Gen. McChrystal Praises Obama’s Afghanistan Decision

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
US News • Tue Dec 1, 2009 at 9:00 pm PST • Views: 273

Here’s the statement just released by the senior NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal:

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.  The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow.  In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police.  That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability.  The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence.  The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

Advertisement

250 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:05:01pm

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.

go for it...what is the task exactly?

2 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:05:12pm

An impossible mission in an impossibly short time frame.

Thank you Mr. President.

3 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:06:22pm

"A clear military mission" with no possibility of success.

How Orwellian.

4 UncleSam  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:06:59pm

I just hope he's correct in his assessment.
Afghanistan seems to be hopelessly mired in the primitive past.

5 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:07:20pm

So you guys know better than the senior NATO commander? Groovy. When are you going to be taking over his job?

6 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:07:23pm

TASK ACCOMPLISHED!
whoa

7 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:08:26pm

re: #5 Charles

So you guys know better than the senior NATO commander? Groovy. When are you going to be taking over his job?

[Link: admissions.usma.edu...]

8 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:08:38pm

re: #5 Charles

So you guys know better than the senior NATO commander? Groovy. When are you going to be taking over his job?

give me 75k troops and I'll give him a run...

9 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:09:22pm

That's weird, I was expecting him to talk about how ACORN stole the election.

10 Ojoe  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:10:58pm

re: #3 Bagua

The success is that you keep the jihad spirit from growing, because grow it will if is is not constantly beaten back. Every day we are at is is a success.

11 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:11:17pm

Amusing EastSider, you failed to answer my clear questions on the prior Afghanistan thread, so now you down ding?

That is pitiful.

12 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:12:04pm

re: #5 Charles

So you guys know better than the senior NATO commander? Groovy. When are you going to be taking over his job?

Only when the commanders agree with the administration.

13 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:12:39pm

re: #10 Ojoe

The success is that you keep the jihad spirit from growing, because grow it will if is is not constantly beaten back. Every day we are at is is a success.

I see, and in which group do we stop "the jihad spirit from growing"?

How do we "constantly" beat it back if our exit strategy is to leave in 3 years?

14 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:12:47pm

The depressing thing is, Gen. McChrystal's statement could have easily been given in 2004 or so. In fact, it probably was, by whoever was in charge back then. I just hope he lives up to the trust that Secretary Gates has in him, and can get fresh traction on this war.

15 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:13:11pm

re: #8 albusteve

give me 75k troops and I'll give him a run...

You do know we don't have 75,000 available ? Even 30,000 will be tough on the troops rotation.

16 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:14:33pm

re: #12 McSpiff

Only when the commanders agree with the administration.

they like their jobs...meanwhile,
Afghanistan, the worlds leading supplier of commercial hemp!

chew on that...we have to turn this heroin thing around

17 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:14:47pm

re: #3 Bagua

"A clear military mission" with no possibility of success.

How Orwellian.

You sound a lot like the left commenting on the Bush surge, just saying.

18 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:15:05pm

I would like to take the liberty of repeating my open questions from the prior thread:

Which side in the 300 year Afghan civil war are we allied with?

Does that group make up the bulk of the Afghan forces on "our" side?

Surely we all know who our local allies are and whom we are fighting?

19 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:16:13pm

re: #15 avanti

You do know we don't have 75,000 available ? Even 30,000 will be tough on the troops rotation.

And g-d forbid that the effluvium impacts the ventilator in Korea or Iran in the meantime, and we have to call up reservists or even bring back the draft.

20 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:16:48pm

re: #17 avanti

You sound a lot like the left commenting on the Bush surge, just saying.

Except that the enemy, population and situation in Iraq was entirely different from the enemy, population and situation in Afghanistan.

21 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:16:55pm

re: #15 avanti

You do know we don't have 75,000 available ? Even 30,000 will be tough on the troops rotation.

find them, pay them good money and benefits to lay it on the line...quit dickin around with our military...New Mexico is full of hard core patriots that would sign in a NY second if the feds would take care of them

22 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:17:01pm

The wingnut right and the moonbat left will both fly into a frothing rage over this; the latter because it harms their terrorist friends and the former because, well, it is Obama.

Code Pinko, for example, has launched a new propaganda campaign against the use of armed drones, apparently for no better reason than that the killer-robots actually work. I expect them to respond to this new "surge" with a veritable blitzkrieg of papier-mache tanks and other theatrical foolery. Their lunatic counterparts on the right will no doubt deploy a real tank at their demos.

23 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:17:38pm

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

24 lightspeed  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:17:52pm

Nothing to see here. Anything but praise from McChrystal would indeed have been a surprise and, in fact, insubordinate. He has been given his orders and will now follow them to the best of his ability.

I will reserve judgment on the plan. While the number of troops may be on the low side of what he originally requested, it is still enough troops to do the job as McChrystal laid it out. I don't like that Obama has set a timetable for withdrawl, but in a way he had to. Let's hope it turns out to be a successful strategy.

25 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:18:21pm

re: #15 avanti

You do know we don't have 75,000 available ? Even 30,000 will be tough on the troops rotation.

There's been plenty of time to study the situation. The additional troops will lead to success, and a major political win for Obama. For free, really.

Phone Call:
Obama: Thanks, George, everything else was going to shit. I really needed this.
Bush: No problema, Barack-O, have fun lighting the tree. It's real special that first year

26 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:19:35pm

re: #23 Charles

Well, he took three months to do it. That's 2,160 hours.

27 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:19:44pm

re: #13 Bagua

I see, and in which group do we stop "the jihad spirit from growing"?

How do we "constantly" beat it back if our exit strategy is to leave in 3 years?

The strategy is to begin to draw down forces in 3 years, or so I heard it.

28 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:19:55pm

re: #22 Shiplord Kirel

The wingnut right and the moonbat left will both fly into a frothing rage over this; the latter because it harms their terrorist friends and the former because, well, it is Obama.

Code Pinko, for example, has launched a new propaganda campaign against the use of armed drones, apparently for no better reason than that the killer-robots actually work. I expect them to respond to this new "surge" with a veritable blitzkrieg of papier-mache tanks and other theatrical foolery. Their lunatic counterparts on the right will no doubt deploy a real tank at their demos.

I wouldn't mind a parade of vintage armor. Start with a M5 Stuart and an M24 Chafee, then move on to the M4 Shermans. and M18 Hellcats. Finish it off with a M-48 Patton in a Vietnam paint scheme.

29 Ojoe  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:19:55pm

re: #13 Bagua

Well the exit strategy is a political sop for the naive and the timid & it will be conveniently forgotten, I hope, if it needs to be. Look how even Mr. darling of the left, Obama, sends more troops into a battle zone when it is really necessary.

I don't think Obama is much of a president, but it was so glaringly obvious even to him that force is required against these guys, that he applied it.

30 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:20:38pm

re: #24 lightspeed

Nothing to see here. Anything but praise from McChrystal would indeed have been a surprise and, in fact, insubordinate. He has been given his orders and will now follow them to the best of his ability.

I will reserve judgment on the plan. While the number of troops may be on the low side of what he originally requested, it is still enough troops to do the job as McChrystal laid it out. I don't like that Obama has set a timetable for withdrawl, but in a way he had to. Let's hope it turns out to be a successful strategy.

Did you even listen to the speech tonight?

31 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:21:05pm

re: #23 Charles

I think it's great that Obama is listening to his Commanders, and responding with what the troops can provide, with the goal of success.
I wish our troops & their command, nothing but the swiftest, and least deadly for our troops, of success!

32 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:21:09pm

re: #20 Bagua

Except that the enemy, population and situation in Iraq was entirely different from the enemy, population and situation in Afghanistan.

Point taken, but the military thinks they can perform the mission, I agree with Obama to give them a chance. I was wrong about the surge, perhaps you'll be wrong about this one.

33 lightspeed  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:21:43pm

re: #30 Walter L. Newton

Did you even listen to the speech tonight?

Are you trying to pick a fight? I watched the whole damned thing. What is your point?

34 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:21:48pm

re: #23 Charles

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

There could be. I'm totally confused now.

35 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:22:50pm

re: #18 Bagua

I would like to take the liberty of repeating my open questions from the prior thread:

Which side in the 300 year Afghan civil war are we allied with?

Does that group make up the bulk of the Afghan forces on "our" side?

Surely we all know who our local allies are and whom we are fighting?

I agree with you that these need answering. If the Taliban is more of Pushtan (sp?) nationalist movement than anything else, why aren't we dealing directly with tribal leaders to try and work out a deal to get them to get their people under control?

37 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:23:08pm

I see people can ding down my comment, yet they can not answer my question as to whom we are fighting and whom our enemy is.

To suggest that we can have "a clear military objective" to end a 300 year civil war in three years that was beyond the ability of the British and the Russians, and has escaped us for nearly a decade is indeed preposterous.

38 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:23:56pm

re: #23 Charles

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

You're right. Sometimes the ODS even hits us sane conservatives. I despise Obama and sometimes it makes me see everything through the proverbial "Glass viewed Darkly".

39 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:23:58pm

re: #21 albusteve

find them, pay them good money and benefits to lay it on the line...quit dickin around with our military...New Mexico is full of hard core patriots that would sign in a NY second if the feds would take care of them

We don't have time to recruit and train thousands of troops. We can't send kids just out of boot camp, we need seasoned fighters.

40 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:24:02pm

re: #32 avanti

Point taken, but the military thinks they can perform the mission, I agree with Obama to give them a chance. I was wrong about the surge, perhaps you'll be wrong about this one.

the Iraqi surge?...how could you have been wrong about that?...did you understand the ROEs previous to that?

41 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:24:23pm

re: #35 Conservative Moonbat

I agree with you that these need answering. If the Taliban is more of Pushtan (sp?) nationalist movement than anything else, why aren't we dealing directly with tribal leaders to try and work out a deal to get them to get their people under control?

Ok, that is progress. If "the Taliban" is a nationalist movement, then whom are they fighting against besides us?

42 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:24:43pm

re: #37 Bagua

I see people can ding down my comment, yet they can not answer my question as to whom we are fighting and whom our enemy is.

To suggest that we can have "a clear military objective" to end a 300 year civil war in three years that was beyond the ability of the British and the Russians, and has escaped us for nearly a decade is indeed preposterous.

Updinged for persistence. Three threads and counting...

43 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:25:08pm

re: #41 Bagua

Ok, that is progress. If "the Taliban" is a nationalist movement, then whom are they fighting against besides us?

The other guys in turbans and beards who look just like them, but aren't them.

