Obama in "final stages" of closing Gitmo plan

[Boo Radley]

So what sort of 'surgical strikes' do you envision? So far it seems you've stated minimal military, no drones, no FBI or Interpol. Any actions taken at all?

In another country, which should be rare, something like when we got OBL. Nothing more than that type of operation.

So no action taken at all then.

Other than like stated above.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was most certainly authorized. In fact it was authorized twice by congressional vote, including many Democrats who voted for this action.

Not on point. Allowing the president to do whatever he wants is authorization, but has nothing to do with what I said.

Small in number? Hardly.
ISIS can 'muster' between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters, CIA says

That's relatively a small number. Not enough to conquer the US; not powerful to advance outside the region. And will struggle in the region, as they have been.

But then I suppose small is relative.

That would be correct.

In terms of the world's or a nation's population, I suppose so. In terms of combat forces, that's quite a lot. Certainly beyond what law enforcement can handle.

No, still quite small on the whole.

How do you propose to equip law enforcement to take on a combat force of "between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters"?

They don't have to. They are the problem of the nations they are in, who should be doing the combating.

 

[eohrnberger]

In another country, which should be rare, something like when we got OBL. Nothing more than that type of operation.


Other than like stated above.

So between 20,000 and 31,500 OBL type raids?

That's certainly going to cost allot of money and allot of time (to the point of being completely ineffective), and risk exposure for the special forces. If you really want to degrade ISIS forces, you are going to have to do it faster than they recruit, otherwise you're not setting parameters that will lead to winning the conflict (which is kinda where I think you at anyway).

Not on point. Allowing the president to do whatever he wants is authorization, but has nothing to do with what I said.





That's relatively a small number. Not enough to conquer the US; not powerful to advance outside the region. And will struggle in the region, as they have been.

Seems that size of force hasn't had very many problems taking and holding territory in the region, given how large and how quickly they've taken it.

That would be correct. No, still quite small on the whole.



They don't have to. They are the problem of the nations they are in, who should be doing the combating.

Without assistance and support, military and otherwise, don't think that those nations are going to be capable on winning the conflict on their own.

Besides, the US made this mess, with Obama's premature pullout of forces, so kinda own this mess now. I'd have liked to see it without this mess, as Obama was handed a fairly stable A-stan and Iraq, and with this premature pull out of forces, left a vacuum that ISIS was only more than happy to fill. Left the situation so bad, that Russia and Iran are now stepping into the leadership vacuum in the region, and I really doubt that it's wise to abdicate in this fashion.

 

[Boo Radley]

So between 20,000 and 31,500 OBL type raids?

That's certainly going to cost allot of money and allot of time (to the point of being completely ineffective), and risk exposure for the special forces. If you really want to degrade ISIS forces, you are going to have to do it faster than they recruit, otherwise you're not setting parameters that will lead to winning the conflict (which is kinda where I think you at anyway).

You're just being silly. It has to be a type of need like OBL and not doing that for every fighter over there.

Seems that size of force hasn't had very many problems taking and holding territory in the region, given how large and how quickly they've taken it.

Not sure that's true. But the point is, we're not the ones who have to fight them. The countries they are in are the ones who need to oppose them.

Without assistance and support, military and otherwise, don't think that those nations are going to be capable on winning the conflict on their own.

Besides, the US made this mess, with Obama's premature pullout of forces, so kinda own this mess now. I'd have liked to see it without this mess, as Obama was handed a fairly stable A-stan and Iraq, and with this premature pull out of forces, left a vacuum that ISIS was only more than happy to fill. Left the situation so bad, that Russia and Iran are now stepping into the leadership vacuum in the region, and I really doubt that it's wise to abdicate in this fashion.

Short of fighting for them, we can assist. But if they don't fight there own battles, this just prolongs.

And yes, we made it by sticking our nose into it. We created vacuums that led to this problem. We can't fix it by repeatedly making the same mistake. This is for them to fix and not us.

 

[eohrnberger]

You're just being silly. It has to be a type of need like OBL and not doing that for every fighter over there.

So I guess this means that you really don't want to do anything about ISIS at all then? I mean, there's very few OBL type characters in ISIS, leaving the vast majority of them untouched and undeterred. How long, exactly, do you want to allow the torture ISIS commits on innocent victims?

Not sure that's true.

So the territory that ISIS has captured and controls and the population it's torturing, that's all just an illusion?

