[excon]

Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't going to win in Afghanistan.

excon

[tomder55]

I have asked here and elsewhere what the strategic value of Afghanistan is and have not gotten satisfactory answers .

In Obama's simpleton rhetoric Iraq =bad and Afghanistan =good. The logical next step in the strategy being employed there is a request for more troops . It will be interesting to see if Congress complies.

There is no graceful exit now that it appears that Karzai made an attempt to steal the elections ala the Mahdi-hatter's methods. Viceroy Richard Holbrooke had a screaming match with Karzai over the elections that was widely covered around the world . If Karzai remains in power he will have lost what little credibilty he has left.
Holbrooke told Karzai to change the magnitude of his fraud to ensure a 2nd round of elections .

Karzai's base of support is Pashtuns . He has no credibility at all with the Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek clans ;and frankly the only people we owe any loyalty to are those groups that made up the Northern Alliance.

Unlike in Iraq ; tribal factions have not reorganized into political coalitions . This would be a basic need to continue any democratization efforts.

Our mission in Afghanistan was to prevent AQ from using it as a base of operations to train and attack the west . They have been driven out of Afghanistan and have been largely defeated wherever they pop their head out of their mole holes.
We can continue to wage our war on jihadistan without any more attempts to change the way Afghan rules itself .

However ; we are still doing significant damage to AQ and Taliban leadership with drone strikes and the war is clearly not an issue of Afghanistan alone . It is in fact an AfPaki war . It is in our interest to prevent Pakistan and their nukes from falling to the Taliban .For that reason I would not favor an increase in troops strength to defend the Karzi regime ,but for now I don't think leaving is wise.

[inthebox]

Why isn't Cindy Sheehan and her ilk not marching on Obama?

There is no oil in Afghanistan :eek:




G&P

[tomder55]

Actually she did stand a lonely vigil at Martha's Vineyard listening to the crickets chirping .

There is no oil in Afghanistan :eek:

Yes but it is a very interesting transportation route for oil if it ever could be tamed.

[tomder55]

Prediction . Forgetting the lesson of the hasty exit from Mogadishu(the perception by the jihadists that we are “paper tigers”),before the 2010 election cycle ,the President will be "compelled" to exit Afghanistan by the Pelosi controlled purse strings. Both the President ,Madame Mimi and the Obots will blame Bush .

[ETWolverine]

Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't gonna win in Afghanistan.

excon

I agree. Obama's war is a failure. We should retreat completely with our tails between our legs. Obama had no business adding troops to the ground in Afghanistan. There's no connection between Afghanistan and 9-11. It's an unwinable war.

Our evil soldiers there are killing innocent terrorists and are guilty of scaring the locals by shooting the people who threaten them. The mountains are too high, the bad guys are running away too quickly, and they die too quickly when shot. Our evil soldiers are poisoning Afghani children by giving them cheap toys and trinkets that are made in China and probably have too much lead in them. Not to mention the evils of giving food, water and drugs to Muslim men, women and children without consulting the local Taliban leadership first for religious permission.

Any of this sound familiar?

Has there been a war in your lifetime that you WOULDN'T have had the US run away from, excon?

Elliot

[paraclete]

Hello:

Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones...

I agree. We ain't gonna win in Afghanistan.

excon

I agree with you, ex, history tells us no one wins in Afghanistan. If the US leaves Afghanistan there will be no need to bother with the border areas of Pakistan and logistically there will be no base for the drones. The Pakistani's don't want the US bombing their people even if they are militants and they aren't too interested in al qaeda. No, we should give it back to the barbarians who live there and go back in a hundred years to see if they have emerged from the stone age.

[tomder55]

No, we should give it back to the barbarians who live there and go back in a hundred years to see if they have emerged from the stone age.

The barbarians figured out that they could take flying lessons and use planes as wmd.

Other of those barbarians established a nuclear weapon program that built the Paki bomb and exported the know how to Iran and N.Korea.