44 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:25:27pm

re: #29 Ojoe

Well the exit strategy is a political sop for the naive and the timid & it will be conveniently forgotten, I hope, if it needs to be. Look how even Mr. darling of the left, Obama, sends more troops into a battle zone when it is really necessary.

I don't think Obama is much of a president, but it was so glaringly obvious even to him that force is required against these guys, that he applied it.

Thank you, agreed, it is an utter fraud.

45 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:25:29pm
46 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:25:36pm

re: #33 lightspeed

Are you trying to pick a fight? I watched the whole damned thing. What is your point?

No, this is a blog, you left a comment, I read your comment, I left you a question...

47 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:25:42pm

re: #39 avanti

We don't have time to recruit and train thousands of troops. We can't send kids just out of boot camp, we need seasoned fighters.

bummer, eh?

48 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:26:06pm

re: #36 The Sanity Inspector

Sidebar: Chris Matthews is an American citizen impersonator.

I think you'll get bi partisan agreement on that.

49 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:26:15pm

re: #29 Ojoe

Well the exit strategy is a political sop for the naive and the timid & it will be conveniently forgotten, I hope, if it needs to be. Look how even Mr. darling of the left, Obama, sends more troops into a battle zone when it is really necessary.

I don't think Obama is much of a president, but it was so glaringly obvious even to him that force is required against these guys, that he applied it.

Yeah, at least there was no idiocy about "moderate Taliban" in there.

50 LotharBot  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:26:26pm

Good move by Obama. Don't dick around; if we're going to fight a war, let's go kick ass. Give our generals what they need, and give the soldiers what they need, and forget all the partisan crap.

Once the commitment is made to have enough troops in the war zone to do what the generals need to do, then we can bicker about Karzai or Opium or the Pashtun tribe or whatever else. This shows a commitment to winning -- and that commitment is a necessary precursor to all of the reforms we want in Afghan politics and such.

51 lightspeed  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:27:09pm

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

Usually comments have a point. Were you asking if I watched the speech to make a point or are you just curious about my TV viewing habits?

52 Ojoe  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:27:11pm

re: #37 Bagua

It is not a "side" thing so much as it is the purpose to beat up on the worst crazies to send a message to the other crazies that it is not worth it to join the jihadic movement, and that maybe there are better things to do.

Good night all.

53 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:27:26pm

re: #42 cliffster

Updinged for persistence. Three threads and counting...

Thank you, and actually more than three threads. I moved it here because no one could answer my questions.

Can anyone really make the case that we can discuss this conflict without knowing who we are fighting and who they are fighting besides us?

54 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:27:41pm

re: #26 cliffster

Well, he took three months to do it. That's 2,160 hours.

As a Vietnam vet, I wish our leaders had spent a few more months coming up with a plan, and not just sending more troops looking for the light at the end of that tunnel.

55 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:27:56pm

re: #41 Bagua

Ok, that is progress. If "the Taliban" is a nationalist movement, then whom are they fighting against besides us?

And they aren't nationalist. They are an Islamist organization that happens to be Pashtun. They don't seek their own state (as a nationalist organization would) but instead seek to take over both Afghanistan and Pakistan and turn both nations into Islamist tyrannies.

56 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:22pm

re: #36 The Sanity Inspector

Funny- I keep hoping to catch an Army football game from 'enemy territory'.

57 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:31pm

re: #52 Ojoe

It is not a "side" thing so much as it is the purpose to beat up on the worst crazies to send a message to the other crazies that it is not worth it to join the jihadic movement, and that maybe there are better things to do.

Good night all.

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. There are very clear sides in this civil war, we are on one of them.

58 lrsshadow  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:34pm

re: #23 Charles

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

I think the divider is those who are anti-obama and those who actually know who McCrystal is, what he has accomplished in the past, what he is planning to do, and how he plans to do it. I am pleased with Obama's decision and support the Presidents decision.

59 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:44pm

re: #53 Bagua

Thank you, and actually more than three threads. I moved it here because no one could answer my questions.

Can anyone really make the case that we can discuss this conflict without knowing who we are fighting and who they are fighting besides us?

"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at its flood, leads who knows where."

60 Ojoe  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:55pm

re: #44 Bagua

A fraud, of course; Obama is a politician, and people are fools, they are two sides of a coin.

Goodnight all.

61 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:57pm

I hope it goes alright and Obama made the right choice because we cannot afford to lose. Well, maybe you in the US can, but we here cannot.

Unfortunately I don't think statement means much. What else can he say? Being critical of the president now would only make his job more difficult.

62 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:58pm

re: #40 albusteve

the Iraqi surge?...how could you have been wrong about that?...did you understand the ROEs previous to that?

It was a mistake on my part, nothing had gone right up until one General got it right.

63 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:29:06pm

re: #54 avanti

As a Vietnam vet, I wish our leaders had spent a few more months coming up with a plan, and not just sending more troops looking for the light at the end of that tunnel.

Numbers on a spreadsheet, my friend.

64 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:30:06pm

re: #54 avanti

As a Vietnam vet, I wish our leaders had spent a few more months coming up with a plan, and not just sending more troops looking for the light at the end of that tunnel.

Thanks for your service. It's really easy to under-estimate how hard counter-insurgency is, and why throwing more troops at the problem can in fact make the situation worse if not properly used. But, thats a lesson some learned from Vietnam, and I'm hoping we'll see those lessons put into place here.

65 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:30:06pm

re: #55 Dark_Falcon

And they aren't nationalist. They are an Islamist organization that happens to be Pashtun. They don't seek their own state (as a nationalist organization would) but instead seek to take over both Afghanistan and Pakistan and turn both nations into Islamist tyrannies.

If they happen to be Pashtun, who besides us are on the other side?

If they are Islamists, then why are they fighting against other Islamists?

66 averagecdn  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:30:22pm

They can slaughter a bunch of backward country bumpkins till the cows come home, but what's being done about the root of this radicalized islam that motivates these actions?

67 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:30:48pm

re: #54 avanti

As a Vietnam vet, I wish our leaders had spent a few more months coming up with a plan, and not just sending more troops looking for the light at the end of that tunnel.

more months?...what is the plan now after a year?...he didn't say, but BO was certainly adamant about his withdrawal time...

68 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:31:10pm

re: #66 averagecdn

They can slaughter a bunch of backward country bumpkins till the cows come home, but what's being done about the root of this radicalized islam that motivates these actions?

And what do you think should be done?

69 jordash1212  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:32:19pm

I keep saying this, especially when it concerns national security, Obama is a realist. There is no denying it. He has changed so little from Bush's presidency and everything he does it seems like the president before him would have done, too.

70 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:32:29pm

re: #66 averagecdn

They can slaughter a bunch of backward country bumpkins till the cows come home, but what's being done about the root of this radicalized islam that motivates these actions?

That's why Obama is also using diplomacy to win hearts and minds of those who have not yet crossed over to the radical side.

71 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:33:25pm

re: #70 recusancy

That's why Obama is also using diplomacy to win hearts and minds of those who have not yet crossed over to the radical side.

To which side do those

hearts and minds

belong to?

72 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:33:46pm

re: #66 averagecdn

They can slaughter a bunch of backward country bumpkins till the cows come home, but what's being done about the root of this radicalized islam that motivates these actions?

there is no long range plan that I know of...it just goes from one administration to the next...this will go on for a century or more...Iran will be a nuclear power and the west does nothing

73 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:33:49pm

re: #65 Bagua

If they happen to be Pashtun, who besides us are on the other side?

If they are Islamists, then why are they fighting against other Islamists?

Which other Islamists are they fighting?

74 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:34:12pm

re: #64 McSpiff

Thanks for your service. It's really easy to under-estimate how hard counter-insurgency is, and why throwing more troops at the problem can in fact make the situation worse if not properly used. But, thats a lesson some learned from Vietnam, and I'm hoping we'll see those lessons put into place here.

The surge worked largely because of a change in strategy, and not solely boots on the ground.

75 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:34:39pm

re: #41 Bagua

Ok, that is progress. If "the Taliban" is a nationalist movement, then whom are they fighting against besides us?

Hell, I'm just repeating what I read on wikipedia six months ago and may have it backwards.

I think we're fighting against the Pushtun faction now that I think about it.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

It's all in there somewhere

76 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:34:55pm

re: #71 Bagua

belong to?

Those hearts and minds will back the side they think will win. Ultimately they will go the side that uses strength and smarts the best.

77 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:35:09pm

McChrystal's statement didn't come as a surprise to me. There is a chain of command that needs to be respected and he would have praised Obama's decision no matter what. However, I think the extra troops may not be ideal but they are close enough that they can probably get the job done. I have faith in the quality and dedication of our servicemen. Shame on Glenn Beck, George Will, Michael Moore, Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan. Assholes all.

78 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:35:23pm

Looks like 'averagecdn' did a dump-and-run.

79 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:35:27pm

re: #70 recusancy

That's why Obama is also using diplomacy to win hearts and minds of those who have not yet crossed over to the radical side.

*cough*

80 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:35:37pm

re: #66 averagecdn

They can slaughter a bunch of backward country bumpkins till the cows come home, but what's being done about the root of this radicalized islam that motivates these actions?

Just keep hunting them down and hope for "salafist burnout", is about all.

81 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:35:48pm

re: #68 Charles

And what do you think should be done?

withdraw from the ME...take down Pakistans nuclear capability covertly or otherwise...seal the borders and wait for it

82 jordash1212  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:36:16pm

re: #70 recusancy

"Winning the hearts and minds." It's interesting because that was also used by Gen. Petraeus in his manual on counter-insurgency. I think he used the analogy: spreading out like an inkblot. The effort in Afghanistan needs to be at least as diplomatic in addition to military. As long as the corruption stays, the violence stays.

83 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:36:30pm

re: #70 recusancy

That's why Obama is also using diplomacy to win hearts and minds of those who have not yet crossed over to the radical side.

Still waiting for the dividends from that Cairo speech...

84 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:36:55pm

re: #66 averagecdn

Education is the answer, IMHO. Educate everyone. Let them be clever, creative, and know their own circumstances/environments and come up with the kind of solutions, that can ONLY come from knowing your own environment. Educate, educate, educate.

85 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:37:24pm

re: #67 albusteve

more months?...what is the plan now after a year?...he didn't say, but BO was certainly adamant about his withdrawal time...

I think he was very flexible, with lots of wiggle room. He did not mention a firm end date, just a date to start withdrawing troops, and even that would be based on conditions on the ground.

86 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:37:32pm

re: #71 Bagua

belong to?

Are you serious? Those attracted to Al Queada or terrorist types are ones who have lost maybe dignity or maybe have no other options in life. Very few actually join because they're just evil at heart. They need to know that we aren't the great satan. And I know you think that nothing will change that. I think it can be changed.

