Afganistan Strategy Debacle

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army?

Field Artillery Officer.

I’m trying to determine whether you’re more of a Takimag guy or a Huffington Post kinda guy.

Been visiting Takimag alot lately. The Germanic paganism vs. Christianity debate seems to be stirring things up recently. Also, there’s the atheistic Paleo-Con/Libertarian side jumping in. A bit of infighting? [/quote]

It’s been going on for a number of years. The Germanic paganism is more of an effort to shift white people away from an ethos (Christianity) that, according to them, requires white people to give every one of their countries away to third worlders. I deny that Christianity requires that, but I could see how they think that. They want the “god of the city” (to borrow a term from Bloom) to be warlike and ethnic rather than universal and peaceful for the purposes of saving their own ethnicity.

It’s a silly argument, anyway. No one takes Christianity seriously nowadays.

Libertarians are basically flat-earthers that like to ignore a lot of inconvenient data about the colors of crime and poverty and believe that lassez-faire capitalism and drug legalization will solve all of the ills they see in the third worlders we’ve imported. Hilarious.

It has a lot of good stuff on there, though.

22

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Well, if by success he means turning Afghanistan inside out, then yes, we are a smashing success!

Just out of curiosity, what did you do in the Army?

Field Artillery Officer.

I’m trying to determine whether you’re more of a Takimag guy or a Huffington Post kinda guy. [/quote]

I’m not familiar with either of them.

23

Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

24

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused. [/quote]

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

25

[quote]John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.[/quote]

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

26

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

[/quote]

I agree with you about Iraq, but I really don’t see them failing, they may but I highly doubt it.

No offense, but when it comes to the amount of troops needed I will listen to the Generals. They know what they are doing so why not let them do their job.

27

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
pat wrote:
The only person having a debacle is obama, because he is a fool. He is still entertaining the idea of negotiating with the taliban even after they told him to fuck himself…Since when do we even entertain the idea of any kind of dialog what so ever, with terrorists? Only a fool would.

Anything we could think to offer, they wouldn’t want it. We’re far better off letting them do their thing in their own neck of the woods and we’ll do our thing here. It is well established that they are pretty resiliant and toughen up even as we throw more shit their way.

BG

[/quote]

That’s fine so long as we take the chains off of Israel. If Iran is allow to run amok, Israel has the right to deal with it as they see fit. They were directly threatened…

28

[quote]John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

I agree with you about Iraq, but I really don’t see them failing, they may but I highly doubt it.

No offense, but when it comes to the amount of troops needed I will listen to the Generals. They know what they are doing so why not let them do their job.
[/quote]

Oh I agree…but remember,I said that more troops alone at this point is not a superior strategy,imo. Granted that is the first step,but there must be a plan/strategy before more troops are sent. How(and where)those troops will be used is what is important,imo.

I would hate to send more troops to linger in Afghanistan with no gradual success. Get the job done and get out. If the job can’t be done…then get out. Because we both know that we won’t have any huge amount of success without the help of those in that region…and that’s a stretch,even with recent developments.

29

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

I agree with you about Iraq, but I really don’t see them failing, they may but I highly doubt it.

No offense, but when it comes to the amount of troops needed I will listen to the Generals. They know what they are doing so why not let them do their job.

Oh I agree…but remember,I said that more troops alone at this point is not a superior strategy,imo. Granted that is the first step,but there must be a plan/strategy before more troops are sent. How(and where)those troops will be used is what is important,imo.

I would hate to send more troops to linger in Afghanistan with no gradual success. Get the job done and get out. If the job can’t be done…then get out. Because we both know that we won’t have any huge amount of success without the help of those in that region…and that’s a stretch,even with recent developments.

[/quote]

I highly doubt Afghanistan is going to turn into a utopia where unicorns and dragons dance, but I think we can at least get it to the point where the tribes agree to not blow each other up or something to that extent.

30

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

[/quote]

The British already tried what we tried when they were trying to pull out of Mesopotamia. It failed. “Past as prologue:”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/iraqs-jihad-past-as-prologue.html

31

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

The British already tried what we tried when they were trying to pull out of Mesopotamia. It failed. “Past as prologue:”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/iraqs-jihad-past-as-prologue.html
[/quote]

Damn…lot of crazy parallels going on with that. That was an interesting read.

32

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
John S. wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Oh shit,when did we start focusing on Afghanistan? I guess Iraq finally got boring…or is it that we won? I’m confused.

