We Have Lost Afghanistan

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.

All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing.

How could you have possibly “won” Afghanistan?

Gone in there with a full force and wipe out Al Qaeda. Get as much as humanly possible then leave.

Its never going to be a “Real” country, it is tribe based. But take out a lot of the tribes and you won’t have to be worrying about anything for quite a while.[/quote]

Jon, I thought the Ron Paul/libertarian postition would be to wind down the wars and withdraw completely. You seem very “pro-war” and “as long as it takes” in this arena.

22

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.

All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing.

How could you have possibly “won” Afghanistan?

Gone in there with a full force and wipe out Al Qaeda. Get as much as humanly possible then leave.

Its never going to be a “Real” country, it is tribe based. But take out a lot of the tribes and you won’t have to be worrying about anything for quite a while.

Jon, I thought the Ron Paul/libertarian postition would be to wind down the wars and withdraw completely. You seem very “pro-war” and “as long as it takes” in this arena.[/quote]

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is.

23

[quote]orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.

All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing.

How could you have possibly “won” Afghanistan?

[/quote]

The definition would be to beat the living fuck out of al qaela/taliban so they do not exist within or near. Destroy them to the point they cannot reorganize. Have the local government not be a treat to us or our allies. These three objectives would be considered an “win”.

24

[quote]lixy wrote:

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is. [/quote]

Lixy-

Yeah I was just pokin’ Jon S a little. I share his views on many things.

That said I think in light of a “withdrawl date” scenario that the president proposed I would have just withdrawn now and let special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation. As it stands we are going to have a surge; withdraw; and then procede to have special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation.

25

[quote]lixy wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.

All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing.

How could you have possibly “won” Afghanistan?

Gone in there with a full force and wipe out Al Qaeda. Get as much as humanly possible then leave.

Its never going to be a “Real” country, it is tribe based. But take out a lot of the tribes and you won’t have to be worrying about anything for quite a while.

Jon, I thought the Ron Paul/libertarian postition would be to wind down the wars and withdraw completely. You seem very “pro-war” and “as long as it takes” in this arena.

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is. [/quote]

I agree with this. We have roayally fucked up our “war on terror” I mean half of you guys who are libertarians have spoken from your own lips about the war on drugs and the war on crime and similar US “wars” they make more of what they are trying to fight. I don’t see terrorism as any different. We may have had the legal right to go into these wars, but it doesn’t mean our nations people have benefitted from them. I think we need to pull all our troops home. Put them on the borders and stop people from coming in here to hurt us, both financially and physically.

Also this may be the first campaign promise Hopey has kept, at least tenetively, so even if you disagree with it, I view that as a step in the right direction. If our goal is to make these places more like our own country, and less like the second and third world breeding grounds for terrorism, I don’t think war is the right step. Lets import our ideas and our culture, and let the people of the nations in question firght for thier own improvement.

Anyways, I’m not sure about anything to do with foreign policy. But 6 years of war doesn’t seem to have done much good, so I say lets try something else a little less violent (and costly).

V

26

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
lixy wrote:

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is.

Lixy-

Yeah I was just pokin’ Jon S a little. I share his views on many things.

That said I think in light of a “withdrawl date” scenario that the president proposed I would have just withdrawn now and let special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation. As it stands we are going to have a surge; withdraw; and then procede to have special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation.
[/quote]

I like this idea, get the tanks and ground troops out asap, then use CIA and Spec ops to hit individual targets on a one at a time basis. No collateral damage, just capture the guys and bring them over here. I’m sure we could just make some of these guys dissapear with no trace. Question them and then sink em to the bottom of the ocean when thier info is no longer useful. Don’t we have some james bond or jason bourne type guys who do this for a living? Hell put up big rewards and make it highly public when someone hands over a bad guy. Make it like the publishers clearing house, go to thier door with a big check or a big bag of cash and have the media there to get it all on tape. I’m sure there are plenty of ideas on how to eliminate people who threaten our country besides putting hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in another country.

V

27

Obama clearly stated while running for office he was going to send more troops to A-stand.