87 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:37:34pm

re: #73 Dark_Falcon

Which other Islamists are they fighting?

Thank you.

For a start, the underlying conflict is not the Pashtun fighting against any other group. The underlying conflict is a Pashtun civil war that has been raging for about 300 years. They are fighting each other. Both sides are Islamic in every sense of the word with the exception that one side is slightly more fundamentalist than the other.

88 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:37:38pm

re: #70 recusancy

That's why Obama is also using diplomacy to win hearts and minds of those who have not yet crossed over to the radical side.

and who are they?...he's the laughing stock of bad guys everywhere...he's abandoning allies and apologizing to whoever will listen to him...BOs FP is in shambles

89 UncleSam  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:01pm

I spent a few days in 1986 vacationing with some people who had fled Afghanistan because they feared a takeover by the religious nuts. They were Western-educated people who held government jobs and were fearful of their fate if the mujahadeen took over, as eventually happened.
I thought it was a terrible mistake to support the mujahadeen against the Soviet-backed government, because, if the mujahadeen won, they would then turn against us, as they did.
This is the last chance to pound the nails into the coffin of the tyrannical Taliban, and we'd better take off the gloves and let our troops pound them until there's nothing left to pound, or the entire world will be in for a whole lot of hurt.
These people are ruthless, fanatical killers and need to be utterly destroyed.
And we need to eliminate the namby-pamby Rules of Engagement imposed upon our troops by the lefty bureaucrats infesting our armed forces.

90 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:17pm

re: #76 Dark_Falcon

Those hearts and minds will back the side they think will win. Ultimately they will go the side that uses strength and smarts the best.

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.
-- Osama bin Laden

91 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:21pm

re: #84 Floral Giraffe

Education is the answer, IMHO. Educate everyone. Let them be clever, creative, and know their own circumstances/environments and come up with the kind of solutions, that can ONLY come from knowing your own environment. Educate, educate, educate.

Somehow, I don't think that's what averagecdn had in mind.

92 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:31pm

re: #81 albusteve
Sounds good, but the ChiComs consider Pakistan's nukes their own , and would get extremely exercised at our messing things up.

93 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:32pm

re: #11 Bagua

Amusing EastSider, you failed to answer my clear questions on the prior Afghanistan thread, so now you down ding?

That is pitiful.

"Here's my answer from the previous thread.

Do you want to know?

Was Obama supposed to get on the TeeVee tonight and go province by province outlining the local issues? Cause really, the problem is that this entire war is being fought neighborhood by neighborhood, and macro scale thinking will only get you a nicely wrapped speech.

You want to know who are allies and who are enemies are? Lets get you on the horn with the captains in the tribal areas. You can talk to all of them and then let us know what you think.

Or, if that's not feasible, they can report to their superiors, who can report to their superiors, who can report to Obama and request more troops based on his aggregated assessment on the ground. Then Obama can cautiously consider that recommendation, seek alternative opinions, and come to a final, reasoned decision about what to do.

I wouldn't say I have blind faith in our military and elected leaders (that would be, in a word, insane), but I trust them, to an extent, to make the right call here."

We're attempting to search out those plotting mass attacks against the US and her allies abroad, as well as police the area to allow for peaceful nation building to take place such that the local, regional powers (Pakistan included) can independently prevent and/or search out those plotting mass attacks against the US and her allies.

So to the extent possible, our enemies our the locals who are disrupting peaceful activities by doing things like bombings. Our allies are local and national leaders (to the best of our ability to discern) who are more interested in building a secure nation more than filling their pockets.

I don't have a list of names and addresses for you, because, as you say, its a really diverse area, with widely varying support and animosity by region. I don't know what more you want from me.

I've answered your question several times now, and you have not, in good faith, attempted to answer mine--what is your immediate plan for right now? You seem to know enough to know that everyone else (generals and presidents included) doesn't know enough, so why don't you educate us with the best course of action for the United States to begin to take tomorrow.

94 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:38:48pm

re: #74 avanti

The surge worked largely because of a change in strategy, and not solely boots on the ground.

A perfect example I'd say. If the strategy calls for more men, so be it. But don't make strategy around the idea that you need more boots on the ground because the people at home demand it.

95 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:39:01pm

re: #83 The Sanity Inspector

Still waiting for the dividends from that Cairo speech...

No check in my mailbox for Obama's Peace Prize. Weird.

96 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:39:02pm

re: #83 The Sanity Inspector

Still waiting for the dividends from that Cairo speech...

Aint gonna happen in the same way you shoot somebody with a bullet and they die. You need patience and persistence.

97 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:39:34pm

re: #86 recusancy

Are you serious? Those attracted to Al Queada or terrorist types are ones who have lost maybe dignity or maybe have no other options in life. Very few actually join because they're just evil at heart. They need to know that we aren't the great satan. And I know you think that nothing will change that. I think it can be changed.

You are talking about the western perspective, the locals don't think like that an the "great satan" did not exist when this civil war started.

98 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:39:41pm

re: #81 albusteve

withdraw from the ME...take down Pakistans nuclear capability covertly or otherwise...seal the borders and wait for it

Withdraw from the Middle East?

Do you realize that's exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do?

99 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:39:57pm

re: #85 avanti

I think he was very flexible, with lots of wiggle room. He did not mention a firm end date, just a date to start withdrawing troops, and even that would be based on conditions on the ground.

he's flexible alright...you will eat crow on this one...again

100 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:40:11pm

re: #81 albusteve

withdraw from the ME...take down Pakistans nuclear capability covertly or otherwise...seal the borders and wait for it

Ron Paul would agree with you.

101 lrsshadow  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:40:21pm

re: #84 Floral Giraffe

Education is the answer, IMHO. Educate everyone. Let them be clever, creative, and know their own circumstances/environments and come up with the kind of solutions, that can ONLY come from knowing your own environment. Educate, educate, educate.

You must mean like, Osama bin Laudin right, he had a great education, engineering I think?

102 sngnsgt  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:40:30pm

re: #36 The Sanity Inspector

Chris Matthews is an idjut, Hardball is a comedy show, people don't take him seriously do they?

103 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:40:32pm

re: #88 albusteve

and who are they?...he's the laughing stock of bad guys everywhere...he's abandoning allies and apologizing to whoever will listen to him...BOs FP is in shambles

How many bad guys are you friends with?

104 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:41:08pm

re: #86 recusancy
Like UBL. Poor uneducated son of a millionaire construction magnate.///

105 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:41:12pm

re: #86 recusancy

Muhammed Atta and the ohter 9/11 hijackers came from a very well-to-do families in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. What 'dignity' did he lose?

Are you trying to tell me they had 'no hope', either?

106 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:41:19pm

re: #92 tradewind

Sounds good, but the ChiComs consider Pakistan's nukes their own , and would get extremely exercised at our messing things up.

too bad...we should stroke the Chinese?

107 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:42:05pm

re: #93 EastSider

You repeated an answer that did not address my question. Just snark and evasion.

So I repeat...

So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?

And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.

The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.

108 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:42:31pm

re: #104 tradewind

Like UBL. Poor uneducated son of a millionaire construction magnate.///

I said very few are truly evil at heart. He's one of the few.

109 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:42:39pm

re: #91 Charles

I'ts still, IMHO, the only answer.
Educate them all! Men & Women. They should be the initiators of the solutions to their countries problems. "Outsiders" can make suggestions, but only the residents can make it WORK!

110 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:42:49pm

re: #106 albusteve
I didn't say anything about stroking, but you think we should pull their tails?

111 Silvergirl  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:43:10pm

re: #102 sngnsgt

Chris Matthews is an idjut, Hardball is a comedy show, people don't take him seriously do they?

You don't really have to ask that do you? People take pro wrestling seriously.

112 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:43:49pm

re: #96 recusancy

Aint gonna happen in the same way you shoot somebody with a bullet and they die. You need patience and persistence.

Foggy Bottom is full of people who think we have no enemies, only potential allies whose asses we haven't yet kissed smoochily enough. They're too smug & superior to know when they're being played like a pawnshop Gibson in a Pete Townshend impersonation contest.

113 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:44:11pm

re: #107 Bagua

You repeated an answer that did not address my question. Just snark and evasion.

So I repeat...

So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?

And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.

The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.

Please at least take a stab at my question.

114 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:44:17pm

re: #98 Charles

Withdraw from the Middle East?

Do you realize that's exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do?

you asked for an alternative...the option otherwise is to take the fight straight to them...no troop limits, and no time tables...our stop gap presence there only gets people killed...slam Afghanistan or back off

115 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:44:23pm

re: #84 Floral Giraffe

Education is the answer, IMHO. Educate everyone. Let them be clever, creative, and know their own circumstances/environments and come up with the kind of solutions, that can ONLY come from knowing your own environment. Educate, educate, educate.

Housing, power and water are equally important. Those who are without need for the basics of survival are less likely to turn to desperate measures.

It's hard to educate a people who still live in nomadic tribes.

116 sngnsgt  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:44:43pm

re: #111 Silvergirl

You don't really have to ask that do you? People take pro wrestling seriously.

It's not!? /

117 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:44:54pm

re: #99 albusteve

he's flexible alright...you will eat crow on this one...again

You have no more idea of who will eat crow in the long run and it's lame to so state without some factual basis or ownership of a crystal ball.

118 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:45:20pm

re: #106 albusteve

too bad...we should stroke the Chinese?

A few more trillions into debt to them, and we may not have the choice anymore.

119 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:46:19pm

re: #100 avanti

Ron Paul would agree with you.

maybe, so what?...I do not think 35k troops will subdue AQ and their Tali minions

120 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:46:49pm

Well, gotta wend my way bedward. 'Night.

121 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:47:16pm

re: #108 recusancy
The nineteen hijackers can hardly be described as crawling out from the downtrodden underbelly of the arab world. Radical Islamic terrorists tend to be educated and not indigent.
You may be confusing them with the Pals, who are known for raiding the slums in search of poor teenaged boys to model their Semtex vests.

122 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:47:32pm

re: #115 Conservative Moonbat

OK, so we will help educate & provide basics of survival. Lets get going!
We do need to help with both. I say "help" because if the "helpees" don't want to help, there's no point in trying. They must participate, or the efforts are in vain.

123 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:48:10pm

re: #105 Fenway_Nation

Muhammed Atta and the ohter 9/11 hijackers came from a very well-to-do families in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. What 'dignity' did he lose?

Are you trying to tell me they had 'no hope', either?

You can lose dignity and be educated and well to off. See Glenn Beck. Millionaire but feels oppressed by everybody including the government.