Iraq is basically won. The only way it could be considered a loss is if it completely deteriorates after we leave.

But now things in Afghanistan took a turn for the worst so now its a big deal.

Afghanistan should have been our only big deal in the first place. Also,I wouldn’t say Iraq is won…more like damage control. We won’t know if Iraq is a success until 10-20 years have past.

As for the strategy and pushing Obama to make a decision…we already have one foot in Afghanistan…we should be careful where the other foot lands so we don’t fall on our ass…just like Iraq. More troops alone is not a superior strategy at this point in time.

The British already tried what we tried when they were trying to pull out of Mesopotamia. It failed. “Past as prologue:”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/iraqs-jihad-past-as-prologue.html

Damn…lot of crazy parallels going on with that. That was an interesting read. [/quote]

When we say Bush II and the neoconservatives are idiots, now you know what we mean. We spend exactly 0 time trying to learn the lessons of even the 20th century.

Obama has the opportunity to reverse this folly. Sadly, the Assyrians have all but been wiped out, so it’s too late for them.

33

[quote]pat wrote:
The only person having a debacle is obama, because he is a fool. He is still entertaining the idea of negotiating with the taliban even after they told him to fuck himself…Since when do we even entertain the idea of any kind of dialog what so ever, with terrorists? Only a fool would. [/quote]

President Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists. George W Bush’s administration negotiated with Iraqi terrorists… we even paid them to work for us. We bought them out. It was one of the turning points in Iraq.

Also, you seem to be quite the mind-reader… apparently, you know what President Obama is thinking.

But anyway, the idea that the United States should never negotiate with enemies is simplistic and juvenile. Thank God we have smarter people than you, running our State Department. Hooray! We ALWAYS negotiate with enemies, including after we defeat them. It’s part of the process. When you have the intellect of a child, however, you automatically assume “negotiation = weakness”. But that’s really more of a statement about your mindset, than anything else.

34

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

The British already tried what we tried when they were trying to pull out of Mesopotamia. It failed. “Past as prologue:”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/iraqs-jihad-past-as-prologue.html
[/quote]

And the Russians tried our strategy from Afghanistan. We all know how well that worked out. I was reading an article on it, but cannot find it now. They pulled back into the cities and made them fortresses. Of course they didn’t have suicide bombings to worry about which makes this tricky today. They also left most of the fighting to special forces, which, for the Ruskies, was a bust.

35

This part of the country has been a clusterfuck since British colonialism.

Reagan had a successful yet maybe unethical policy…make sure these countries are ruled with an iron fist by radicals. Arm the radicals. We were all for the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. We were all for Saddam when he was fighting the Iranians.

Nations are usually built upon commonalities. Most of these middle eastern/west asian countries are built upon lines drawn in the sand after WW1. We basically have a bunch of different tribes that really don’t like each other but are forced to coexist because they have been ruled by the Persian Empire or British colonialism. At one time in their history, such as with Afghanistan, the region had a common ground and was a “nation”…but that was all put in the shitter by bigger boys with bigger toys coming in and taking over for decades.

Iraq should be three smaller countries. Afghanistan, probably two…Afghanistan to the north and Pashtun to the south. Pakistan should also likely be cut up appropriately…So the three new nations would be Afghanistan, Pashtun(-istan) and Pakistan.

Think about this…what if Mexico or Canada all of a sudden became part of the US? I’m sure we wouldn’t care, but THEY would be outraged. We have to realize that the majority of the world is pretty segregated among ethnic lines and is not the “melting pot” that America came to be.

We’ve had 8 years of the “screw you our way is right” policy. Sit down, find out what these people want, work to make peace between these factions. The Taliban isn’t the problem, Al-Queda isn’t the problem…the fundamental anger and difference between ethnic factions IS the problem that gives radical groups like the Taliban and Al-Queda a foothold. In fact, it’s not even the Taliban per se…because they had been in power for decades without problem, it’s the extremism within the Taliban that gave the OK to Al-Queda to set up shop. Extremism is bred out of fundamental differences between ethnic/religious groups forces to coexist.

36

The Taliban was in power for decades? Where was that?

The Taliban was started in Pakistan by Afghan war refugees. They were actually in power for what? Like 5 years or so?

If they carved up Afghanistan, would they have to make separate countries for Tajiks, Uzbeks, ect, or would they just be annexed by the respective countries?