What to do about Afghanistan!

[palemale]

There's a difference between thinking about it and sitting on your hands because you're so unprepared to make the decision that you have no idea what to do. Obama is not listening to what his advisors on the ground are telling him. He's listening to what his political advisors are telling him, because they know this will have a huge impact in 2010.

And funny you speak of soldiers; Obama's extended decision making process is starting to wear on morale. The soldiers are starting to call into question his ability to provide the support they need, and they're starting to question whether the politicians actually care about them.

Its one thing to make a responsible decision; its another to be dragging your feet because you don't want to suffer the political consequences for making the RIGHT decision.

Former French Prime Minster Georges Clemenceau once said "War is too important to be left to the generals." Lincoln didn't rely so heavily on the generals in winning the Civil War. LBJ relied very heavily on the advice of the generals and his military advisers. Of course, those generals and military advisers counseled LBJ to Americanize the war in Vietnam, and disaster ensued.

We cannot maintain a heavy troop presence in Afghanistan, and neither can our allies there. IF the Afghanis cannot or will not create a stable, competent government that can deal with corruption and the defense of the country, we will not be able to win in the sense that we can leave behind a functioning, successful country. Military might alone cannot win Afghanistan. We cannot sacrifice the lives and well-being of countless soldiers, and expend unlimited trillions of dollars, in a failed state. Otherwise, why haven't we occupied Somalia, Yemen, and countless other countries as well.

 

[TriBi]

The Afghanis are not going to change.

Regardless of whether the Taliban or anyone else is in power there, they are a ferociously independent people who will resent interference from anyone 'outside'.

In case no one had noticed - they are one of the very few countries on earth whom NO-ONE has managed to subjugate.

If you think you are going to be the first - good luck.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

We are making the same mistakes in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq.
We are fighting a conventional war against an unconventional enemy.
We need to emulate the Israelis and send in specially trained commando teams to take out specific individuals.
Bombing entire villages kills the innocent as well as the guilty and fosters hatred against the West.
It's not a case where the enemy wore green and we wore blue.
We also have to bring the country into the 21st century and promote an economy not based on opium.

 

[JB3]

It's so funny that Obama and his advisors are making decisions based upon the upcoming elections. Yep, I can hear Rahm now . . .

"Barrack, we have to deploy our troops wisely and achieve our goals in Afghanistan! The 2010 elections depend on it. We have to look at every scenario, weigh all of the evidence, and plan carefully or we will lose seats in Congress!"

I also wasn't aware that the United States is supposed to set policy based upon the morale of foot shoulders. I really feel bad about disappointing them and lowering their morale, but I think it's more important for their lives and the lives of thousands more he might send that he gets his decision right instead of shooting from the hip "W" style.

We saw what happened when George W. Bush acted with Blitzkrieg speed, taking us to war with very incorrect information and no strategy. Didn't go so well.

Rest assured you and all of your Fox news buddies will have an answer shortly.

No, they're trying to avoid making the BEST decision for this situation because they know that it will cost them.

 

[JB3]

...come clean about why the US is there in the first place.

We were in Afghanistan because that's where the Taliban and Bin laden were. It is not like Iraq, where there was no clear reason for us to be there.

 

[Kulindahr]

One of his problems that he thinks too long. He looks at everything as theories and thinks like a college professor. Nothing wrong with professors but reality is quite different than theories. Decisions have to be made with the best info you have. Indecisiveness is often perceived by those that hate us as weakness. Among the worst things you can do with terrorists is to show weakness and a lack of resolve.

When you make decisions you are going to make mistakes. You learn from them and make better decisions the next time. This problem will escalate more from a lack of decisions than from having to adjust strategies as you move forward. Most of the libs in congress and on this board said the surge would work and the war was lost and could not be turned around. I remember the General betrayus quotes very well. You guys that said that were wrong then and are probably wrong now.

Someone ought to explain things to every presidential candidate, like this:

You know the game of Mastermind, where you guess as to what's hiding behind the little cover, and based on the answers to your guesses, you make new guesses to try to get closer to what's back there? Making decisions as president is like that: you don't know all the facts, you have to guess, and make a decision anyway.

There is one little difference between that and the real world, though: sometimes when you make your guesses about what's back there, the people who are supposed to tell you how much you got right... can't. Or they pretend they can, and lie.