But the point is, we're not the ones who have to fight them. The countries they are in are the ones who need to oppose them.

Most /many do resist, to the limits of what they are capable of. It's just that they are lacking training and materiel.

Short of fighting for them, we can assist. But if they don't fight there own battles, this just prolongs.

And yes, we made it by sticking our nose into it. We created vacuums that led to this problem. We can't fix it by repeatedly making the same mistake. This is for them to fix and not us.

So when Al Qaeda launched their 9/11 attacks, and had their training bases in A-Stan, your response would have been what? Shouting at clouds?

You can either engaged with the world, take a leadership role, at least have some sort of hand in shaping your own future, or you can have your future dictated by the likes of Putin, Kim Jong Un, Al Qaeda and all the rest of them.

Isolationism / non-engagement hasn't worked since the beginning of WW I and isn't going to work now, especially as the world is much smaller now than it was then.

And yes, sometimes that means you have to use the military to do so. The world isn't all peace and love, can't we all just get along. There are some very bad actors out there, and they need to be reminded that they are never too far from justice being served.

 

[Boo Radley]

So I guess this means that you really don't want to do anything about ISIS at all then? I mean, there's very few OBL type characters in ISIS, leaving the vast majority of them untouched and undeterred. How long, exactly, do you want to allow the torture ISIS commits on innocent victims?

We don't rule the world. We can't go around policing other countries. We didn't end that in Iraq with our invasion, even before ISIS. Heck, we even contributed to torture during these two invasions. So, it's not a matter of it it will be fixed if we use the military or it won't if we don't. It's about it not being up to us.

However, your not do anything is factually incorrect. I said we could offer aid to those who should be fighting them in terms of advice, weapons, and money. Though that could backfire as well, as we did much the same with ISIS I believe.

So the territory that ISIS has captured and controls and the population it's torturing, that's all just an illusion?

Never said it was. I said how much complete control may not be as set as you seem to think.

Most /many do resist, to the limits of what they are capable of. It's just that they are lacking training and materiel.

And I have said training and material are fine.

So when Al Qaeda launched their 9/11 attacks, and had their training bases in A-Stan, your response would have been what? Shouting at clouds?

You can either engaged with the world, take a leadership role, at least have some sort of hand in shaping your own future, or you can have your future dictated by the likes of Putin, Kim Jong Un, Al Qaeda and all the rest of them.

Isolationism / non-engagement hasn't worked since the beginning of WW I and isn't going to work now, especially as the world is much smaller now than it was then.

And yes, sometimes that means you have to use the military to do so. The world isn't all peace and love, can't we all just get along. There are some very bad actors out there, and they need to be reminded that they are never too far from justice being served.

No, that's a false dilemma. There are nearly always more than two ways do do anything. And there is no evidence that invading Afghanistan and stopping the training would have stopped anything to do with 9/11. Nor are we talking about isolationism. Not being aggressive invaders isn't the same as isolationism. even if ISIS was completely defeated, or risk remains the same. And it isn't any more risky if the have success in that region. There is no evidence at all that we've made things safer despite having killed hundreds of thousands.

 

[eohrnberger]

We don't rule the world. We can't go around policing other countries. We didn't end that in Iraq with our invasion, even before ISIS. Heck, we even contributed to torture during these two invasions. So, it's not a matter of it it will be fixed if we use the military or it won't if we don't. It's about it not being up to us.

However, your not do anything is factually incorrect. I said we could offer aid to those who should be fighting them in terms of advice, weapons, and money. Though that could backfire as well, as we did much the same with ISIS I believe.




Never said it was. I said how much complete control may not be as set as you seem to think.




And I have said training and material are fine.




No, that's a false dilemma. There are nearly always more than two ways do do anything. And there is no evidence that invading Afghanistan and stopping the training would have stopped anything to do with 9/11. Nor are we talking about isolationism. Not being aggressive invaders isn't the same as isolationism. even if ISIS was completely defeated, or risk remains the same. And it isn't any more risky if the have success in that region. There is no evidence at all that we've made things safer despite having killed hundreds of thousands.

All I do know is that Obama inherited a fairly stable Iraq and a fairly stable Afghanistan. The two things that he had to do was to achieve a SoF agreement with each, and leave a decent sized number of troops there, and the stability would have remained.

Instead, he wasn't interested in obtaining the SoF agreements, didn't get them, and pulled the troops out.

