROE to an appropriate level. Then we could commit to a strategy that was similar to the one that worked in Iraq. You argued that you would believe the military commanders before you believed me.

Well, yesterday General Stanley McChrystal's report to Gates became public. Turns out that McChrystal, who is the current commanding officer of US Forces in Afghanistan... in other words he is THE military commander on the ground... has the same idea that I put forward. He wants more troops and he wants to conduct the war as it SHOULD be fought. And Obama is, to use military parlance, c*ck-blocking him on it.

So... who do you believe... me and the military commander on the ground? Or the politicians?

You'll probably believe the politicians... because it's about politics for you, not whether the war can actually be won or whether the job can be and should be accomplished. It's not about military realities, it's about your personal belief that war, by its very nature, must be wrong.

There ARE some wars worth fighting. There are wars that can be won, and won decisively. This happens to be one of them... if you'll get out of the way and let the soldiers do their jobs properly.

But that ain't going to happen, is it?

Elliot

Commentary: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life | McClatchy

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have broad international support?


Those questions weren't asked and answered before we invaded Afghanistan late in 2001, and by the time we invaded Iraq early in 2003, then-defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was declaring the Powell doctrine "outmoded" as he ran premature victory laps around a fleeting success in Afghanistan

I don't think all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered now?




George Will : In Afghanistan, Knowing When to Stop - Townhall.com

Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and "'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime

Hmm, is it cold in H-ll? Liberal and conservative basically agreeing in this case? ;)


G&P

[tomder55]

When speaking about Vietnam comparisons I'm surprised the obvious one has been ignored... the comparison of the corrupt Diem brothers to the Karzai brothers. Ngo Dinh Diem was supposedly the stabilizing force against Ho ;the puppet of China and Russia. But by the fall of 1963 Kennedy decided that the Diems were liabilities and Ngo Dinh Diem was wacked in a CIA orchestrated coup .Nguyen Van Thieu became the new leader backed by the S Vietnam army and the United States.

Karzai currently is the Afghan leader propped up by the US. The recent elections were a complete fraud and an embarrassment to the US . By all accounts Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's former foreign minister was leading in the polls before the election by wide margins. Yet Karzai claimed a huge victory .

It's hard to determine if Karzai is the Obama administration's Diem or Thieu .I say that because we have not done enough to condemn the Karzai conduct in the elections.

Karzai runs Kabul with US protection and little else. His brother Ahmed Wali Karzai rules Kandahar province in the south along with the drug trafficking infrastructure in that region. So long as they remain the effort in Afghanistan is compromised because their actions create a cynicism that only benefits the Taliban.
So long as we back Karzai we make a mockery of our claim to seek a democratic Afghanistan.

[tomder55]

Tom Al Qaeda has a santuary elsewhere, deprived of Afghanistan they will just surface in Somalia or Sudan. Pakistan is less likely to fail if it doesn't have to support the US war effort in Afghanistan by fighting its own people.

I completely disagree. AQ and Taliban leaders are being picked off . Without our efforts I believe they will quickly move on Islamabad .

Unless the US can win the hearts and minds of the people they are wasting their time.

On this we agree . That's why I posted above about the wrongness of continuing our support for Karzai.

Afghanistan has undeveloped oil and gas so I expect the US interest extends beyond Al Qaeda.

Tin foil hat time. The closest I've heard to this theory is a vague unconfirmed reference to Karzai's alleged consulatation work for Unocol. Unocal and Karzai have denied any such relationship . There was talk about a pipeline going through Afghanistan... but that has more to do with Caspian sea reserves than any I've heard of in Afghanistan.

[excon]

So... who do you believe... me and the military commander on the ground? Or the politicians?

Hello Elliot:

I believe ME.

It's MY view, that the US can NEVER be defeated by a foreign army because of WHO WE ARE. We're a snarly lot. We have guns. We LIKE our freedom. We AIN'T going to give up. We ARE going to form insurgencies, and we'll fight 'em to the last man. If they want to beat us, it's going to take ONE soldier to watch EACH citizen, and I don't think ANY army has enough soldiers to do that...

Afghanistan is a LOT like us in that regard, for completely different reasons, of course... But, the reasons don't change anything on the ground. It's going to take ONE of our soldiers to watch EACH one of them, and we ain't got that many.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Commentary: Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life | McClatchy

I don't think all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered now?

George Will : In Afghanistan, Knowing When to Stop - Townhall.com


Hmm, is it cold in H-ll? Liberal and conservative basically agreeing in this case? ;)

G&P

Here are my responses to the questions.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Considering that the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks came through Afghanistan and used Afghanistan as a staging point, I'd say that we have a strong national security interest in making sure that Afghanistan is under control. That is, in fact, why Obama said during 2007 and 2008 that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the war we "should" be fighting... the "right" war, as opposed to Iraq, which he called the "wrong" war. Even those on the left seem to agree on that point... or they did when it was a convenient talking point to use against "Bush's War in Iraq".


2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

Yes. The clear, attainable objective is to beat the crap out of the Taliban and kill them so that they can no longer mount a credible threat to the existence of the legitimate and legitimately-elected government of Afghanistan. The secondary objective is to help that government become self-sufficient so that they can deal with the threat themselves. Both of these goals are very attainable, given the right resources, some time and by leaving the soldiers alone to do their jobs.