Now that it finally has come to pass ( why DID it take so long? ) I expect all the Obama voters to run down and join up, right? I mean you are not…chickenhawks…are you?

28

[quote]Vegita wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
lixy wrote:

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is.

Lixy-

Yeah I was just pokin’ Jon S a little. I share his views on many things.

That said I think in light of a “withdrawl date” scenario that the president proposed I would have just withdrawn now and let special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation. As it stands we are going to have a surge; withdraw; and then procede to have special forces operate an anti-terrorist operation.

I like this idea, get the tanks and ground troops out asap, then use CIA and Spec ops to hit individual targets on a one at a time basis. No collateral damage, just capture the guys and bring them over here. I’m sure we could just make some of these guys dissapear with no trace. Question them and then sink em to the bottom of the ocean when thier info is no longer useful. Don’t we have some james bond or jason bourne type guys who do this for a living? Hell put up big rewards and make it highly public when someone hands over a bad guy. Make it like the publishers clearing house, go to thier door with a big check or a big bag of cash and have the media there to get it all on tape. I’m sure there are plenty of ideas on how to eliminate people who threaten our country besides putting hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in another country.

V[/quote]

I am not sure that my thoughts were the best idea on this. We will strugle with and SpecOp/CIA operation like we will with a war, but there are two important thoughts that follow:

  1. A SpecOP type operation will have less finacial and human capital at risk.
  2. We need to effectively be able to use this type of operation to exert pressure and limit our involvement in future anti-terror operations. We are going to have future operations like this around the world and the experience we could gain here would be very valuable.
29

There is no “win” without entering Pakistan. You can not possibly “win” a war fighting it half heartedly from Washington or without the support of the locals. Until they are willing to step up you are simply policing a nation. I’m no fan of our President but the previous administration made a grave mistake by not cleaning this mess up before moving on to the war in Iraq. We had the growing support of the locals and a good portion of the tribe leaders and local fighters, but let it slip by thinking the tough part of the job was done.

Al Qaeda has support in many counties inwhich do plot. Who is next?

30

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I think we need to pull all our troops home. Put them on the borders and stop people from coming in here to hurt us, both financially and physically.
[/quote]

Ditto. And anyone who has Ron Paul as their avatar should probably feel the exact same way.

31

[quote]3hitter wrote:
There is no “win” without entering Pakistan. You can not possibly “win” a war fighting it half heartedly from Washington or without the support of the locals. Until they are willing to step up you are simply policing a nation. I’m no fan of our President but the previous administration made a grave mistake by not cleaning this mess up before moving on to the war in Iraq. We had the growing support of the locals and a good portion of the tribe leaders and local fighters, but let it slip by thinking the tough part of the job was done.

Al Qaeda has support in many counties inwhich do plot. Who is next?[/quote]

This is my biggest problem with actually being at war or occupying a country. Al-Qaeda operates throughout the word and across borders. Why would we ever think rustling them up in a few countries is going to win us anything?

V

32

[quote]lixy wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.

All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing.

How could you have possibly “won” Afghanistan?

Gone in there with a full force and wipe out Al Qaeda. Get as much as humanly possible then leave.

Its never going to be a “Real” country, it is tribe based. But take out a lot of the tribes and you won’t have to be worrying about anything for quite a while.

Jon, I thought the Ron Paul/libertarian postition would be to wind down the wars and withdraw completely. You seem very “pro-war” and “as long as it takes” in this arena.

Well, the guy was in the military and he very probably personally knows kids who died over there.

But even without that, one can see the validity of the argument that you should either wage a full-blown no-quarters war or stay away from it. And although I see this a a full-blown war (drones bombing civilians kinda qualifies), others don’t. But the US can’t possibly escalate the level of violence without losing domestic support even more, alienating the rest of the world further, and showing Karzai to be even more illegitimate than he already is. [/quote]

Well first off let me say that I tried out for the military and messed up my ankle at the end of the AIT phase of infantry training(they have some weird initials for infantry training OCET or something like that).

While I personally do not know anyone who died, I did have a few friends in training that where shipped over there.

I am not a big fan of nation building, I do believe that if we issue a declaration of War and go in there with a complete force then we would have no problems securing Afghanistan. The people there would hate us at first, but after we eliminated the terrorists and they realized that they where free from that tyranny they would come around.

33

[quote]John S. wrote:
lixy wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:

I am not a big fan of nation building, I do believe that if we issue a declaration of War and go in there with a complete force then we would have no problems securing Afghanistan. The people there would hate us at first, but after we eliminated the terrorists and they realized that they where free from that tyranny they would come around.
[/quote]

And after we left?

34

[quote]3hitter wrote:
John S. wrote:
lixy wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:

I am not a big fan of nation building, I do believe that if we issue a declaration of War and go in there with a complete force then we would have no problems securing Afghanistan. The people there would hate us at first, but after we eliminated the terrorists and they realized that they where free from that tyranny they would come around.

And after we left?
[/quote]

Once you eliminate the majority of the threat, and arm the populace, the terrorists are going to have a very hard time getting back in.

35

You’re serious. Do you really believe that or are you just hopefull. The corruption is so rampant this counry will never be fit to handle their own security. They are poor ignorant people but for the few who dominate the drug trade or politics.

It is a lost stone age society.

37

The posts in this thread assure us that the human race will continue it’s infinite ignorance until the end of time. But wait…it’s TOTALLY different this time around, we’re the good guys, we’re spreading freedom and stuff. I wish the FBI and DIA would find everyone that posts threads like these, enlist them and drop them in a war zone until they wake the fuck up. Soldiers are over there carrying out their mission because they have honor but believe me that a large percentage of our forces realize the futility of what they are doing but respect the oath they have sworn to.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Way too many simpleminded posts here. Too many Monday morning quarterbacks that have only ever played (tuba) in the school band.

You don’t defeat terrorists by pulling back to your borders. This is not the 19th century. The globe is too small. Borders anywhere are too accessible. International trade is absolutely necessary especially when it comes to crude oil. And the world’s insatiable appetite for it has led to this area of the world being so volatile.

You don’t “win” in Afghanistan by withdrawing in an untimely manner and allowing the EXACT same situation to develop as existed there on 9-10-2001.

You don’t “win” in Afghanistan by announcing “We’re outta there in 18 months! Yippee yi yo and away we go!”

You don’t “win” in Vietnam…I mean Afghanistan…by prohibiting yourself from going into Laos and Cambodia…I mean Pakistan.

U.S. isolationism did work in the 18th and 19th centuries. It will not work today. Do not take this to mean that I advocate the US expand or even maintain its role as world policeman. But it is grossly naive to think that if the US just accedes, either indirectly or directly, Al Qaeda’s ultimate demand to withdraw from Saudi and the Middle East that peaches and cream and breakfast champagne will be served globally by pretty girls humming peace hymns.

As to charges by some that a “good libertarian” should never support US military forces in Asia, I say bullshit. A good libertarian is not someone who allows a bully, big or small, to smack him in the mouth repeatedly while the “good libertarian” attempts to slink away so that more “good libertarianism” can be practiced in its idyllic, Utopian state.

Even though I vote Libertarian often including this past presidential election I strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach to world affairs and complexities.

You want to deescalate the situation in Asia in a dramatic fashion so we can retreat to our borders, relatively speaking? Build a gazillion nuclear power plants, promote the coal industry and drill, baby drill.[/quote]

Push, It just doesn’t seem like War is working, I mean it’s not, I just think it’s nieve to think More war must be the only solution if some war isn’t working. Certainly things can be done to “get” these people other than using our military, and specifically our ground forces. No one here is saying don’t get these people who want to attack us. I am all for it. But to me it feels like we are trying to kill a bee with a chaingun. Then when we miss the bee, we go over to the hive and start chaingunning the hive. Do we count the victory by how many bees we killed in the hive attack? Or how many times we got stung because of our attack on the hive. We will never kill them all with war, never. And we will certainly make more people who might be on the fence about us, not like us and give them an opportunity to be our future enemies.

V

39

Push,

Is it the ignorance of the generation or do people forget that war is not sanitary.

40

Does anyone here actually believe you can fight ideas with bullets?