[Choux]

American troops are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, and one has to wonder, what could have happened if Bush had finished a quality job in Afghanistan using our forces.

For, you see, Pakistan, Afghanistan's neighbor, is under attack by militant Islamists; the government of Musharaff has its back against the wall. Of course, we all know that Pakistan has operational nuclear weapons.

What if? What if Bush had the troops stay in Afghanistan and continued searching for bin Laden... cleaned up the western border...

Pakistan has operational nuclear weapons...

[Fr_Chuck]

The other political side would be complaining that he did nothing in Iraq.
Either party never has a win/win, no matter what the person in charge does, the other side will use it against them

[tomder55]

Choux

We would still be in Afghanistan regardless.

The left would be bleating about quagmire there instead of Iraq. They would be complaining about the investment there instead of the investment in Iraq. They would say our presence there has caused a civil war between Afghans. They would make the false claim that you just made that there is a connection between our presence in Afghanistan and the militant threat in Pakistan ;even knowing that it was forces in Pakistan that created the Taliban. They would be complaining of "nation building " and would call for us to leave and let the Afghans sort things out themselves.

[Dark_crow]

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love—they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

Harry Lime

The Third Man :D :D :D :D

[Choux]

Pakistan is going down guys... we are stretched extremely thin, why we have National Guards from various states in Iraq!!

There is nothing we can do about Pakistan going down... then, militants would have control of NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Too bad Bush LIED about Iraq having nuclear weapons... and sold a war to Congress and the American People... OUR REAL WAR WAS ALWAYS IN AFGHANISTAN. NEAR NUCLEAR ARMED PAKISTAN.

GREAT SHAME!!

[Dark_crow]

Coalition forces practice crisis response - UPI.com

Of course there will be chaos, everyone know it's likely… Coalition forces practice crisis response.

A large-scale exercise by U.S.-led coalition forces is under way in Bahrain, designed to prepare for handling a regional crisis.

A U.S. Naval Forces Central Command release said Sunday U.S. and coalition forces were working together on the exercise so they would be able to support humanitarian efforts in the Middle East while still engaging in combat operations.

U.S. Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer Brian Simon said the multi-stage exercise, which began in September, was critical for future operations in the region.

"We're bringing together coalition forces and many different components to make one cohesive unit to get something done that's very important for the region," the USS Wasp combat cargo officer said.

[ETWolverine]

American troops are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, and one has to wonder, what could have happened if Bush had finished a quality job in Afghanistan using our forces.

For, you see, Pakistan, Afghanistan's neighbor, is under attack by militant Islamists; the government of Musharaff has its back against the wall. Of course, we all know that Pakistan has operational nuclear weapons.

What if?? What if Bush had the troops stay in Afghanistan and continued searching for bin Laden....cleaned up the western border....

Pakistan has operational nuclear weapons....

Leaving aside the fact that you stated the entire post twice...

First of all, what "quagmire" are you talking about. Even the Dem talking heads have stopped applying that word to Iraq because it has turned out to be untrue.

Second, what makes you think that our troops can't walk and chew gum at the same time? What makes you think that our military can't handle two tasks at one time. Having troops in Iraq doesn't preclude having them in Afghanistan too. You seem to underestimate the capabilities of our troops.

We have a military that is 1.4 million strong. We have about 225,000 or so in Afghanistan and Iraq together. That leaves almost 1.2 million still available for other operations, or to increase forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan if needed. And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that our forces there are trying to avoid civilian casualties. If they instead decided to carpet bomb entire areas for a few weeks, without regard to civilian casualties, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be very different, wouldn't they? We have the military strength to completely destroy the enemy in a couple of weeks if we so choose. Casualties would be high, but hey, ce est lavie.

So in fact, the so-called blunder that you speak of, which has supposedly drawn down on the bulk of our military strength and left us unable to deal with Pakistan (or Iran) is pure nonsense, and has no basis in fact. It isn't a quagmire, and it hasn't hurt our ability to respond to other situations militarily.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Pakistan is going down guys....we are stretched extremely thin, why we have National Guards from various states in Iraq!!!

There is nothing we can do about Pakistan going down....then, militants would have control of NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Too bad Bush LIED about Iraq having nuclear weapons.....and sold a war to Congress and the American People.....OUR REAL WAR WAS ALWAYS IN AFGHANISTAN. NEAR NUCLEAR ARMED PAKISTAN.

GREAT SHAME!!!!

What's with all the fear-mongering?