You cannot pull back to fortress Australia or US and hope those barbarian can't breach your walls anymore.

[paraclete]

the barbarians figured out that they could take flying lessons and use planes as wmd.

other of those barbarians established a nuclear weapon program that built the Paki bomb and exported the know how to Iran and N.Korea.

You cannot pull back to fortress Australia or US and hope those barbarian can't breach your walls anymore.

The barbarians I speak of are the Afghans, not the Pakistani, and yes, we can pull back to the fortress because nothing we do will change the attitudes of the people in that region. These people are a barbaric people and left alone they will go back to what they know best which is subsistence in a hrash environment.

Don't confuse the Afghans with Al Qaeda who were Saudi's and Egyptians. The US created Al Qaeda in their cold war fight with Russia and wore the consequences of being on the wrong side once again. On the wrong side in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central america, South america, Iraq. How is you don't get it, the rest of the world doesn't need the US foreign policy messes and the next will be Iran, another US foreign policy mess.

One day you will have professionals directing foreign policy in the US and you may get change

[tomder55]

The US created Al Qaeda in their cold war fight with Russia and wore the consequences of being on the wrong side once again.

A completely false urban legend. We helped the Afghan mujahideen fight the Soviets .We did not "create " AQ .The Arabs who went to fight the Soviets had their own source of funding and worked independent of our effort.
If the charge was that US money was being funneled through the Paki ISI ,then you would be closer to the truth . But in no way did we fund ,or create either AQ ,or support in any way OBL's independent effort there .

[tomder55]

the world doesn't need the US foreign policy messes

Right now the Taiwan government is on the ropes . Why ? Because they failed to use US assets during the typhoon .

On the wrong side in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central america, South america, Iraq.

I suppose you think we should back the commie thugs like Hugo Chavez . You who have lived under the American umbrella since the 1940s(even though you have contributed to every war effort since then and we thank you ) are pretty good at ankle biting . Soon you will fall under the sphere of the Chinese . I wish you luck .

[ETWolverine]

I agree with you, ex, history tells us no one wins in Afghanistan.

Nobody else in history has had man-portable thermobaric explosives that completely destroy everything hiding inside caves.

Where it was possible for the Muj to hide in Afghani caves against every enemy of the past, including the Soviets, and use hit-and-run raid tactics to fight their wars, they cannot effectively use that tactic against the US military IF THE US MILITARY IS WILLING TO USE ALL THE TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL.

With modern technology that was not available just 20 years agao, we have the ability to both track and kill the enemy even when they go to ground in the mountains and caves.

Modern thermal-vision equipment allows us to track the path of man as much as 45 AFTER he has been there. The heat of his passage persists long after her is gone, leaving a trail that can be tracked.

Modern thermobaric rounds allow us to destroy anything hidden in a cave from a distance, without ever having to enter the cave... the overpressure of the explosion does all the work.

Simply put, the factors that made the Muj so hard to track and fight in the Afghani mountains no longer apply against modern military technology.

The key point is that the USA has to be willing to use such tactics to kill the enemy. And so far, the USA has not been willing to do so.

War in Afghanistan is VERY winable, if we use the right tactics. What is unbeatable is a defeatist attitude that so many Americans seem to have about war in Afghanistan... the same attitude that we had about Iraq before the surge.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

I don't know what part of my post you didn't understand... But, I see your knee jerked...

Are you telling me that the man-portable thermobaric explosives you mentioned can't be launched by drones?? I think they can...

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

I dunno what part of my post you didn't understand... But, I see you knee jerked....

Are you telling me that the man-portable thermobaric explosives you mentioned can't be launched by drones??? I think they can....

excon

Theremobarics have to be launched from the opening of the cave. They're short-ranged explosives with a big kick. And they are specifically designed for mountain/cave fighting. But they have limitations on range. Firing from the air won't work... unless you want an explosion with the power of a mini-nuke or bigger (like the "bunker-buster" or "MOAB"). That would probably be overkill for fighting the Muj, I think.