But still these are the few. The many are going to be the grunts getting their families paid off if they strap on a belt and walk into a public center to meet 72 virgins.

124 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:48:15pm

re: #1 albusteve

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.

go for it...what is the task exactly?

#1. Kill the brown people who are trying to kill you or the native brown people.
#2. Attempt to institute some form secular self-sustaining government for the brown people and by the brown people that will last at least as long as it takes to withdraw.
#3. Get the hell out of there once goals one and two have been achieved.

/I'm sorry but I have my doubts about changing four thousand years of history. I'll take what we can get...

125 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:48:36pm

re: #89 UncleSam

I spent a few days in 1986 vacationing with some people who had fled Afghanistan because they feared a takeover by the religious nuts. They were Western-educated people who held government jobs and were fearful of their fate if the mujahadeen took over, as eventually happened.
I thought it was a terrible mistake to support the mujahadeen against the Soviet-backed government, because, if the mujahadeen won, they would then turn against us, as they did.
This is the last chance to pound the nails into the coffin of the tyrannical Taliban, and we'd better take off the gloves and let our troops pound them until there's nothing left to pound, or the entire world will be in for a whole lot of hurt.
These people are ruthless, fanatical killers and need to be utterly destroyed.
And we need to eliminate the namby-pamby Rules of Engagement imposed upon our troops by the lefty bureaucrats infesting our armed forces.


Actualy, the Mujahedin largely became the Northern Alliance, Karzai's folks. Most of them are involved in the Afghan government right now. That's why it's such a corrupt mess.

126 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:48:44pm

re: #90 The Sanity Inspector

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.
-- Osama bin Laden

Most of what Bin Laden has said is vile drek, but that line was right on. People will side with the winner. It's not about morality, its about survival.

127 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:49:13pm

re: #106 albusteve

too bad...we should stroke the Chinese?

No we should get all macho on their ass to show how tough we are./ Did you ever consider what taking out the Pakistani nukes would do for terrorist recruitment ?

128 lrsshadow  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:50:37pm

re: #112 The Sanity Inspector

Foggy Bottom is full of people who think we have no enemies, only potential allies whose asses we haven't yet kissed smoochily enough. They're too smug & superior to know when they're being played like a pawnshop Gibson in a Pete Townshend impersonation contest.

Yah you should go hang out off of Penn and 3rd st se, much better crowd. It is amazing how much pull the staffers have. If they ever unionize they could take over.

129 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:51:04pm

re: #119 albusteve

maybe, so what?...I do not think 35k troops will subdue AQ and their Tali minions

No offense, but I'll take the military's opinion over yours.

130 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:51:07pm

re: #124 ausador

Why do you put in the words "brown people"?

131 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:51:12pm

The world isn't the wild west and we aren't John Wayne. No matter what UBL quote you can come up with. Should probably stick to quoting Raegan as you were last night.

132 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:51:14pm

re: #110 tradewind

I didn't say anything about stroking, but you think we should pull their tails?

if China objects to the simple humanitarian aspect of eliminating the Taliban and AQ from Afghanistan, I would simply tell them they can eat our debt to them...it has to end somewhere, and I don't have the best answers...the Chinese are not are friend nor our strategic enemy at this point...they can butt out...all these excuses for not addressing radical Islam just gets more innocent people killed...in for a penny, in for a pound in this case

133 Conservative Moonbat  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:52:15pm

re: #97 Bagua

Do you ever read Juan Cole? He's a bit of a leftist but he knows what's what in the middle east.

[Link: www.juancole.com...]

134 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:52:53pm

re: #117 avanti

You have no more idea of who will eat crow in the long run and it's lame to so state without some factual basis or ownership of a crystal ball.

sure, I'm lame...you are lame...there you have it
I gave my lame opinion

135 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:53:21pm

re: #133 Conservative Moonbat

Do you ever read Juan Cole? He's a bit of a leftist but he knows what's what in the middle east.

[Link: www.juancole.com...]

Just finished his book Engaging the Muslim World. Decent read.

136 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:53:23pm

re: #113 EastSider

Please at least take a stab at my question.

I have answered you. It is useless to discuss the war and any strategy until we can answer who we are fighting against, and who they are fighting against, and who is allied with us and why. The rest is verbiage.

On what basis can we "win" in three years time and exit when we are engaged in a 300 year old civil war in which we do not know what side we are on?

I get the down-dings, but I do not get the answer.

We are all familiar with the Iraq war. Does anyone not know the basic parties of that conflict? Does anyone not know the difference between a Shiite, a Sunni, and a Kurd and have some sense of their history of conflict?

Is that knowledge not a prerequisite to discussing the conflict in Afghanistan? Or is this just a political game of for or against Obama/Bush/Brown?

137 UncleSam  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:53:30pm

re: #125 Conservative Moonbat

Thanks for the info.
What a mess this whole thing is.
The Taliban still need to be destroyed, though.
They're maniacal monsters.

138 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:53:55pm

My guess is that not one single person here knows shit about shit when it comes to what we're doing in Afghanistan.

139 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:55:05pm

re: #138 cliffster

My guess is that not one single person here knows shit about shit when it comes to what we're doing in Afghanistan.

Including you.
I'm just saying...

140 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:55:50pm

re: #139 Floral Giraffe

Including you.
I'm just saying...

That's for sure.

141 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:55:59pm

re: #123 recusancy

As much as I ignore Beck, I don't see him strapping on the latest in Semtex fashions from Milan Gaza or flying a fully fuelled commercial airliner into a skyscraper. But your vapid little non-sequitir about how teH RiGHT is JUST THE SAME is duly noted.

You're trying to make this about rich versus poor when that isn't the case. The 9/11 hijackers are the most prominent example, not the only example you know...

Think about it for a second...to carry off any of these successful attacks requires a pretty complex network of logistics and fundraising. You'd have us believe every last Taliban or Al-Qaeda operative are grubby little urchins who don't know any better.

142 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:56:12pm

re: #124 ausador
Puh-leeze. Enough with the Brown People schtick... have you not seen Charlie Wilson's War? The Afghan people are not necessarily 'brown' people.

143 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:56:35pm

re: #127 avanti

No we should get all macho on their ass to show how tough we are./ Did you ever consider what taking out the Pakistani nukes would do for terrorist recruitment ?

tough call eh?...what's your solution?, offer AQ jobs on your dime?...sooner or later this thing is going to come to a head and I want to come out on top

144 UncleSam  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:56:49pm

re: #131 recusancy

You're wrong.
The world is and always has been the Wild West, and the guy with the biggest, baddest six-gun and the best aim wins, and always has.

145 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:56:49pm

re: #133 Conservative Moonbat

Do you ever read Juan Cole? He's a bit of a leftist but he knows what's what in the middle east.

[Link: www.juancole.com...]

No I've not read much by him. I'll take a look.

146 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:57:24pm

re: #142 tradewind

Puh-leeze. Enough with the Brown People schtick... have you not seen Charlie Wilson's War? The Afghan people are not necessarily 'brown' people.

Or read the book.

147 lrsshadow  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:57:32pm

re: #132 albusteve

Ugh, do you know that Afghanistan shares a boarder with China?

148 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:58:12pm

re: #136 Bagua

I have answered you. It is useless to discuss the war and any strategy until we can answer who we are fighting against, and who they are fighting against, and who is allied with us and why. The rest is verbiage.

On what basis can we "win" in three years time and exit when we are engaged in a 300 year old civil war in which we do not know what side we are on?

I get the down-dings, but I do not get the answer.

We are all familiar with the Iraq war. Does anyone not know the basic parties of that conflict? Does anyone not know the difference between a Shiite, a Sunni, and a Kurd and have some sense of their history of conflict?

Is that knowledge not a prerequisite to discussing the conflict in Afghanistan? Or is this just a political game of for or against Obama/Bush/Brown?

Here's Obama's answer to your question:

"These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future. "

149 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:58:25pm

re: #142 tradewind

Puh-leeze. Enough with the Brown People schtick... have you not seen Charlie Wilson's War? The Afghan people are not necessarily 'brown' people.

Indeed. I have high frequency hearing, and when people start bringing up skin color like that I listen closely for a dog whistle.

150 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:58:46pm

re: #144 UncleSam

You're wrong.
The world is and always has been the Wild West, and the guy with the biggest, baddest six-gun and the best aim wins, and always has.

indeed...nothing has changed except people perception...we cannot all get along...there will be winners and losers

151 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:58:59pm

re: #92 tradewind

Sounds good, but the ChiComs consider Pakistan's nukes their own , and would get extremely exercised at our messing things up.

Where in the fuck did you hear that made up crap? Pakistan developed their own nukes as a counter to their "mortal enemy" India having nukes. China had fuck all to do with it, and why would China who attacks it's own tiny muslim population at every and any excuse consider pakistan which is about 98% muslim a partner of any kind?

Your freaking deluded or have been listening to the wrong pundits.

152 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:00:35pm

re: #141 Fenway_Nation

As much as I ignore Beck, I don't see him strapping on the latest in Semtex fashions from Milan Gaza or flying a fully fuelled commercial airliner into a skyscraper. But your vapid little non-sequitir about how teH RiGHT is JUST THE SAME is duly noted.

You're trying to make this about rich versus poor when that isn't the case. The 9/11 hijackers are the most prominent example, not the only example you know...

Think about it for a second...to carry off any of these successful attacks requires a pretty complex network of logistics and fundraising. You'd have us believe every last Taliban or Al-Qaeda operative are grubby little urchins who don't know any better.

I'm not making this into a rich vs. poor. It's dignity vs loss of dignity. When you feel oppressed or feel you've lossed your identity (either as a nation or religion or something else) you get mad and fight.

153 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:00:38pm

re: #132 albusteve

If China objects to the simple humanitarian aspect

(That's a whole topic, right there...)
I was referencing your mention of corralling the Paki's nukes, mostly. There's no way the ChiComs would sit still for that.
The rest of your point, I understand.
We're in a world of hurt with Pakistan as the player there. It can't really end well.
Was it just me, or did the cadets seem to give POTUS pretty much the minimum applause level required for good manners? They were certainly not wildly enthusiastic, as I have seen them before with other presidents.

154 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:00:46pm

re: #149 Dark_Falcon

Indeed. I have high frequency hearing, and when people start bringing up skin color like that I listen closely for a dog whistle.

Come to Texas. There are brown people everywhere. You pretty much don't even think about it.