The results are clear: ISIS and their explosive taking of territory and now a resurgent Taliban / Al Qaeda

Afghan forces struggle to retake Kunduz from Taliban
'Disaster' in Kunduz: the resurgence of the Taliban

I'd have to say that Obama's MW strategy of leading from behind has failed, and since it's very much in alignment with the strategy that you are proposing, yours would meet a similar failure.

Would have been much better had Obama realized what was at stake, gotten the SoF agreements, and left the necessary troops in country.

And that in itself is an example of how the US is most certainly not taken to colonial or imperial tactics. We leave the country, when the time is right.

 

[Boo Radley]

All I do know is that Obama inherited a fairly stable Iraq and a fairly stable Afghanistan. The two things that he had to do was to achieve a SoF agreement with each, and leave a decent sized number of troops there, and the stability would have remained.

Instead, he wasn't interested in obtaining the SoF agreements, didn't get them, and pulled the troops out.

The results are clear: ISIS and their explosive taking of territory and now a resurgent Taliban / Al Qaeda

Afghan forces struggle to retake Kunduz from Taliban
'Disaster' in Kunduz: the resurgence of the Taliban

I'd have to say that Obama's MW strategy of leading from behind has failed, and since it's very much in alignment with the strategy that you are proposing, yours would meet a similar failure.

Would have been much better had Obama realized what was at stake, gotten the SoF agreements, and left the necessary troops in country.

And that in itself is an example of how the US is most certainly not taken to colonial or imperial tactics. We leave the country, when the time is right.

No, it was held together by the US and was going the fall eventually. There was nothing else holding it together. Bush had already set the timetable and Iraqis wanted us out. So, it would be even more imperialistic to stay when unwanted. Afghanistan was similar, and democracies don't have staying power when the effort is unpopular. Both places were never going to just settle down no matter how long we stayed. They required too much force maintenance.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, it was held together by the US and was going the fall eventually. There was nothing else holding it together. Bush had already set the timetable and Iraqis wanted us out. So, it would be even more imperialistic to stay when unwanted. Afghanistan was similar, and democracies don't have staying power when the effort is unpopular. Both places were never going to just settle down no matter how long we stayed. They required too much force maintenance.

I disagree, as you can well imagine.

Obama's lack of interest in exhibiting leadership and getting the SoF agreements is quite clearly documented in Panetta's book.

The Washington Free Beacon has a longer excerpt:

Through the fall of 2011, the main question facing the American military in Iraq was what our role would be now that combat operations were over. When President Obama announced the end of our combat mission in August 2010, he acknowledged that we would maintain troops for a while. Now that the deadline was upon us, however, it was clear to me–and many others–that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.

Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki concluded that any Status of Forces Agreement, which would give legal protection to those forces, would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval.

That made reaching agreement very difficult given the internal politics of Iraq, but representatives of the Defense and State departments, with scrutiny from the White House, tried to reach a deal. We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence. My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.

To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.
​

Panetta: Obama, White House Responsible For Chaos In Iraq

So Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, or at least reasonably stable.

As an example from history, Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for meany years, and when the situation was stable, removed their troops. Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon

So, sorry, but Obama owns the present mess in the Middle East, and further, his pulling back from a leadership role gave Russia and Putin the opening to place themselves into the leadership role that he vacated.

One wonders the long term consequences and out comes from Obama's short sightedness in the international arena. Prety sure the US is going to pay dearly for decades both in monetary, stature, and international reputation as an unreliable ally.

 

[Boo Radley]

I disagree, as you can well imagine.

Obama's lack of interest in exhibiting leadership and getting the SoF agreements is quite clearly documented in Panetta's book.

Panetta: Obama, White House Responsible For Chaos In Iraq

So Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, or at least reasonably stable.

As an example from history, Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for meany years, and when the situation was stable, removed their troops. Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon

So, sorry, but Obama owns the present mess in the Middle East, and further, his pulling back from a leadership role gave Russia and Putin the opening to place themselves into the leadership role that he vacated.

One wonders the long term consequences and out comes from Obama's short sightedness in the international arena. Prety sure the US is going to pay dearly for decades both in monetary, stature, and international reputation as an unreliable ally.

Yes, there are those who disagree. I get that. But, I see it differently. Obama didn't set the date for withdrawal; Bush did. And when the Iraqis don't really want us there, it's their decision and not ours. The notion that you just push them into it is flawed IMHO. Anyway you look at it, this is their country. No if's. not an's, no but's.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, there are those who disagree. I get that. But, I see it differently. Obama didn't set the date for withdrawal; Bush did.

Actually, Bush set the date when the then existing SoF expired and had to be renewed. Yes.

It was Obama, through his inaction and lack of leadership, lack of understanding as to the fall out, that didn't get the new SoF agreement. I covered that already.

I wonder if the Iraq's are now happy with their situation at the consequences of making the SoF harder than it should have been. I can hardly think so.

And when the Iraqis don't really want us there, it's their decision and not ours. The notion that you just push them into it is flawed IMHO.

No, no pushing them into it. But there's certainly effectively negotiating for it, which Obama couldn't be bothered with, as per Panetta's book.

Anyway you look at it, this is their country. No if's. not an's, no but's.

True.

 

[Boo Radley]

Actually, Bush set the date when the then existing SoF expired and had to be renewed. Yes.

It was Obama, through his inaction and lack of leadership, lack of understanding as to the fall out, that didn't get the new SoF agreement. I covered that already.

I wonder if the Iraq's are now happy with their situation at the consequences of making the SoF harder than it should have been. I can hardly think so.

That is setting the date, and Iraqis simply didn't want us there and wanted more control over our troops than was reasonable. And their happiness is not our concern. Their will is. They don't want us there. They never did.

No, no pushing them into it. But there's certainly effectively negotiating for it, which Obama couldn't be bothered with, as per Panetta's book.

Again, they didn't want us there. It's their country and not something to be negotiated.

 

[eohrnberger]

That is setting the date, and Iraqis simply didn't want us there and wanted more control over our troops than was reasonable. And their happiness is not our concern. Their will is. They don't want us there. They never did.

Not quite true when Saddam's regime fell. Celebrations in the street at the time. From there, yes, it was ups and downs.

Again, they didn't want us there. It's their country and not something to be negotiated.

I believe that an SoF could have been negotiated and could have been achieved, sufficient troops would have remained in country to prevent the explosive rise of ISIS. As cited from Leon's book, Obama wasn't interested, and it's little wonder, as his policy was to bring the troops home by a date, regardless of the realities in theater. Ideological blinders on (lead from ideology rather than reality - how stupid is that?)

It's pretty clear that the troops were pulled out way earlier than they should have, way earlier than was prudent, and this, more than anything else, lead to the explosive rise of ISIS, and the present turmoil.

The present mess in the Middle East falls squarely on Obama's shoulders.
The present raise of Russia's influence in the Middle East falls squarely on Obama's shoulders (lead from behind is leading at all??)
The present mess in Libya falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, there was no need to topple this regime (again, lead from behind is leading at all??)
The present mess in Syria falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, there was no need for him to stick his nose in it (a paper tiger with a meaningless red line)
There was no need to make a nuclear deal with Iran. This deeply flawed agreement, if it passes at all, falls squarely on Obama's shoulders.

The world is a far more dangerous place than it was.

The Obama administration has been one foreign policy disaster after another. Disasters that the world and the US will be paying for the foreseeable future.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not quite true when Saddam's regime fell. Celebrations in the street at the time. From there, yes, it was ups and downs.

Don't mistake not liking Saddam with wanting us. This did, as Iraqis noted at the time, open the door for a battle for power.

I believe that an SoF could have been negotiated and could have been achieved, sufficient troops would have remained in country to prevent the explosive rise of ISIS. As cited from Leon's book, Obama wasn't interested, and it's little wonder, as his policy was to bring the troops home by a date, regardless of the realities in theater. Ideological blinders on (lead from ideology rather than reality - how stupid is that?)

It's pretty clear that the troops were pulled out way earlier than they should have, way earlier than was prudent, and this, more than anything else, lead to the explosive rise of ISIS, and the present turmoil.

The present mess in the Middle East falls squarely on Obama's shoulders.
The present raise of Russia's influence in the Middle East falls squarely on Obama's shoulders (lead from behind is leading at all??)
The present mess in Libya falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, there was no need to topple this regime (again, lead from behind is leading at all??)
The present mess in Syria falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, there was no need for him to stick his nose in it (a paper tiger with a meaningless red line)
There was no need to make a nuclear deal with Iran. This deeply flawed agreement, if it passes at all, falls squarely on Obama's shoulders.

The world is a far more dangerous place than it was.

The Obama administration has been one foreign policy disaster after another. Disasters that the world and the US will be paying for the foreseeable future.

I disagree. Any reduction of troops would have allowed this to grow. And that is true today, and 100 years form today. You'd have just seen more dead Americans. Peace hinges not on our force, but acceptance by all the players. That wasn't going to happen.

And the world has always been dangerous. We have to live with that until people fundamentally change what they are. But I point to Israel and Palestine. If force could solve these issues, their conflict would be over. Israel has used overwhelming force, but it continues to this day. And did you see what Palestinians voted for when free to vote? Do you remember that?

 

[eohrnberger]

Don't mistake not liking Saddam with wanting us. This did, as Iraqis noted at the time, open the door for a battle for power.




I disagree. Any reduction of troops would have allowed this to grow. And that is true today, and 100 years form today. You'd have just seen more dead Americans. Peace hinges not on our force, but acceptance by all the players. That wasn't going to happen.

And the world has always been dangerous. We have to live with that until people fundamentally change what they are. But I point to Israel and Palestine. If force could solve these issues, their conflict would be over. Israel has used overwhelming force, but it continues to this day. And did you see what Palestinians voted for when free to vote? Do you remember that?

Of course you disagree. I'd expect nothing less.

You characterization of US forces forcing the peace isn't the same thing as maintaining a force, using it judiciously (more so training than combat), and allowing the situation to stabilize. These things were on track before Obama's premature pull out, which caused the vacuum that ISIS filled.

 

[Ikari]

Of course you disagree. I'd expect nothing less.

You characterization of US forces forcing the peace isn't the same thing as maintaining a force, using it judiciously (more so training than combat), and allowing the situation to stabilize. These things were on track before Obama's premature pull out, which caused the vacuum that ISIS filled.

Nothing was on tract before Obama kept the original timeline for departure. It was on its decline the moment we went in and destabilized the entire place. We can't be there forever, occupation had to end eventually. There was no plan to make it stable, and no way for it to be stable without someone else pointing a gun at them. That was either going to be Saddam or America.

Should have left well enough alone, we wouldn't be in this infinity war if so. But maybe infinity war is the exact purpose.

 

[Boo Radley]

Of course you disagree. I'd expect nothing less.

You characterization of US forces forcing the peace isn't the same thing as maintaining a force, using it judiciously (more so training than combat), and allowing the situation to stabilize. These things were on track before Obama's premature pull out, which caused the vacuum that ISIS filled.

Nothing prevents training if Iraqis want it. And no, they really weren't. And the Vacuum was caused by the invasion and not Obama. The fighting has never really stopped. Held in check some, maybe, but consistent and constant. Once we invaded, this was going to end this way. Those with foresight predicted it before the invasion.

 

[eohrnberger]

Nothing prevents training if Iraqis want it. And no, they really weren't. And the Vacuum was caused by the invasion and not Obama. The fighting has never really stopped. Held in check some, maybe, but consistent and constant. Once we invaded, this was going to end this way. Those with foresight predicted it before the invasion.

Frankly, in response to 9/11 we could have just leveled the nation, and walked away. Far harder to stay and try to actually improve the situation for the longer term.

Or would your response to 9/11 have been no response at all? Which I would fear as far worse, setting yourself up as a terrorist punching bag.

I don't believe that the results that Obama has achieved (or would that be a distinct lack of results) were preordained.

An example to the counter would be the Isralie occupation of parts of Lebanon for a long number of years, until the security situation was improved and was more stable, followed by a timely withdrawal of forces.

Same path was chosen for Afghanistan and Iraq, the more responsible path, yes, the nation building path, to finish it until the security situation was more stable and only then withdrawal.

Premature withdrawal pretty much killed any possible chance for stability, at least not without a lots more loss of human life, and this is what will be Obama's legacy, and rightfully so.

 

[Boo Radley]

Frankly, in response to 9/11 we could have just leveled the nation, and walked away. Far harder to stay and try to actually improve the situation for the longer term.

Or would your response to 9/11 have been no response at all? Which I would fear as far worse, setting yourself up as a terrorist punching bag.

I don't believe that the results that Obama has achieved (or would that be a distinct lack of results) were preordained.

An example to the counter would be the Isralie occupation of parts of Lebanon for a long number of years, until the security situation was improved and was more stable, followed by a timely withdrawal of forces.

Same path was chosen for Afghanistan and Iraq, the more responsible path, yes, the nation building path, to finish it until the security situation was more stable and only then withdrawal.

Premature withdrawal pretty much killed any possible chance for stability, at least not without a lots more loss of human life, and this is what will be Obama's legacy, and rightfully so.

There was no reason to level it. But you're right about one thing, it is far easier to destroy than to build.

Our response should have been to go after those who were guilty and not attack nations. No nation was responsible and you can't combat this problem by attacking nations. hence, lots of destruction, plenty of killing, for a negative outcome. The world is no safer.

And no, the killing in those areas prevent staying. No democracy has ever been able to stay when the violence is as high a sit has been in those regions. It's a mistaken premise that we can invade and build to the point that they become docile. The fighting has been as consistent as the sunrise. And was never going to go away.

 

[eohrnberger]

There was no reason to level it. But you're right about one thing, it is far easier to destroy than to build.

Our response should have been to go after those who were guilty and not attack nations. No nation was responsible and you can't combat this problem by attacking nations.

True, Al Queda was responsible for the attacks, however, they had a willing host and protector in the Taliban, which was in control of the Afghanistan nation at that time, so in this instance, yes, attacking the existing political power in that nation at that time seems to have been justified.

hence, lots of destruction, plenty of killing, for a negative outcome. The world is no safer.

The world would have been even less safer has that Afghanistan attacks NOT taken place.

And no, the killing in those areas prevent staying. No democracy has ever been able to stay when the violence is as high a sit has been in those regions. It's a mistaken premise that we can invade and build to the point that they become docile. The fighting has been as consistent as the sunrise. And was never going to go away.

I don't think the final chapter on this has been written. I think we'll need to wait perhaps another 20 years to see what becomes of it.

 

[Boo Radley]

True, Al Queda was responsible for the attacks, however, they had a willing host and protector in the Taliban, which was in control of the Afghanistan nation at that time, so in this instance, yes, attacking the existing political power in that nation at that time seems to have been justified.

Which could have been dealt with absent invading and nation building.

The world would have been even less safer has that Afghanistan attacks NOT taken place.

No, invasion made things worse and not better, and as I have said, simply get OBL and than make Afghanistan uncomfortable helping. No need to invade and nation build.

I don't think the final chapter on this has been written. I think we'll need to wait perhaps another 20 years to see what becomes of it.

Perhaps, but it's likely to get worse before it gets better, and better won't come from us, but from the people who live in those regions. We can give some help, but we mess things up when we get all imperialistic. We need to stop invading countries without a damn good reason.

 

[eohrnberger]

Which could have been dealt with absent invading and nation building.

I don't believe so. What sort of response to the 9/11 attacks, an act of war I remind you, would you have authorized?

No, invasion made things worse and not better, and as I have said, simply get OBL and than make Afghanistan uncomfortable helping. No need to invade and nation build.

Al Qaeda was / is a network of terrorists, and not dependent on a single man. With the death of OBL, has Al Qaeda stopped? Nope. It's foolish to place such significance on a single person that such a network.

It's the displacement from what was Al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan that has significantly weakened them. That's not going to be possible without controlling the land mass.

Perhaps, but it's likely to get worse before it gets better, and better won't come from us, but from the people who live in those regions. We can give some help, but we mess things up when we get all imperialistic. We need to stop invading countries without a damn good reason.

"it's likely to get worse before it gets better", yeah that seems accurate. I'd agree with you on this. But just because there's dark clouds ahead doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing, and that the end pay off won't be worth it, a self sustaining, self sufficient, self governing Afghanistan.

"better won't come from us". Yeah, yeah, the US is evil, or so you think. Got it.

Just think how much worse off the world would be without the US, without it's generosity, without it's good and noble deeds (admittedly, not all of them). Consider all that and then come back and tell me that the US is an evil force in the world, and not a noble one.

I'd point out that there isn't a US imperialistic agenda at play here, yet you keep insisting that there is.

Once Afghanistan is more stable, able to take care of it's own security needs (pretty close to being there on this count from what I hear), self governing in some form (same for this), the vast majority of US forces will depart on good terms with the Afghan government.

Remove the stabilizing influence of the US troops before Afghan is ready to take over on it's own, the entire thing collapses, such as Iraq pretty much has.

 

[Boo Radley]

I don't believe so. What sort of response to the 9/11 attacks, an act of war I remind you, would you have authorized?

An act of war by whom? Afghanistan? No. Iraq? Absolutely no. I'm sorry, but no nation committed an act of war against us.

Al Qaeda was / is a network of terrorists, and not dependent on a single man. With the death of OBL, has Al Qaeda stopped? Nope. It's foolish to place such significance on a single person that such a network.

It's the displacement from what was Al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan that has significantly weakened them. That's not going to be possible without controlling the land mass.

An organization, but not a nation, and not dependent on safe havens either. In fact, they can function in free countries quite well. So, no, this simply isn't true. You can't control enough, and be free, anywhere.

"it's likely to get worse before it gets better", yeah that seems accurate. I'd agree with you on this. But just because there's dark clouds ahead doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing, and that the end pay off won't be worth it, a self sustaining, self sufficient, self governing Afghanistan.

"better won't come from us". Yeah, yeah, the US is evil, or so you think. Got it.

Just think how much worse off the world would be without the US, without it's generosity, without it's good and noble deeds (admittedly, not all of them). Consider all that and then come back and tell me that the US is an evil force in the world, and not a noble one.

I'd point out that there isn't a US imperialistic agenda at play here, yet you keep insisting that there is.

Once Afghanistan is more stable, able to take care of it's own security needs (pretty close to being there on this count from what I hear), self governing in some form (same for this), the vast majority of US forces will depart on good terms with the Afghan government.

Remove the stabilizing influence of the US troops before Afghan is ready to take over on it's own, the entire thing collapses, such as Iraq pretty much has.

But we're largely the cause of it getting worse. By being reckless and invading countries, destablizing regions and opening the door to more killing and worse actors, not to mention providing excellent training for them and giving them the opportunity both kill Americans and hurt our reputation internationally, we created a bigger mess. As for departing on good terms with the government of Afghanistan, that's a bit of a hedge. The people are the issue and not the government we mostly installed.

 

[eohrnberger]

An act of war by whom? Afghanistan? No. Iraq? Absolutely no. I'm sorry, but no nation committed an act of war against us.

Are acts of war only limited to recognized nations? Clearly not.
Or is it that you don't consider an organized plot of the mass murder of some 3,000 innocent civilians an act of war?

An organization, but not a nation, and not dependent on safe havens either.

Islamic fundamentalism is in fact dependent on safe havens. If no one tolerated them in all areas, they'd have no were to go, and no where to be, and they would be ineffective, and therefore of no concern.

Since Al Qaeda was concentrated in their training camps in Afghanistan, with the permission and protection of the Taliban which constitutes a safe haven for them. Better to disrupt those safe havens and training camps when given the opportunity to do so, would be the common sense thing to do.

In fact, they can function in free countries quite well. So, no, this simply isn't true. You can't control enough, and be free, anywhere.

I don't accept the false choice of either accept Islamic fundamentalism or lose all your freedom. I'm compelled to believe that there's a middle path comprising of both.

But we're largely the cause of it getting worse. By being reckless and invading countries, destablizing regions and opening the door to more killing and worse actors, not to mention providing excellent training for them and giving them the opportunity both kill Americans and hurt our reputation internationally, we created a bigger mess.

We largely caused it to get worse? I hardly think so. I think it would be far worse had the international coalition not done what it had done. Al Qaeda would have grown pretty much as ISIS has, because fundamentally they are the same people with the same goals, short term and long term. If there's fault to be found its because the international coalition didn't prosecute this conflict far enough.

I still stand by my assessment that the mess that we now have is directly traceable back to the lack of SoF agreements that Obama didn't consider strategic enough to take the time to obtain, to his lack of strategic vision (and vision in general - being that he's always blinded by his ideological drivers rather than practical ones) and commitment to seeing what was required through to the end.

Frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is a cancer on humanity contributing not a single thing to the betterment of humanity, nor it's forward progress, and needs to be excised (also pretty much how they view anyone that isn't them). During the excise procedure, there is always some healthy tissue that's also necessarily removed.

We can see exactly how humane Islamic fundamentalism through their actions. Shouldn't the international coalition be exactly that humane to ISIS and their supporters? I think that fair.

As for departing on good terms with the government of Afghanistan, that's a bit of a hedge. The people are the issue and not the government we mostly installed.

None the less, it is the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

 

[Boo Radley]

Are acts of war only limited to recognized nations? Clearly not.
Or is it that you don't consider an organized plot of the mass murder of some 3,000 innocent civilians an act of war?

