The war in Afghanistan is in trouble. Polls show that more than 50% of Americans don’t think the war is worth fighting. That means that more than half of the American people do not recall the scenario that brought American and NATO forces into the ass-end of the planet in the first place. Afghanistan was a country in anarchy where the Taliban and Al Queda ran rampant, and their unchecked tyranny brought about the 911 plot as well as earlier Al Queda attacks. People have forgotten and/or prefer to ignore that reality.
Admiral Mullen has called the situation in Afghanistan “deteriorating” and in jeopardy. Others say the entire mission is in doubt, and that the forces being used are woefully inadequate. They are correct. The purpose of US and NATO forces is to hunt down Al Queda and provide security from their Taliban allies, but there are not enough forces for that mission.
This leaves President Obama an ugly choice-the kind of decision where he has historically sought compromise at the expense of decisiveness. He can either abandon the mission, pull out American forces, and live with the consequences of Afghanistan returning to its pre-OEF condition (a condition that directly led to the 911 attacks as well as others), or he can decide to fight the war by sending more troops, spending more money, and convincing more than half the American people that the price in blood and treasure is worth it.
Obama is a charismatic man. He is also head of the party that contains the bulk of the anti-war movement. If anyone can convince the anti-war movement to be silent, he can (and has), and if anyone can use charisma to inspire a nation to wage war…he can. However, he lacks the will, and his supporters lack the will, and half the American people have lost the will.
Can Obama revive that will to fight? Can he make the decisive decisions that war requires? Will he return from his quasi vacation and lead the nation at war, or will he spend more time talking about cash for clunkers, a stimulus that doesn’t stimulate for years, and healthcare bills that he’s never read?
Make no bones about it, there are huge domestic problems here at home, and he needs to focus a great deal of energy on them (thankfully, he has his army of Czars to help), but wars don’t wait. History can’t be paused.
Historically, it takes about 6 months from the moment a President decides to make a major military offensive until the forces are in place and the full effect of the offensive can begin. If President Obama were to decide on a major military change in course today, it wouldn’t start to take full effect until February or March 2010. However, that gives any potential Obama-offensive only 8 months to completely turn things around before the mid-term elections where Democrats will be held to account for their control of Congress, their failures, their broken campaign promises from 2006, and the state of the nation in 2010. Making matters worse is Afghanistan itself where almost nothing is militarily possible for either side during the winter months from October to March. The idea that a major, modern, American-military force can deploy into Afghanistan during the winter, and prepare for a Spring offensive is optimistic at best.
The enemy doesn’t sleep. The time for decision on Afghanistan is at hand: stay or go?
Fight or flight?
get more forces in, or get everyone out ala Yorktown, Dunkirk, or Saigon.
A not so small point of disagreement. What he has to do is not convince 50% of Americans that this war is worth fighting, what he has to do is convince any Americans and more important the enemy, that he intends to win it.
My son is in the NG, has been to Iraq and has no problem going to Afghanistan, likewise my brother’s son, but I have a problem with sending them there with one hand behind their backs.
We either kill the bastards where they are, regardless of imaginary lines on maps, or we leave and use over the horizon weapons systems to deal with any resurgence of terrorist facilitation we suspect is happening.
Just my opinion.
The biggest problem is that the president, congress and the joint chiefs of staff spend more time worring about an exit strategy then in getting the job done. I seen that idiot chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on TV yesterday, and he was worried about the popularity of the war. What the hell does that have to do with the job at hand? Can’t they find him a rowboat to command? I fought in Korea and Vietnam and we lost both of those wars due to politicians and mediocre leadership, and this one will be lost the same way. What the hell ever happened to “Unconditional Surrender”? Or are our leaders trying to figure out how to surrender with dignity like Vietnam? We have a weak spineless government prone to cowardness.
Just like the Clinton era. Deploy troops with no clear strategy, under fund them, deploy too few and the outcome is predictable. We have not won a war since 1945 because wars are lost on Capitol Hill, not on the field of battle.
Obama has a caretaker “Manager” for SEC DEF and a National Security advisor that is a Political Hack like Powell and wore a dress blue uniform and shiny corfam shoes more than a pair of boots or a rucksack.
I retired short of 30 years service because my twilight assignment would be to the Pentagon and away from My real Army. The Kubuki Theater Army in DC was not for me. I was a Soldier Once and Young. Never a political guy. Now I am a retired O-6 and an old cow puncher in Montana.
While I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo Obama attended Islamic madrassa schools in Indonesia. When I fought insurgents in Mindanao with the Phillipine Army he learned to shoot hoops and was special. Obama may have been toilet trained when I did Ranger School. Enough on me.
This is now the Pretender in Chief’s war. Mis-Managed, under funded, troop stength under necessary numbers and a fight to lose strategy in place. Obama Owns it now.
Hey FA folks, I saw this coming. It was predictable.
Unfortunately it is pointless if one has no interest in WINNING!! And Hussein has already declared VICTORY to be a dirty word. Couple this with the fact that Hussein is a MOSLEM, with nothing but CONTEMPT for the United States and victory in Afghanistan begins to look a little dicey.
I think Bush and Rummy had it about right. Afghanistan is a giant sand pile that with some special forces we need to keep a watch on, and bomb with drones and planes. We will never make it into a viable country, but we need to keep the bad guys on the run and kill them when we can. Obama wanted to turn it into a viable war like Iraq. But unlike Iraq, a war of necessity not choice. Words without much strategic thought, more politics then anything else.