155 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:01:09pm

re: #143 albusteve

tough call eh?...what's your solution?, offer AQ jobs on your dime?...sooner or later this thing is going to come to a head and I want to come out on top

I'm not a military expert, but taking out the Pakistani nukes, provoking the terrorists and China, withdrawing from the middle east and hunkering down in our borders waiting for a shit storm would not be my choice.i

156 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:01:18pm

re: #136 Bagua

I have answered you. It is useless to discuss the war and any strategy until we can answer who we are fighting against, and who they are fighting against, and who is allied with us and why. The rest is verbiage.

On what basis can we "win" in three years time and exit when we are engaged in a 300 year old civil war in which we do not know what side we are on?

I get the down-dings, but I do not get the answer.

We are all familiar with the Iraq war. Does anyone not know the basic parties of that conflict? Does anyone not know the difference between a Shiite, a Sunni, and a Kurd and have some sense of their history of conflict?

Is that knowledge not a prerequisite to discussing the conflict in Afghanistan? Or is this just a political game of for or against Obama/Bush/Brown?

Fine I get that. I admit that I do not know the precise history of the region, the different sects, the extent of the civil war, the exact nature of what's happening there. Je ne suis pas un expert d'Afghanistan. Lets move past that.

So, my new questions to you are these:

1) Do you personally know the history of the Afghan conflict well enough to answer your own questions?

2a) If so, please skip with the Socrates, and provide your recommendations (maybe with some links in mind?), I would genuinely like to hear it.

2b) (three parter!) If not, do you believe that Obama has somewhere a team of people who *can* answer these questions, and have advised him accordingly? Do you believe that military leaders who have been on the ground for 8 years have at least a tactical understanding of local alliances? And if you grant those two assumptions, do you believe that Obama and the military leaders of this country will make the correct decision in terms of the best short and longterm interests of the US and her allies?

157 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:02:07pm

re: #147 lrsshadow

Ugh, do you know that Afghanistan shares a boarder with China?

yes, I can read a map...what's your point?

158 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:02:54pm

re: #157 albusteve

yes, I can read a map...what's your point?

Every nation has a strategic interest in their border nations.

159 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:02:58pm

re: #124 ausador

#1. Kill the brown people who are trying to kill you or the native brown people.
#2. Attempt to institute some form secular self-sustaining government for the brown people and by the brown people that will last at least as long as it takes to withdraw.
#3. Get the hell out of there once goals one and two have been achieved.

/I'm sorry but I have my doubts about changing four thousand years of history. I'll take what we can get...

Afghans aren't particularly brown.

160 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:03:24pm

re: #136 Bagua

I have answered you. It is useless to discuss the war and any strategy until we can answer who we are fighting against, and who they are fighting against, and who is allied with us and why. The rest is verbiage.

On what basis can we "win" in three years time and exit when we are engaged in a 300 year old civil war in which we do not know what side we are on?

I get the down-dings, but I do not get the answer.

We are all familiar with the Iraq war. Does anyone not know the basic parties of that conflict? Does anyone not know the difference between a Shiite, a Sunni, and a Kurd and have some sense of their history of conflict?

Is that knowledge not a prerequisite to discussing the conflict in Afghanistan? Or is this just a political game of for or against Obama/Bush/Brown?

p.s.

Saying that I avoided directly answering your question and then avoiding directly answering mine is poor debate form.

161 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:03:37pm

re: #151 ausador
Ignoring your really bad language, where do you think Pakistan's nuclear technology originated? And by whose agreement do you think it rests in Pakistan?
Whenever a flareup of tension between India and Pakistan occurred, State always relied tacitly on China to keep Pakistan in check, re the nukes.

162 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:03:46pm

re: #23 Charles

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

This is important. People who oppose everything Obama does are putting partisanship above patriotism. That sucked when the left did it to Bush and it sucks now. It sucked when the right did it to Clinton and it sucked when the left did it to Bush Sr.

I grieve.

163 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:03:55pm

re: #152 recusancy

I'm not making this into a rich vs. poor. It's dignity vs loss of dignity. When you feel oppressed or feel you've lossed your identity (either as a nation or religion or something else) you get mad and fight.

People don't have a right to dignity, it must be earned. What has the Islamic World done lately to earn its dignity.

164 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:03:59pm

re: #153 tradewind

(That's a whole topic, right there...)
I was referencing your mention of corralling the Paki's nukes, mostly. There's no way the ChiComs would sit still for that.
The rest of your point, I understand.
We're in a world of hurt with Pakistan as the player there. It can't really end well.
Was it just me, or did the cadets seem to give POTUS pretty much the minimum applause level required for good manners? They were certainly not wildly enthusiastic, as I have seen them before with other presidents.

I don't think they give a shit about BO...why should they?

165 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:04:40pm

re: #147 lrsshadow

Ugh, do you know that Afghanistan shares a boarder with China?

No matter, we're all John Wayne and we'd bounce their rubble higher than they'd bounce ours if we exchanged nukes./

166 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:04:55pm

re: #155 avanti

I'm not a military expert, but taking out the Pakistani nukes, provoking the terrorists and China, withdrawing from the middle east and hunkering down in our borders waiting for a shit storm would not be my choice.i

oh well...then you cannot really contribute then

167 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:04pm

re: #165 avanti

No matter, we're all John Wayne and we'd bounce their rubble higher than they'd bounce ours if we exchanged nukes./

And steal their woman.

168 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:22pm

re: #164 albusteve
He's their CIC.
That'd be my first reason. But it seemed to me that they were particularly listless in their applause.

169 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:22pm

re: #148 recusancy

I saw that, it sounds great. But it does not answer any of my questions, Al Quada is a bit player in this conflict.

Nor have the four who down-dinged me answered why they though this "clear military objective" is achievable in 3 years when the civil war has raged on for 300 years?

It is all just talking points, Left, Right, Obama, Bush, and no mention of the British who are also surging their combat troops and no understanding of who the combatants are and what their history is.

My own opinion would be the same if the President was McCain, or Bush, or Obama, or the Prime Minister Cameron.

170 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:41pm

re: #158 recusancy

Every nation has a strategic interest in their border nations.

except the US

171 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:56pm

re: #152 recusancy

Holy fucking shit, I am stupider for having read that. Were you clucking about the 'dignity' of the thousands of Algerians killed in their decade-long civil war? Or the train-wreck that was Lebanon from the late 1970s onward? Or Pakistan last fucking month?

More to the point, were groups like AQ or Hizbullah whinging about dignity...or were they enthusiastically taking part in the bloodbath with precious little concern for the 'dignity' of the lives of their fellow Muslims that they joyously snuffed out?

172 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:05:59pm

re: #170 albusteve

except the US

NORAD would disagree.

173 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:06:42pm

re: #163 Dark_Falcon
Actually, you can't earn dignity. It's inherent in the individual, and you either have it, or you don't. It's not dependent upon circumstances.

174 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:07:05pm

re: #170 albusteve

except the US

I'm pretty sure we have an interest in Canada's and Mexico's stability.

175 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:07:09pm

re: #160 EastSider

p.s.

Saying that I avoided directly answering your question and then avoiding directly answering mine is poor debate form.

I was typing a reply to someone else and have answered your prior question. Let's not rush.

176 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:08:05pm

re: #172 McSpiff

NORAD would disagree.

NORAD is about nuclear threat, not about borders

177 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:08:09pm

re: #130 Dark_Falcon

Why do you put in the words "brown people"?

The post was meant to convey a extremely simplistic and overtly warhawk mentality, which is what it did. When trying to mimic someone you use their language do you not? Still it my own fault, people are so attuned to listen for racism they even hear it when it isn't there.

178 avanti  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:08:28pm

re: #166 albusteve

oh well...then you cannot really contribute then

I see you like to pick fights, just glad you only have a keyboard and not the nuke codes. I'll put you on GAZE for this evening.

179 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:08:50pm

re: #170 albusteve
That's because we don't really have any border nations...just feeder states.///
(Oh , don't start...I tagged it...)

180 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:08:58pm

re: #173 tradewind

Actually, you can't earn dignity. It's inherent in the individual, and you either have it, or you don't. It's not dependent upon circumstances.

I don't think it inherent. Some people could have it but don't because of their poor actions (myself at times, for instance). Dignity is earned by decent and honorable behavior. Monsters like Mohammad Atta have no honor and no decency, hence they have no dignity.

181 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:09:04pm

It's late. This half-brown guy is off to bed. I'll check in tomorrow morning to see what yall have come up with in solving the worlds problems, and determining the philosophical origin of human dignity. You have eight hours.

182 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:09:58pm

re: #176 albusteve

NORAD is about nuclear threat, not about borders

That's factually wrong. NORAD is about protecting North American Air Space. American commanders can actually launch and direct Canadian fighters to any potential threat to North American Air Space. Happens damn near daily when the Russians get pissy.

183 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:11:08pm

re: #178 avanti

I see you like to pick fights, just glad you only have a keyboard and not the nuke codes. I'll put you on GAZE for this evening.

I'm not picking fights, I'm merely posting my thoughts...same as you and what do nuke codes have to do with anything?...GAZE me forever, I could care less

184 recusancy  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:11:37pm

re: #171 Fenway_Nation

Holy fucking shit, I am stupider for having read that. Were you clucking about the 'dignity' of the thousands of Algerians killed in their decade-long civil war? Or the train-wreck that was Lebanon from the late 1970s onward? Or Pakistan last fucking month?

More to the point, were groups like AQ or Hizbullah whinging about dignity...or were they enthusiastically taking part in the bloodbath with precious little concern for the 'dignity' of the lives of their fellow Muslims that they joyously snuffed out?

Dignity and the desire for power. And fuck you too.

185 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:11:37pm

re: #177 ausador

The post was meant to convey a extremely simplistic and overtly warhawk mentality, which is what it did. When trying to mimic someone you use their language do you not? Still it my own fault, people are so attuned to listen for racism they even hear it when it isn't there.

Sorry about that. Given the large number of different ethnicities at my workplace, coupled with my own habit of occasionally sticking my foot in my mouth, I'm pretty skittish when it comes to race.

186 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:12:45pm

re: #182 McSpiff

That's factually wrong. NORAD is about protecting North American Air Space. American commanders can actually launch and direct Canadian fighters to any potential threat to North American Air Space. Happens damn near daily when the Russians get pissy.

I'm not talking about airspace...I'm talking about ground space...you know that don't you?

187 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:12:53pm

I certainly would hope that a theater commander would publicly support the mission handed down by the CINC. If not the commander should resign.

In this case the mission has a PR component that requires a unity of commitment to get the NATO allies to pony up more resources (most won't).

The interesting thing to Obama's plan is -

+ the exit strategy of a date

+ the statement that we won't be a patron to Afghanistan

+ the implication that we will be a patron to Pakistan

There are a few moving elements of the problem that need to isolated to explain what Obama is up to. One is patronage. There is a long history of European patronage in the Middle East. Lebanon was a patron of France. If you follow Mike Totten then you know that French patronage brought great benefits to Lebanon and allowed for something similar to what we know as a prosperous multi ethnic quasi secular country to emerge from a region that didn't have many such countries. Patronage was effected by the French out of French interests and for protection of lebanon's christians. Patronage offers a known route to westernization in the region that occupation has had less success in delivering.

Another moving element is gaming terrorists. We have long maintained different ideas about how to communicate resolve to terrorists. One thing is to not negotiate with them. Another is to not give them a "wait until" date for an exit from a commitment lest they wait us out and declare victory when we bail. We really haven't outgamed al Qaeda. We beat them in Iraq because a local population that was relatively westernized got tired of having local people getting fingers chopped off by foreign moralists for smoking and decided to help us kill the nutty bastards. Are there such people in Afghanistan? In the parts of Afghanistan where the Taliban hang out? Not really.

What I think Obama intends is to bail from Afghanistan after giving Karzai a chance. Instead we will set up shop in Pakistan and maintain a patronage relationship with them and then use raids and indirect fire (bombs, predators, artillery) to simply pound the hell out of the Taliban when we choose (and just to keep the option of doing it open we should do it often, much like the "no fly zone" bombing runs in Iraq under Clinton).

This approach concedes that Afghanistan is almost hopelessly fucked up but goes through the motions of giving them a chance at getting their shit together. As for Pakistan, that is where the neocon nation building effort goes and does so on the basis that it is a nuclear armed resentful enemy of an emerging India and we probably want to be there simply to keep a lid on that relationship. If Pakistan can actually try to become economically competitive to India (much as Korea sought to compete with Japan as much out of nationalism than greed) then we might get them on track to becoming a pluralistic, westernized and secular society, understanding that the hillbillies in Waziristan will always be whacked out.

I don't see a problem with announcing a date in Afghanistan if we maintain the ability to project power via Pakistan and focus on rehabilitating them - a project with better chances of success, IMO.

188 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:13:01pm

re: #176 albusteve

NORAD is about nuclear threat, not about borders


North American Aerospace Defence Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.
189 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:14:06pm

re: #184 recusancy

Dignity and the desire for power. And fuck you too.

Bullshit. Your argument leaks like a sieve. Take your crass insults and insert them where the sun don't shine.

190 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:15:55pm

re: #156 EastSider

Fine I get that. I admit that I do not know the precise history of the region, the different sects, the extent of the civil war, the exact nature of what's happening there. Je ne suis pas un expert d'Afghanistan. Lets move past that.

Excellent! That is all I wanted to hear. From that we can move on to understanding.

Listen, this is one of the best political blogs on the internet, it is beneath us to argue this conflict without the basic understanding I alluded to. Who among us did not clock on to the Sunni/Shiite divide in Iraq as an issue?

Let's raise our game on Afghanistan as well as this war is not going away!

So, my new questions to you are these:

1) Do you personally know the history of the Afghan conflict well enough to answer your own questions?

Yes, though my knowledge is limited, I can certainly answer my own questions.


2a) If so, please skip with the Socrates, and provide your recommendations (maybe with some links in mind?), I would genuinely like to hear it.

I recommend we learn and research the answers to my questions above so that we can have a more substantive debate.


2b) (three parter!) If not, do you believe that Obama has somewhere a team of people who *can* answer these questions, and have advised him accordingly? Do you believe that military leaders who have been on the ground for 8 years have at least a tactical understanding of local alliances? And if you grant those two assumptions, do you believe that Obama and the military leaders of this country will make the correct decision in terms of the best short and longterm interests of the US and her allies?

I would like to believe that, but I see no evidence in the speech, the surge, or the political spin that is going on. I believe that President Obama hesitated because he knows how impossible the task is.

I am saddened that Obama has apparently given in to political pressure from those who were ignorantly condemning him for not immediately sending more troops.

191 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:16:36pm

re: #186 albusteve

I'm not talking about airspace...I'm talking about ground space...you know that don't you?

You said America does not have a strategic interest in their border nations. I'm saying the US Airforce disagrees with that word for word. You then said NORAD was simply about nukes. Which the US Airforce also disagrees with. The US has, and has traditional had a larger strategic interest in Canada than almost anywhere else in the world, dating back to joint Canada-US projects like alaska highway, the pine-tree line and the DEW line. So what I do know is that you're talking out of your ass.

192 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:16:38pm

re: #189 Dark_Falcon

Bullshit. Your argument leaks like a sieve. Take your crass insults and insert them where the sun don't shine.

agreed...it's the insults everytime

193 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:16:39pm

re: #169 Bagua

I saw that, it sounds great. But it does not answer any of my questions, Al Quada is a bit player in this conflict.

Nor have the four who down-dinged me answered why they though this "clear military objective" is achievable in 3 years when the civil war has raged on for 300 years?

It is all just talking points, Left, Right, Obama, Bush, and no mention of the British who are also surging their combat troops and no understanding of who the combatants are and what their history is.

My own opinion would be the same if the President was McCain, or Bush, or Obama, or the Prime Minister Cameron.

I'd like to hear your answer to some of EastSider's questions. Also, what do you make of this guy's assertions about the tribal/nontribal situation?

Also, I would argue that al-Qaeda, bit player though they may be in the grand Afghan scheme of things, are the U.S.'s only stake in the region, although that may have changed as Pakistan gets dragged deeper in the conflict.

194 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:16:49pm

re: #161 tradewind

Ignoring your really bad language, where do you think Pakistan's nuclear technology originated? And by whose agreement do you think it rests in Pakistan?
Whenever a flareup of tension between India and Pakistan occurred, State always relied tacitly on China to keep Pakistan in check, re the nukes.

Got any links or is this just something you heard?

Pakistan has several famous nuclear physicists of it's own and has even published the story in great detail of how they developed their first atomic weapon as a counter to Indias nukes. Now you tell me that China gave it to them? First of all why would they want a muslim state with nukes on their border? It makes no sense at all, but hey if it makes you happy somehow to believe your version then more power to you I guess.

195 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:17:14pm

re: #184 recusancy

Dignity and the desire for power. And fuck you too.

My my...that's not very dignified of you.

/Fatwa forthcoming

196 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:19:04pm

re: #195 Fenway_Nation

My my...that's not very dignified of you.

/Fatwa forthcoming

Was that the dinner bell? Cause recusancy is getting served tonight!

197 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:19:07pm

re: #191 McSpiff

You said America does not have a strategic interest in their border nations. I'm saying the US Airforce disagrees with that word for word. You then said NORAD was simply about nukes. Which the US Airforce also disagrees with. The US has, and has traditional had a larger strategic interest in Canada than almost anywhere else in the world, dating back to joint Canada-US projects like alaska highway, the pine-tree line and the DEW line. So what I do know is that you're talking out of your ass.

whatever...I don't really care if you don't grasp our open border situation...it's all about semantics eh?...blab on

198 LotharBot  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:19:43pm

re: #187 karmic_inquisitor

Your comment deserves many updings.

We might not be able to install a stable, secular government in Afghanistan. It's a way more backwater place than either Iraq or Iran. But as long as we retain the ability to strike the Taliban and various other Afghanistan-based terrorists at the time and place of our choosing, we retain the upper hand.

We're sending in more troops right now to beat them back. Then it's a matter of whether the Afghani government gets its stuff together. If so, they keep killing terrorists for us. If not, we do it from Pakistan. Either way, we're in this to win this.

199 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:19:48pm

re: #194 ausador

Got any links or is this just something you heard?

Pakistan has several famous nuclear physicists of it's own and has even published the story in great detail of how they developed their first atomic weapon as a counter to Indias nukes. Now you tell me that China gave it to them? First of all why would they want a muslim state with nukes on their border? It makes no sense at all, but hey if it makes you happy somehow to believe your version then more power to you I guess.

I can't give links, but I know the grand son of one those pakistani nuclear scientists who did the original work and I've seen a picture of him meeting Mao Tse-Tung. I don't know the nature of the visit, but take from that story what you will.

200 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:20:15pm

re: #193 SanFranciscoZionist

Was my #190 enough? We were probably typing at the same time.

I'm reading the article you linked and will respond to that as well my friend.

201 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:20:17pm

re: #196 Dark_Falcon

Was that the dinner bell? Cause recusancy is getting served tonight!

You mean aside from this thread?

202 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:20:23pm

re: #198 LotharBot

Your comment deserves many updings.

We might not be able to install a stable, secular government in Afghanistan. It's a way more backwater place than either Iraq or Iran. But as long as we retain the ability to strike the Taliban and various other Afghanistan-based terrorists at the time and place of our choosing, we retain the upper hand.

We're sending in more troops right now to beat them back. Then it's a matter of whether the Afghani government gets its stuff together. If so, they keep killing terrorists for us. If not, we do it from Pakistan. Either way, we're in this to win this.

Right on!

203 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:20:41pm

re: #197 albusteve

whatever...I don't really care if you don't grasp our open border situation...it's all about semantics eh?...blab on

Maybe "strategic interest" means something different to you. Care to explain what the term means to you?

204 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:21:43pm

re: #203 McSpiff

Maybe "strategic interest" means something different to you. Care to explain what the term means to you?

no...I won't split hairs with you...I'm unimpressed

205 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:22:02pm

re: #200 Bagua

Was my #190 enough? We were probably typing at the same time.

I'm reading the article you linked and will respond to that as well my friend.

OK. Yes, #190 filled in a bit. I'm curious to hear your take on what solution would work for the U.S. given, well, everything.

206 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:22:44pm

re: #204 albusteve

no...I won't split hairs with you...I'm unimpressed

I'm being serious. I talked, you listened. Now I'll do the same.

207 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:24:12pm

re: #201 Fenway_Nation

You mean aside from this thread?

Here and on the last thread. His response to direct hits has been to post Obama quotes, which is the functional equivalent of shouting "Hope! Change! Yes we can!". He can't argue very well.

208 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:26:09pm

re: #207 Dark_Falcon

Seems like 'Dignity' has been added to the lexicon.

209 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:26:59pm

re: #206 McSpiff

I'm being serious. I talked, you listened. Now I'll do the same.

NORAD has nothing to do with our open southern border...AQ and whoever else walks in...that's my point, and it is a matter of national security and in our strategic interests...I think you knew that

210 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:27:08pm

I have to bail out of here and get some sleep. Bagua, lemme know what you make of the article, if you get a chance. One the things that drives me mad about Afghanistan is I'm never really sure who to believe when people start bickering. Not my area.

211 Fenway_Nation  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:29:58pm

re: #210 SanFranciscoZionist


Fare thee well, Jewish homeland supporter of the hilly California city reknowned for seismic activitity, over-the-top car chases and that...thing down at Folsom street persuasion.

212 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:30:01pm

The more you think about it ... what was he supposed to say?
' He shorted me ten thousand '?
It's not as if he was gonna complain to the NYT.

213 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:30:57pm

Yeah, that's it. He had to say this. He didn't really mean it. He really hates Obama!

Sure, that's it. He was pressured into it. Gotta be.

214 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:34:04pm

re: #209 albusteve

NORAD has nothing to do with our open southern border...AQ and whoever else walks in...that's my point, and it is a matter of national security and in our strategic interests...I think you knew that

I honestly didn't. I'm only familiar with the Canadian situation. I live in a port city. At this moment we have USAF and USN officers working in our navy dockyards with I believe a US coast guard cutter in port, we have our Maritime Surveillance partially under American control(NORAD), and we have US Border Agents handling security for flights to the states in our airport. We aren't even a boarder city either. I would have assumed the situation was similar, or even more pronounced south of the border. That seems like an obvious one to me. So yes, I would agree the US needs a larger presence in Mexico if thats not the case.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

PS: For whatever reason, US Coast Guard use Canadian Navy facilities and not Canadian Coast Guard docks. Anyone know why that is?

215 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:35:08pm

re: #190 Bagua

You get an "A" for effort, but I'm not sure your line of questioning is going to end up where you think it ought to go.

Essentially Obama has bought into the idea that strategic presence take precedence over pretty much anything.

In other words, it is important to be there to show the flag.

Since a couple of the goals outlined by the President are to a large part achieved already - the dismantling of AQ capability as well as their base of operation in Afghanistan, what remains is to turn the place into some sort of acceptable nation state that won't revert to the Taliban led training ground for AQ that it was pre 2002.

And on that latter goal the measuring of success will be most important after we have left.

It makes little difference to try and pinpoint a specific tribe in some valley in Afghanistan and label them the enemy, as future terrorists could come from any assortment of sources.

This decision by the President looks to me to be an "I'm not going to let Afghanistan fall apart on my watch" decision. Don't try to read more into it. This is one decision of many that will be made. As time goes by he will have to make changes and adjustments.

I agree with lawhawk - this speech was to sell to the Democratic party members in Congress and their supporters the idea of not withdrawing right now.

It is not necessarily the cornerstone to a new age of mankind. Nothing has really changed, as far as I can tell.

216 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:41:59pm

re: #193 SanFranciscoZionist

[...] Also, what do you make of this guy's assertions about the tribal/nontribal situation?

Also, I would argue that al-Qaeda, bit player though they may be in the grand Afghan scheme of things, are the U.S.'s only stake in the region, although that may have changed as Pakistan gets dragged deeper in the conflict.

That is a good article and at least it addresses the actual groups we are fighting against and with. He makes a good point that we can no longer speak strictly in terms of the Pashtun civil war, and that post the Soviet war some new alliances and grouping have further complicated this centuries long war.

However, I believe he is too dismissive of the civil war as being fundamental to the conflict. The Ghilzai have seen their country taken over by a Durrani regime, again, and supported by US and UK/Nato military might using a predominantly Tajik army. They are hated and this goes way beyond religion or local tribal politics. We can not win these peoples hearts and minds.

Likewise the Soviets intervened in the Pashtun civil war to support the Ghilzai revolution over the Durranis, the result was the Soviet defeat and withdrawal and the dominance of the Ghilzai run Taleban who we in turn toppled in 2001 and reasserted Durrani rule.

The various Anglo-Afghan wars starting in 1839 was an earlier attempt to intervene in this Pashtun civil war. It did not go so well and things have festered since. They have been fighting Western intervention longer than the US has been a nation.

To assert we can arrive on the scene and in 3 years achieve some objective is absurd and centuries of conflict back up this statement. The mere fact that the Pahstun range through Pakistan into Kasmir, and have the support of the Wazaris indicates that there can be no talk of "victory" while those bases remain active.

217 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:42:05pm

re: #213 Charles
Who said anything (not I) about his opinion of POTUS, or that he felt pressured? He could have resigned, if he really couldn't accept the number. What he did not have, realistically, was the option of whining in public... no career military man does, and for good reason.
He asked for forty thousand plus. I suppose ten thousand give or take doesn't really matter.

218 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:43:52pm

re: #190 Bagua

Sweet. FYI, for future reference, and I can't speak for others on this blog, but I work a lot better if you tell me your stated goal so we can start from there.

So if "all you wanted to hear" was me (or, I take it anyone) say "I don't know about Afghanistan," so that we could move to "lets learn about Afghanistan to have a debate on it." That's fine. The socrates, for me, is frustrating, especially since its clear we were debating two different concepts.

I thought: "Resolved, the United States's best course of action in Afghanistan is the plan laid out by Obama tonight"

For which my main arguments (in favor) were:
-I trust the Pres/leaders, therefore one doesn't need to be an expert to be in favor
-Pulling out would be destructive

You thought: "Resolved, no one can make an argument either way on Afghanstan policy without having a sufficient baseline of info"

So we talked past eachother and didn't answer questions for a while.

FWIW, I still agree with my position, despite my lack of knowledge (implicitly disagreeing with your position). My policy is: trust, but verify.

So, lets verify.

219 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:44:44pm

re: #215 freetoken

How about maybe that it is important to continue to fight and disrupt the terrorists on their home ground so that we don't have to do it over here on our turf so much?

How about simply giving the Army the troops, helicopters, and air support that they have been shortchanged on since halfway through the first year of this conflict?

How about we at least give the commanders on the ground an honest chance to affect some change in the dynamic of the battle before we declare it lost and run away?

Afghanistan has been the bastard redheaded stepchild to Iraq for over seven years. Maybe if we actually try really committing to doing something there we will find out we are able to?

220 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:52:49pm

re: #215 freetoken

[...]

It makes little difference to try and pinpoint a specific tribe in some valley in Afghanistan and label them the enemy, as future terrorists could come from any assortment of sources.
[...]

All good and agreed except for the bit I have excerpted.

We are not talking about a specific tribe in some valley, rather, the larger civil war in which the two Major tribal groups, the Pashtun Durranis who are the settled population of farmers, middle class and traders; and the Pahtun Ghilzai who are the historically nomadic and fundamentalist whose range goes from Afghanistan to Pakistan and all the way to Kashmir.

It was in this very same Pashtun civil war that the British intervened in 1839 in the first Anglo-Afghan war and the very same civil war in which the Soviets intervened.

Now it is the same civil war into which the US and Uk/Nato have stumbled into. Only now, post Soviet invasion there are additional groups of combatants such as the Al Queda, Tanzim, Hezb-i Islami,. et.

The first two invaders were thrown out of Afghanistan, and we are to believe that we can pacify this war in three years time? Absurd.

221 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:57:13pm

re: #220 Bagua

All good and agreed except for the bit I have excerpted.

We are not talking about a specific tribe in some valley, rather, the larger civil war in which the two Major tribal groups, the Pashtun Durranis who are the settled population of farmers, middle class and traders; and the Pahtun Ghilzai who are the historically nomadic and fundamentalist whose range goes from Afghanistan to Pakistan and all the way to Kashmir.

It was in this very same Pashtun civil war that the British intervened in 1839 in the first Anglo-Afghan war and the very same civil war in which the Soviets intervened.

Now it is the same civil war into which the US and Uk/Nato have stumbled into. Only now, post Soviet invasion there are additional groups of combatants such as the Al Queda, Tanzim, Hezb-i Islami,. et.

The first two invaders were thrown out of Afghanistan, and we are to believe that we can pacify this war in three years time? Absurd.

From my limited reading of history, it seems like the quote "Never fight a land war in asia" could easily be referring to Afghanistan for most of its history.

222 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:59:48pm

re: #194 ausador

The entire missile arsenal of Pakistan is of Chinese or North Korean origin

[Link: www.southasiaanalysis.org...]


Historically, China played a major role in the establishment of Pakistan's nuclear weapons development infrastructure, especially, when increasingly stringent export controls in the western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire nuclear materials and technology from elsewhere. Additionally, Pakistani officials have supposedly been present to observe at least one Chinese nuclear test. In a recent revelation by a high-ranking former U.S. official, it was disclosed that China had allegedly transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan and conducting Proxy Test for it in 1980.[39] According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and has provided critical technical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear weapons development facilities, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which China is a signatory.[40]


[Link: www.armscontrolwonk.com...]

Pakistani Foreign Ministry officials said China can supply additional power plants to Pakistan without approval from the Vienna-based NSG, on the grounds that China has already supplied two nuclear power reactors to Pakistan without its approval.


Too many references to list here, but China pulls the strings.

223 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:01:04pm

re: #218 EastSider

Great! Now reverse your downdings from my first two comments please as I have backed up everything I have said and we can be best buds. :)

224 borgcube  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:29:46pm

re: #5 Charles

So you guys know better than the senior NATO commander? Groovy. When are you going to be taking over his job?

As soon as I can name the 42 nations who are supposedly contributing in Afghanistan for starters. What a crock from this guy. What did you expect him to say?

The 42 other nations of the coalition probably consists of 84 guys. 1/2 are liaisons to Brussels to report how great of a job the other guy is doing. The focus of his statement is nation building. Screw that. Kill the terrorists and come home. That's what our military is for, not creating new nations inhabited by a bunch of 7th century aficionados. Granted, that has worked in previous conflicts with great success, but those nations and cultures were at least living within the same millennium as us.

70,000 troops, soon to be 100,000. Eight years in and we still haven't defeated guys in caves, opium production is better than ever, and all the women still walk around head to toe in blue Cousin It costumes. This will fail by default. It already has.

225 james37211  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:49:49pm

re: #23 Charles

Not at all Charles. The CIC issued to the Good General, orders The General obeys the CIC´s orders even if he detests those orders. I see no dis-connect here.
Cut and run? He gave the Taliban a time-table of when we would be out of there. That´s called: ¨VICTORY¨ - only, NOT for us - it´ll be the Taliban´s ¨VA DAY¨

226 DCCLXX  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:22:25am

Obama's strategy in a nushell

1) Appease the hawks ...sent in some troops
2) Appease the doves ...pull out all troops ASAP (never mind the situation)

remind you of anything from nursery rhymes ?


The grand old Duke of York,

He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

227 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:31:33am
228 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:09:06am

re: #224 borgcube

Man, way to show respect to our allies.

You know that they die over there, too, right? Dead soldiers come home from Afghanistan to Britain and Canada.