 

[Kulindahr]

And funny you speak of soldiers; Obama's extended decision making process is starting to wear on morale. The soldiers are starting to call into question his ability to provide the support they need, and they're starting to question whether the politicians actually care about them.

Source? I don't find it impossible, but how about some solid info?

...come clean about why the US is there in the first place.

We were in Afghanistan because that's where the Taliban and Bin laden were. It is not like Iraq, where there was no clear reason for us to be there.

Bingo. And if we'd kept pushing there instead of going off to play in another sandbox, we might have taken care of the problem.

We also have to bring the country into the 21st century and promote an economy not based on opium.

Ah, opium.
Get all our allies to legalize its import: watch the price crash, and the farmers turn to other things, things that don't make such a profit for supporting terrorism.

 

[DanC76]

The Afghanis are not going to change.

Regardless of whether the Taliban or anyone else is in power there, they are a ferociously independent people who will resent interference from anyone 'outside'.

In case no one had noticed - they are one of the very few countries on earth whom NO-ONE has managed to subjugate.

If you think you are going to be the first - good luck.

The best argument yet!

You would think our political leaders might learn something from history, but on the other hand I guess not!

 

[Wajdan]

The best argument yet!

You would think our political leaders might learn something from history, but on the other hand I guess not!

They would not learn, unfortunately.

 

[Wajdan]

Hear, hear!



At least two.

Should Pakistan fall to the Taliban, we'd have very little choice but to perform a preemptive strike against all their known nuclear facilities -- and cross our fingers. We might even have to cut a deal with India for them to take over the country.

You need to read more news. Pakistan would not fall to the Taliban as they are concentrated in just the northern regions. Additionally, Pakistan has around 180 million people and it would be disastrous offensive for the US. India can't take on Pakistan that easily because of a number of reason. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of people that will lose their lives in this war.

Don't forget China in this picture. I've read that they have strong relations with Pakistan and are also building ports and other facilities. In fact, they support Pakistan just like the US supports India. Pakistan has really become the most dangerous place on earth and any conflict would start another world war.

 

[Spiff]

Obviously the middle east needs a Disney theme park to make everything magically get better (nearly every other world region has one). Afghanistan would be the perfect location!

 

[Kulindahr]

You need to read more news. Pakistan would not fall to the Taliban as they are concentrated in just the northern regions. Additionally, Pakistan has around 180 million people and it would be disastrous offensive for the US. India can't take on Pakistan that easily because of a number of reason. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of people that will lose their lives in this war.

Um, that was stated as a hypothetical.
I'm aware of the population of Pakistan, which is why I suggested that the U.S. might need to get India in on things: there's no way we could go in on the ground there.
Last, if it's a choice between Islamofascist bombers taking out large, peaceful cities without warning and poisoning vast stretches of territory with the resultant crap from ground-level explosions, on the one hand, and a war with millions of casualties, on the other, I'll take the war. Sitting back and not going after the source when someone has nukes to blow up your cities with is not a reasonable course of action.

Don't forget China in this picture. I've read that they have strong relations with Pakistan and are also building ports and other facilities. In fact, they support Pakistan just like the US supports India. Pakistan has really become the most dangerous place on earth and any conflict would start another world war.

China is not, that I can tell, a helpful player. I'm not sure they'd even care if Pakistan did somehow fall to the Taliban and started nuking U.S. and European cities.

 

[Kulindahr]

Obviously the middle east needs a Disney theme park to make everything magically get better (nearly every other world region has one). Afghanistan would be the perfect location!

Oh, think of the theme rides.......

 

[European]

The Afghanis are not going to change.

Regardless of whether the Taliban or anyone else is in power there, they are a ferociously independent people who will resent interference from anyone 'outside'.

In case no one had noticed - they are one of the very few countries on earth whom NO-ONE has managed to subjugate.

If you think you are going to be the first - good luck.

Could not have said it better myself!

 

[Kulindahr]

Make a bold plan for victory, whatever that means, and stick to it whether you think it's popular or not.

Otherwise wind the war down and bow out without informing anybody so nobody will notice

Hey, we've got stealth technology, right? Can't we just sneak away, and they'd wake up and wonder where we'd gone?

 

[archive]

We were in Afghanistan because that's where the Taliban and Bin laden were. It is not like Iraq, where there was no clear reason for us to be there.

i didnt see this before...but its right....for the wrong reasons....we didnt go there for the taliban....it was because the taliban were/are harboring al-qaeda