I don't know of any drones that can 1) fly through the dense mountain ranges of Afghanistan without crashing, b) get a low enough altitude to fire through the opening of the cave with a short-range, unguided munition, and iii) do so in all weather conditions (the enemy doesn't only fight in good weather).

Predators fire guided munitions only. They are subject to very strict weather condition limitations. And because they are remote-controlled, they are not very good for close-approach runs.

Sorry, but as good as our tech is, it ain't a substitute for boots on the ground and never will be. All thechnology has limitations that can only be overcome by human-beings that are on site and able to take quick action and make quick decisions. Tech only goes so far. That was the mistake Rumsfeld made at the beginning of the Iraq war. He assumed that technology would overcome all obstacles and put too few people into Iraq because he thought that technology was a substitute for numbers. He was wrong, and you obviously didn't learn his lesson.

Elliot

[tomder55]

As far as I can tell aggressively killing the enemy is not on the table. The option being proposed in the OP is the Biden approach . On the other side is General McChrystal (and I assume General Petraeus ) who is looking to duplicate the successes of the Iraq counter-insurgency . That is a plan that requires a greater presence and a long term commitment .

The General's plan is wrought with danger in my view because of a number of factors ,including supply logistics ,and a feckless Congress who I don't believe has an appetite for an escalated presence.

What congress and the President wants I think is a way to declare victory and make a hasty retreat . They don't want it said that they lost the "good war". But they'd rather use resources to slay domestic dragons.

[excon]

Hello again,

I think tom is right... Afghanistan is NOT Iraq.

IF Afghanistan WAS the good war, it lost its luster after EIGHT YEARS of mismanagement... But, it isn't congress who's feckless on the issue. The people are - as is evidenced by our agreement. We should have got Bin Laden when we had the chance... But the dufus got distracted...

Yes, Elliot. We're STILL cleaning up the mess left by the dufus. Oh, you can call it Obama's war... But, there's live people watching you... And, they're going to laugh at that suggestion...

Why not declare victory and leave? Isn't that what we did in Iraq?

excon

[tomder55]

I knew you would get to that . But there is no evidence that OBL would've been captured with an increased US presence . That is another myth that has been in the public narrative that is just plain wrong.

Edit by the way I predicted a blame Bush response in reply #5

[ETWolverine]

Why not declare victory and leave? Isn't that what we did in Iraq?

excon

I guess you forgot about the whole "troop surge" thing. Y'know... actually WINNING the war before "declaring victory and leaving". We DIDN'T just leave Iraq, even though that's what so many people like you wanted us to do. We buckled down, sent in more troops, and FOUGHT THE DAMN WAR.

And we won.

And we COULD do it again in Afghanistan.

But you... being the military genius that you are... think it's impossible. Just like you thought winning in Iraq was impossible.

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Yes, Afghanistan is different from Iraq. The terrain is different, and therefore the tactics have to be different. The players are different, and therefore the diplomacy of getting them to work with us has to be taylored appropriately. BUT THE OVERALL STRATEGY is the same... more boots on the ground, more liberal ROEs, a capture-and-maintain strategy with appropriate force levels, aggressive patrolling and sweep & clear operations, etc. All of it is the same as the "surge" strategy.

That is how wars are won.

Problem is, excon, that you grew up in the era of Vietnam. You think that the way that the Vietnam War was fought is the way wars are supposed to be fought... capture some hill and then give it back to the enemy... don't fight to win...

And when you look at that type of strategy, you're right... there's no way to win in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And that is the only strategy that you know, because it is the only one you experienced when you were in the military.

I come from a different military tradition... the Israeli military of the late 80s. My grunt-level understanding of how military strategy works is different from your experience. The Israeli military fights to win, not to capture and return land. And the tactics they use are aggressive. And they work.

(Israeli POLITICIANS are another matter entirely... they tend to be Vietnam-era "take it then give it back" types. But that's a discussion for another day.)

The US military today can go one of two ways. It can use the Vietnam-era tactics and strategies... which is what we saw for too long in the first 3 years of the Iraq war. Ot it can use the more aggressive approach of the Israeli tradition... the strategy used by David Patreus in the "troop surge".

You choose the Vietnam-era strategy, because it is what you know.

I choose a more aggressive approach, because it works.

And that is why you think that Afghanistan is unwinable and Iraq is unwinable, while I know that both Iraq and Afghanistan can be won handily, and with very low casualty rates. If we are willing.

Elliot

[excon]

while I know that both Iraq and Afghanistan can be won handily, and with very low casualty rates. If we are willing.

Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with you at all, cepting for the casualty rates. We AIN'T willing... We NEVER were willing. That's why I WAS against Iraq, and why I've TURNED against Afghanistan..

If you look back, and I will if you want, you'll find that I was for a MUCH wider conflict from the get go. I wanted to go after Saudi Arabia and the wahabbi's... I wanted to let Israel CRUSH the Palestinians and bomb the Iranian reactors. I wanted to include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... I wanted to smash Al Quaida in Pakistan. I WASN'T for pu$$yfooting around.

But, we DID pu$$yfoot, I don't support pu$$yfooting. Better to do NOTHING, than pu$$yfoot.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with you at all, cepting for the casualty rates. We AIN'T willing... We NEVER were willing. That's why I WAS against Iraq, and I've TURNED against Afghanistan..

I seem to remember a point of time during which support for the Iraq war was at about 80%. So in the words of Tonto to the Lone Ranger, "Whadya mean 'we', White Boy?"

If you look back, and I will if you want, you'll find that I was for a MUCH wider conflict from the get go. I wanted to go after Saudi Arabia and the wahabbi's... I wanted to let Israel CRUSH the Palestinians and bomb the Iranian reactors. I wanted to include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... I wanted to smash Al Quaida in Pakistan. I WASN'T for pu$$yfooting around.

OK, I agree.

However, you assume that the war in Iraq somehow deterred us from being able to take action elsewhere. I have seen nothing to evidence that.

We have over 1.2 million people in the US military. Only 40,000 of them are in Iraq. At the highest level, only 130,000 people were in Iraq at any one point in time, and that was in the opening weeks of the war... the invasion period. What makes you think that we couldn't take action elsewhere if we needed to? And what makes you think that "getting out of Iraq" would have made it any easier to do those things.

Furthermore, if you think that the mountains of Afghanistan are too hard to fight in, what makes you think that the mountains of Pakistan (the same mountain range, BTW) are any easier to fight in? If you bring your defeatist attitude of "we can't win in Afghanistan" to the table in an invasion of Pakistan, what would the difference be?

The problem, excon, isn't who we are fighting or where we're fighting them. The problem is your "we can't win" attitude, which is shared by way too many Americans.

If you want to defeat AQ anywhere in the world, if you want to win wars, if you want to maintain a strong military, you've got to drop that attitude... especially when the facts on the ground have proven that we CAN win and HAVE won using the tactics and strategies I suggested.

Elliot

But, we DID pu$$yfoot, I don't support pu$$yfooting. Better to do NOTHING, than pu$$yfoot.

Excon

So do I. I'd prefer no action at all to the pussyfooting your are talking about.

But WHY did we pussyfoot?

Simple. There's still a large group of Americans who think we can't win. So instead of going in and winning, they instead pussyfoot.

It's all about attitude. And yours doesn't win wars.

Proof? The troop surge strategy worked... we stopped pussyfooting around, stopped listening to the libs who said we couldn't win and we should just get out. We started fighting the damn war, and we won it.

All I'm suggesting in Afghanistan is that we stop pussyfooting around, start fighting the war, and win it.

Elliot