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Again, the answer is yes. Unfortunately, that analysis has been ignored, and our political leadership is draging its feet. THAT is what is causing the casualty rates to be as high as they are in Afghanistan. If they would get their collective thumbs out of their butts and commit to fighting the war as it SHOULD be fought, casualties would be lower, the war would conclude faster and the enemy ould no longer be a threat. It does no good to analyze the costs and risks of the war if you are going to ignore the results of that analysis and use the WORST possible strategy to fight that war.

4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?

Gee, I don't know... have we tried to make peace with the murdering, raping, stealing, kleptocratic Mullahs of Afghanistan who abuse their own women and murder people of different faiths and religious factions as a matter of course and financially and materially support terrorism?

There are SOME people we shouldn't be trying to make peace with.

Nevertheless, between when the Taliban came into power and 2001, we did indeed try to deal with them peacefully and as equals. They were having none of it, and instead supported our enemies that killed 3,000 of our people in cold blood. At that point, trying to use non-violent means to keep the USA safe went right out the window.

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Yep. We will exit when the war is over.

Do you have an exit strategy for your job? Or do you go back to work every day, doing the same thing over and over again? What makes people think that we're supposed to have an "exit strategy" that is anything short of complete victory? Where did this idea come from? It isn't a MILITARY concept, that's for sure.

I wonder if Alexander the Great or Napoleon, or Attilla the Hun ever worried about exit strategies. Probably not... they were more interested in WINNING THE WAR!!

6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Yep. When the enemy is dead, the consequences will be a free Afghanistan, and a USA that has one less threat to worry about from the Taliban.

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

It was until we came up with this Vietnam-era strategy for handling the war instead of actually FIGHTING TO WIN. When we went into Afghanistan, support for the war was over 80%. Even when support for the Iraq war was at an all-time low, there was still majority support for the war in Afghanistan. Even Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, calling it the "right" war, compared to Iraq, which he called the "wrong" war. Only after the American people saw how poorly the war is being handled by our political leaders did support for the war drop. Change the strategy and the support will come back as it did in Iraq after the troop surge.

8. Do we have broad international support?

Do we care? Why? Are we supposed to determine our national security interests based on what others think? Do those other bodies have our best interests at heart?

Nevertheless, here is the list of nations that have or had troops in Afghanistan:

Australia
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France (like they matter)
Germany
Hungary
India
Italy (not a great military history there, but at least they're not French)
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zeland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
USA

In addition, Colombia has agreed to send some troops over during 2009.

22 countries... plus the USA. Does that constitute a broad enough coalition?

I think that all 8 questions can be satisfactorily answered.

Now... can we just listen to the commander on the ground and get the hell out of the way of the people actually trying to fight the war, please?

Elliot

[tomder55]

If McCrystal's memo went through the chain of command then it most likely is approved and supported by Gen. Petraeus and Joint Chief Chair U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen .
The fact that it ended up being leaked to Bob Woodward indicates a possible split between the President and his commanders. Should be interesting to see where this goes .

[excon]

The fact that it ended up being leaked to Bob Woodward indicates a possible split between the President and his commanders. Should be interesting to see where this goes .

Hello again, tom:

The commanders want to WIN. We want commanders who want to do that... But, commanders are soldiers. Their job is war. Our president is Commander-In-Chief. HIS job is politics. We WANT presidents to do that. That's why the founders arranged things like they did..

I'm continually amazed at how smart those guys were.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

I believe ME.

It's MY view, that the US can NEVER be defeated by a foreign army because of WHO WE ARE. We're a snarly lot. We have guns. We LIKE our freedom. We AIN'T gonna give up. We ARE gonna form insurgencies, and we'll fight 'em to the last man. If they wanna beat us, it's gonna take ONE soldier to watch EACH citizen, and I don't think ANY army has enough soldiers to do that...

Afghanistan is a LOT like us in that regard, for completely different reasons, of course... But, the reasons don't change anything on the ground. It's gonna take ONE of our soldiers to watch EACH one of them, and we ain't got that many.

excon

Oh... I get it... it's OK to let the USA get attacked on our own land because the enemy can't beat us anyway. Avoiding civilian casualties by making sure those attacks never take place by killing the enemy in HIS home isn't really something we should try to do.

Tell that to the families of 3,000 dead people on September 11, 2001. I'm pretty sure that they would have preferred NOT to take the hit just to prove that we could survive it... that we had taken out the enemy before they came here.

And what makes you so sure that we're unbeatable? We're only unbeatable if the 2nd Amendment remains unmolested and guns remain legal for everyone to own... which most certainly is NOT going to be the case under the tofu-eating Lib Congress we currently have. You want fighting Americans who aren't going to knuck under? Then they have to have the tools to fight with. And Obama ain't going to let them have those tools. Which means we ARE beatable.

Don't be so sure about our invincibility, Excon. A couple of nukes in major cities that kill a quarter million people in a single shot will change the equation rather quickly... which is why we need to keep the SOBs fighting OVER THERE instead of letting them get HERE.

If you think Americans can't stomach a war in Afghanistan with 1,400 casualties, how do you think they'll react to 250,000 dead in an instant in a major city, with hundreds of thousands more dying from radiation sickness over the next 6 months? And the threat of MORE bombs going off at any moment.

Frankly, if it was Israel, we'd see the biggest baddest nastiest fight we'd ever dream of as the Israelis kicked the @sses of every Arab country in the region. But with the tofu-eating American public that demands an accounting of every single casualty and cares more for the rights of terrorists than their own soldiers..

Sorry, excon... I used to think we were unbeatable too. And our MILITARY still is. But the average American? Sheeple, the whole lot of them. Which is why we have to rely on the military to do the job FOR us BEFORE the enemy gets here.

Elliot