Guess why Americans have forgotten about Afghanistan? Because George Bush turned his back on it and took us into a senseless war in Iraq. Afghanistan/Pakistan has always been the much more dangerous area for the U.S. What’s happening there now has nothing at all to do with Obama’s abilities (at least not so far) and everything to do with the inadequacies of George Bush.
“This is now the Pretender in Chief’s war. Mis-Managed, under funded, troop stength under necessary numbers and a fight to lose strategy in place.”
Very nice and accurate description of how Bush treated Afghanistan. I could have drawn a better picture.
Until and unless you secure the border with Pakistan, who’s intelligence community created the Taliban, forget ever defeating the insurgents in Afghanistan.
The Afghan government is corrupt beyond repair and drives the populace into the arms of the Taliban.
Politics doomed our mission in Afghanistan, and a lack of will on the part of the American people and their leaders.
I love it when people keep claiming Obama is a Mulsim or Moslem or however you want to spell it. Marks them as ignoramuses they are.
I love it when ignoramuses like to blame our victory in Iraq for our failure in Afghanistan.
I am sure Obama is looking for the “Present” lever to pull. This is what he has done his whole political life when a true difficult decision had to be made. Look for Michelle and the kids to be blamed next. They take away too much of his time to speak to and convence the American idiots how much they need ObamaCare.
Nobody in the West really knows what’s going on in Afghanistan, because it’s so culturally different. The West is trying to create a western country out of a country that’s very tribal and don’t even have a common language. Historically, such changes have taken 40 years and sometimes even over 100 years. The old ways have to literally die out as the new generation takes over. Just look at the legend of King Auther, even if it was legend, somebody had turned the various tribes into one nation and even then there were wars between factions for centuries.
If we had put the effort into Afghanistan we put into that hole called Iraq…
Bush essentially abandoned them.
“If we had put the effort into Afghanistan we put into that hole called Iraq…
Bush essentially abandoned them.”
To say the US couldn’t take on Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time is laughable. We defeated Germany and Japan and we did it with 16 million men under arms.
Face it, we don’t have the balls to fight anymore.
Stop trying to make political hay with our soliders lives.
@savage24:
savage,
You didn’t lose in Korea. I’ve lived in the Republic of Korea on and off over the years and you would not believe what it has become since the late 80’s. It is a thriving, modern democracy and successful model for what could be in Iraq or other nations that have never had the chance to grow into democracy and modernity.
Like I said, you didn’t lose in Korea, you just had to leave the dead body of North Korea on the battlefield.
@gdad:
You are in big trouble, boy. Countdown til Old Trooper has his way with you. 10, 9, 8, 7,…….
In the spam filter. P&T
Man, talk about missing the entire point of my post. Ranting away about Bush and Afghanistan (or even Clinton and Carter btw) is EXACTLY what we don’t need. Look, each of us has X number of minutes to type a post here today, tomorrow, and the next day. Are we gonna use those minutes to whine about the past, or to encourage success in the future? This is the exact same point Obama has to recognize. He and his admin bitch and whine every single day about how they “inherited” this and that (gosh, wish we could find the Congress or a certain Senator from Illinois to finger for that inheritance), but he is running out of time. He is running out of minutes to post, to speak, to talk to the nation.
History continues, and unless we spend time today working for tomorrow…the enemy will.
THEY will be the ones drumming up support for their effort.
THEY will be the ones preparing for action
THEY will be the ones taking action
…and others will be complaining about the mess they inherited while a new mess takes place-one inherited directly from the Taliban and Al Queda in this war on terror-err, sorry…in “overseas contingency combat operations undertaken in support or as part of Operation Enduring Freedom”
Obama needs to stop wasting his minutes with excuses, and take action
Obama supporters need to stop campaigning against George W Bush, and either support Obama by encouraging him to seek success in Afghanistan OR by getting off their partisan asses and protesting him, demanding a timeline for withdrawal, and so forth.
Get in, or get out, and decide now because if you don’t….the enemy surely will make the decision for you, and me, and all of us
gdad. Thanks for posting here. It is pretty keen to have World Reknowned Experts on Foreign Policy, National Defense and nothing more to contribute than “Blame Bush”.
Thanks for playing and your prize is an ecological wet dream. My Mare just dropped something that I won’t step in but come on up to Montana. It smells like your posts and I can save you some.
Ever been to the Stans?
Ever been to the Middle East?
Been poked in the snoot lately?
I can spare you 6 minutes of my time. 3 Minutes to throw you into the back of my truck and dump you on the County Road. Discussion complete.
Missy, I am not the meanest guy you know. I am an old guy that has zero tolerance for fools and folks that found this place instead of that Kos place.
Korea was a draw. A very costly one. I have been there. Some very bold folks have paid the price and we still have troops there.
Scott, the Enemy has the initiative now. Obama is celebrating Ramadan at Marthas Vineyard and we sent too few to do too much in the Stans. I spent 16 months there in 02. Jumped in and took Osama’s Ville and chased him to Pak. Too little too late.
“THEY will be the ones drumming up support for their effort.
THEY will be the ones preparing for action
THEY will be the ones taking action”
They most certainly are.
Obama does not have a clue or the desire to win. Rumsfeld was a great capitalist but was no George Marshall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall
If my last dream ever came true…I would arm wrestle Putin and win. