- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well, many, like the VP, advocate a CT strategy that would primarily be focused on killing AQ. Problem is that AQ is not only in AFG...in fact, I think much of AQ has left (or are dead)...leaving the question "what are we doing there". No one asked during the Bush years because they had Iraq to complain about.
You are right about the initial push...problem is that now we've eradicated and gotten rid of so much of AQ that "mission creep" has set in and we've focused on nation-building and fighting the Taliban (because we need someone to fight). The notion of Taliban still "guarding" AQ is kind of a dead idea and certainly isn't as true as it was in 2001.
what's the cause?It still is a just cause. To liberals though, no war is worth actually winning.
j-mac
what's the cause?
Is he trying to show the doubters that he isn't afraid of war?
Is he taking one last shot at capturing bin Laden to prove his superiority over the Bush admin.?
Or is he taking orders from the right, despite his promises to end the wars?
I think it's a pointless endeavor at this stage, and think we need a defined objective and a time line to achieve it.
what would you have him do RIGHT NOW? it seems to me the troops in afghanistan have been left high and dry for years.I don't know what he's continuing because he's not doing crap squat at the moment.
Maybe it would be safe to imply: continuing to leave our troops high and dry without intervention or progression.
Maybe he's faithfully continuing the quagmire.
Or perhaps he's continuing with his ideology that "we need to take troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan" ... and, look, here we are, so now he needs to figure out "what comes next" ... only, as Obamanites accused Bush of doing, he's not trying to come up with a timeline and decide exactly that.
He just needs to do something instead of sitting on his indecisive proverbial ass - This is not a war of contrition.
what would you have him do RIGHT NOW? it seems to me the troops in afghanistan have been left high and dry for years.
i think it's a damned good idea to take the time to consider all the consequences, that certainly WAS NOT done before this administration. it's my hope we get out, but i used to feel different. now, i don't think there's much of a point in staying.
so, what would you him do, today?Not true. Bush did an exhaustive examination of which he passed on to the Obama administration, and they asked them to not make it public, and they didn't. Now all the libs want to act like nothing was examined.....BS.
j-mac
The obligation arose after running the Taliban off, which only did initially because they wouldn't give up al Qaeda. But nevertheless a void necessitated some humanitarian action.Well, many, like the VP, advocate a CT strategy that would primarily be focused on killing AQ. Problem is that AQ is not only in AFG...in fact, I think much of AQ has left (or are dead)...leaving the question "what are we doing there". No one asked during the Bush years because they had Iraq to complain about.
You are right about the initial push...problem is that now we've eradicated and gotten rid of so much of AQ that "mission creep" has set in and we've focused on nation-building and fighting the Taliban (because we need someone to fight). The notion of Taliban still "guarding" AQ is kind of a dead idea and certainly isn't as true as it was in 2001.
What if the Afghan government remains questionably corrupt and unresponsive to efforts to reform?
No amount of military might would be sufficient to win the support of the people outside of the large cities.
The decision to add troops to an unstable and/or untenable political situation would spell disaster.
That's why Obama will wait til after the run off election 11/7/09 to decide.
If the people believe the election is bogus we will be throwing good lives away.
This article is enlightening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25filkins.html?hpw
The obligation arose after running the Taliban off, which only did initially because they wouldn't give up al Qaeda. But nevertheless a void necessitated some humanitarian action.
Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
Not true. Bush did an exhaustive examination of which he passed on to the Obama administration, and they asked them to not make it public, and they didn't. Now all the libs want to act like nothing was examined.....BS.
j-mac
I tell you what, let's turn this over to the UN. Isn't that what they were set up for? We give them 3 years (after planning stage) to get this implimented and fixed.
I tell you what, let's turn this over to the UN. Isn't that what they were set up for? We give them 3 years (after planning stage) to get this implimented and fixed.
Turn what over to them? The point of going into Afghanistan was to break up the AlQaeda training camps. The Taliban and their treatment of women is not our concern.
More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in your country," Bush said.
The foreign nationals he spoke of are eight Westerners, including two Americans, who were detained by the Taliban, and are on trial, for preaching Christianity -- a crime punishable by death in Taliban-controlled areas.
"None of these demands was met, and now, the Taliban will pay a price," Bush said.
The tribal politics of Afghanistan and their pursuit of "democracy" is not worth a dime of American money.
Just because our troops are getting attacked is no reason to persist. If we cannot fight and destroy Alqaeda we have no business being there.
so, what would you him do, today?
so, what would you him do, today?
really? so you've disagreed with bush the entire time as well, right?Well, I can certainly tell you what I wouldn't have him do, and that is what he did, and is doing now, which is implement a foolish policy of engagement that puts their lives at risk, and then sit there and ponder what he is going to do while they get killed.
Either you are there to win, or you are just playing around with politics at home, in which case bring them home.
j-mac
thanks, an honest reply. could it be he's reassessing the situation?Quit pretending like he doesn't already have a policy in place. Admit that his initial war policy needs adjustment rather than pretending he hasn't already sent McChrystal and troops to Afghanistan to implement his strategy. If he's saying now he's not going to send troops into harms way without a plan, where is the plan he used to surge in the first place?
really? so you've disagreed with bush the entire time as well, right?
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.On Afghanistan? Yeah, pretty much since Tora Bora.
j-mac
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.
look, bush started the quagmire. obama now has to clean it up. i can't believe anybody thinks it can be done overnight.Oh - so Bush was in a quagmire and Obama is just being careful? (general statement poking at all those who protested one and now support the other).
We can't claim his action is out of "carefullness" until the end result in known. And we won't be getting to the end result until he does something.
He's had the last decade, almost, to keep up with the issues that were and that he "inherited" as he put it - and that he has proceeded with in Afghanistan since he was elected.
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.
And the breakdown begins. This is why morale is so important. When morale goes to hell, the talented people who can make a difference, who are able to walk off, leaving those who can't walk away to flounder in the muck of a ****ed up situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?