It's shameful to minimize that.

229 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:16:38am

re: #224 borgcube

Britain is there and losing good people - very good people.

230 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:43:02am

re: #23 Charles

Gee, you know, I seem to remember a whole lot of people yelling and screaming that Obama was ignoring McChrystal's advice, and Obama was going to cut and run, and Obama was going to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, etc.

Suddenly, when McChrystal doesn't seem at all unhappy with Obama's decision, he's wrong?

Really? And you don't think there's a teensy weensy disconnect there?

He's lying, of course. None of our military leaders have any balls when faced with the hypno-beams of our Kenyan president.

That's what you're saying, right, AlbuSteve and others? Our military has abdicated to a presidential wuss, a cutter and runner, a weakling?

Obama did not sound very weak to me last night. And the cadets didn't seem to think so, either.

231 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:53:14am

re: #230 Cato the Elder

(Though in the broadcast I watched last night - CBS? can't remember - at least one young man seemed to be asleep. Bet he's getting ragged about that this morning!)

232 borgcube  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:00:05am

re: #228 Obdicut

Man, way to show respect to our allies.

You know that they die over there, too, right? Dead soldiers come home from Afghanistan to Britain and Canada.

It's shameful to minimize that.

You are correct. I should have only pointed out the amazing contributions from the 2 guys from Iceland and the 4 guys from Austria. Jordan with 7 guys, Luxembourg's 8, Singapore's 9 and Ukraine's 10 are also doing a bang up job. We even hit double digits with Ireland's 33. Yeah Ireland! Notably absent is Pakistan. Figures, since that horrible primitive nation can't even maintain control of its own "tribal regions" (that term alone sums up that part of the world nicely doesn't it?) and refuses to allow us to do what they can't, even if they wanted to. (which they don't)

No one from any of those countries should be dying in Afghanistan in the first place. The only ones who should be dying are sub-human terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan and those who support them. In large numbers. That can be done with no troops on the ground.

Our troops are dying and we're wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (or borrowing and/or printing money) for something that will never come to pass in that putrid worthless country. Check back in July 2011 when our troops are supposedly going to be coming home and tell me I was wrong about this folly.

233 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:02:52am

re: #228 Obdicut

Man, way to show respect to our allies.

You know that they die over there, too, right? Dead soldiers come home from Afghanistan to Britain and Canada.

It's shameful to minimize that.

And from Germany. Germany!

234 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:12:31am

re: #109 Floral Giraffe

I'ts still, IMHO, the only answer.
Educate them all! Men & Women. They should be the initiators of the solutions to their countries problems. "Outsiders" can make suggestions, but only the residents can make it WORK!

IMO, FG- the counter ideologies of radical islam are democracy and feminism. That's why last night when the President spoke about the long term consequences of our actions, I thought of history and President Bush, and I think the long term "consequences" to Iraq might be better than some people fear, because the seed of democracy now grows in the heart of the old caliphate. It might have positive implications for the region for many years to come. Time will tell.

235 Flavia  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:47:54am

re: #133 Conservative Moonbat

Do you ever read Juan Cole? He's a bit of a leftist but he knows what's what in the middle east.

[Link: www.juancole.com...]

Except for his insane lies about Jews/Israel, of course...

236 Flavia  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:52:31am

re: #163 Dark_Falcon

People don't have a right to dignity, it must be earned. What has the Islamic World done lately to earn its dignity.

I think the term you are looking for is "respect", rather than "dignity."

237 bunnymud  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:56:51am

Did obama ever say "Victory in Afghanistan" last night? Or even just the word "Victory" in association with the war?

238 captdiggs  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:59:25am

McChrystal said what was predicted by virtually all the pundits on the tube last night.
After all, it was his plan with two changes by Obama.
1) 25% less troops than requested.
2) A timeline for withdrawal.
No General would be happy with those two changes. But, no General would say anything publicaly about them unless they were prepared to resign and retire.
Anyone who thinks that McChrystal is free to do much else should read some history on Truman and MacArthur.

239 bunnymud  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:01:50am

And is really "Change":

War President
Obama: 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"

Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"

Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"

Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"

Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"

Sounds like he's rehashing all of Bush Jr.'s lines

240 Vidiotic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:14:42am

Yay, my first comment! I stand behind our President in this instance. He's shifting our military influence to the war we should've been fighting exclusively. Remember, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, so the timetable will change. It's nice to finally have a President who realizes that this isn't a game or a Rambo flick.

241 Hancock the Superb  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:17:48am

re: #5 Charles

I guess William Westmoreland was above reproach for anyone but four-star generals too.

242 Hancock the Superb  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:22:55am

As for the President's speech last night, I like a lot of what he had to say. I appreciate that he reminded Americans of why we're in Afghanistan in the first place, and I thought it was great that he's putting Karzai on notice that he needs to shape up and fly right if we're going to support him. If we have a crooked and ineffectual government in place in Kabul, then haven't we lost, all other considerations aside?

My major problem is with the timetable - not because it's telling the Taliban when we're leaving or whatever Limbaugh/Beck spin we're going to hear the next few weeks, but primarily because it may not be enough time to achieve the mission. If we get to the end of the eighteen months and there's still problems in Afghanistan, what do we do then? If the time table is flexible enough to allow for changes on the ground then fair enough, but to me this seems little more than a calculated political move.

The main reason the surge in Iraq worked was not simply because of numbers, but because of the better rules-of-engagement and freedom of action granted to the new troops. Plus by that point in time the troops knew much better how to combat insurgency. I think Obama and co. drew the wrong conclusions from the Iraq surge, unfortunately, and I'm not sure how simply adding 30,000 more troops is going to help with the problems the country is facing. More troops didn't help in Vietnam; in fact, we became more successful by fighting better with less troops.

Still, I'm hoping my skepticism is misplaced.

243 HelloDare  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:36:05am

I keep hearing on radio network news that the troops will start to be withdrawn in 18 months. Where are they getting that? Obama said

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.

All combat troops will be out by Sept. 21, 2010. How many people praising Obama's speech know that.

244 Hancock the Superb  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:43:24am

re: #243 HelloDare

I keep hearing on radio network news that the troops will start to be withdrawn in 18 months. Where are they getting that? Obama said


All combat troops will be out by Sept. 21, 2010. How many people praising Obama's speech know that.

Hell, how many people criticizing Obama's speech know that? You'd think the CodePink/DU crowd would be loving that.

245 Pacific moderate  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:50:12am

Re #224 borgcube: There have been plenty of Canadian and British casualties, among others, in Afghanistan.

I do agree about the futility of fighting the Islamists over there as long as our insane drug laws continue to subsizide them by driving up the value of opium. We could really pull the rug out from under these guys by legalizing/decriminalizing opium in North America and Europe. I fear that our population in the US anyway is not mature enough to make rational choices in the matter.

246 DeathPiggie  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:18:36am

Clearly General Mchrystal is just another commie pinko lefty hell bent on the destruction of America and the death of her soldiers.
/Hot Air Comment.

247 SilentAlfa  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:09:43pm

re: #243 HelloDare

I keep hearing on radio network news that the troops will start to be withdrawn in 18 months. Where are they getting that? Obama said

All combat troops will be out by Sept. 21, 2010. How many people praising Obama's speech know that.

I thought it was pretty clear to me that he said we would be withdrawing from Iraq by next summer, and Afghanistan in 18 months. So we'll be out of Iraq by the summer of 2010, and Afghanistan by 2011 (or so he says).

248 ThomasLite  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:16:02pm

re: #232 borgcube

You are correct. I should have only pointed out the amazing contributions from the 2 guys from Iceland and the 4 guys from Austria. Jordan with 7 guys, Luxembourg's 8, Singapore's 9 and Ukraine's 10 are also doing a bang up job. We even hit double digits with Ireland's 33. Yeah Ireland! Notably absent is Pakistan. Figures, since that horrible primitive nation can't even maintain control of its own "tribal regions" (that term alone sums up that part of the world nicely doesn't it?) and refuses to allow us to do what they can't, even if they wanted to. (which they don't)

No one from any of those countries should be dying in Afghanistan in the first place. The only ones who should be dying are sub-human terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan and those who support them. In large numbers. That can be done with no troops on the ground.

Our troops are dying and we're wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (or borrowing and/or printing money) for something that will never come to pass in that putrid worthless country. Check back in July 2011 when our troops are supposedly going to be coming home and tell me I was wrong about this folly.

oh. don't forget the dutch, over 2000 of them.

IIRC we've had 21 casualties so far, which might not seem much but remember it's a small country.
frankly said I take offense at how you're belittling those who fight the same fight, but, in your apparent opinion, don't wear the 'right' flag.

249 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:37:04pm

re: #232 borgcube

I'm not compentent to judge whether you're right or wrong about this being a folly.

I am competent to say that you pretending that members of the armed forces of other countries aren't giving their lives there is shameful.

250 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:40:35pm

Whether Obama is making the right choice or not, I honestly have no idea. But he said for years that he wanted to fix things in Afghanistan and never suggested he was going to pull out, particularly in a hurry. He's never been a pacifist and he's always been in favor of the U.S. being active in protecting its interests.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Propellor beanie upon him.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

researchok
Out of Gas
34 minutes ago
Views: 39 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

I AM BREITBART!
Seattle Manhunt Launched After Deadly Cafe Shootings, Carjacking
50 minutes ago
Views: 38 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Shiplord Kirel
Dragon to Depart Station Thursday
2 hours, 1 minute ago
Views: 28 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Randall Gross
Citadel Malware Delivers Reveton Ransomware in attempts to extort money
2 hours, 54 minutes ago
Views: 88 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2

Channeling Confucius
From the previous Diamond Jubilee: Kipling's 'Recessional'
3 hours, 25 minutes ago
Views: 61 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Egyptian Student Invents New Propulsion Method - Science - Health & Science - OnIslam.net
4 hours, 17 minutes ago
Views: 118 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Bob Dillon
REVEALED: Hundreds of Words to Avoid Using Online if You Don't Want the Government Spying on You
4 hours, 30 minutes ago
Views: 106 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Learned Mother of Zion
Native Americans Have Jewish DNA!
4 hours, 49 minutes ago
Views: 218 • Comments: 5
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 4

Eclectic Infidel
Mitt Romney for a better Amercia!
4 hours, 54 minutes ago
Views: 120 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Aigle
Ha'aretz, Lost in Translation
8 hours, 9 minutes ago
Views: 166 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

 Frank says:

Scientology, how about that? You hold on to the tin cans and then this guy asks you a bunch of questions, and if you pay enough money you get to join the master race. How's that for a religion? -- Concert at the Rockpile, Toronto, May 1969