Mostly yes they are. But the comment speaks to who we target. Targeting a nation when a nation didn't attack is misguided.

Islamic fundamentalism is in fact dependent on safe havens. If no one tolerated them in all areas, they'd have no were to go, and no where to be, and they would be ineffective, and therefore of no concern.

Since Al Qaeda was concentrated in their training camps in Afghanistan, with the permission and protection of the Taliban which constitutes a safe haven for them. Better to disrupt those safe havens and training camps when given the opportunity to do so, would be the common sense thing to do.

In fact they are not. They can be found all over the world, and the attackers of 9/11 came from countries that were our allies, and not Afghanistan or Iraq.

I don't accept the false choice of either accept Islamic fundamentalism or lose all your freedom. I'm compelled to believe that there's a middle path comprising of both.

Which is fine with me as that isn't really the choice I gave you. I never said it was either one or the other, I said you can't have the kind of control you speak of. This doesn't mean you have to accept it, but was more of trying to get you to see the error in your logic.

We largely caused it to get worse? I hardly think so. I think it would be far worse had the international coalition not done what it had done. Al Qaeda would have grown pretty much as ISIS has, because fundamentally they are the same people with the same goals, short term and long term. If there's fault to be found its because the international coalition didn't prosecute this conflict far enough.

I still stand by my assessment that the mess that we now have is directly traceable back to the lack of SoF agreements that Obama didn't consider strategic enough to take the time to obtain, to his lack of strategic vision (and vision in general - being that he's always blinded by his ideological drivers rather than practical ones) and commitment to seeing what was required through to the end.

Frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is a cancer on humanity contributing not a single thing to the betterment of humanity, nor it's forward progress, and needs to be excised (also pretty much how they view anyone that isn't them). During the excise procedure, there is always some healthy tissue that's also necessarily removed.

We can see exactly how humane Islamic fundamentalism through their actions. Shouldn't the international coalition be exactly that humane to ISIS and their supporters? I think that fair.

No, it would not have been worse. The coalition could have been used to build real commitment in the region to combat the actual threats instead of merely helping them recruit and train to better kill us. And no, the mess is directly traceable to the decision to invade in the first place. That is what has destabilized the region and opened the door to the problems we face today. And as I posted years ago, there's a reason why human rights organizations, who hated Saddam, didn't support our invasion. They knew we were adding injury to injury and things would get worse by invading when we did. A case could have been made to invade to stop the large mass killing when it was going on, but not years after word. I believe you are wrong on all counts here.

None the less, it is the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

Which still doesn't matter to the point.

 

[eohrnberger]

Mostly yes they are. But the comment speaks to who we target. Targeting a nation when a nation didn't attack is misguided.

I do believe that in Afghanistan it was the Al Queda training camps that were attacked as well as their protectors / enablers the Taliban. So I'm not seeing the hair you are splitting in this case.

In fact they are not. They can be found all over the world, and the attackers of 9/11 came from countries that were our allies, and not Afghanistan or Iraq.

True, militant Islamic fundamentalists are all over the world, however, weren't the logistics, planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks based in Afghanistan? I think that to be a 'yes'.

Which is fine with me as that isn't really the choice I gave you. I never said it was either one or the other, I said you can't have the kind of control you speak of. This doesn't mean you have to accept it, but was more of trying to get you to see the error in your logic.



No, it would not have been worse. The coalition could have been used to build real commitment in the region to combat the actual threats instead of merely helping them recruit and train to better kill us. And no, the mess is directly traceable to the decision to invade in the first place.

So it seems that you don't consider attacks such as 9/11 as a threat. Odd that. Attacks of this nature are most certainly a real and discernible threat. Had combat operations not been initiated in Afghanistan, had Al Qaeda's capabilities not been degraded by those combat operations, I'd suspect that there would have been a continued series of similar attacks using those proven methods and other methods.

Frankly, I don't like the idea of an innocent population being used as a punching bag without commensurate response. The #1 responsibility of the federal government is to protect their civilians.

That is what has destabilized the region and opened the door to the problems we face today. And as I posted years ago, there's a reason why human rights organizations, who hated Saddam, didn't support our invasion.

Yeah, but this discussion has been focusing on Afghanistan. Are you saying the same for that?

They knew we were adding injury to injury and things would get worse by invading when we did. A case could have been made to invade to stop the large mass killing when it was going on, but not years after word. I believe you are wrong on all counts here.




Which still doesn't matter to the point.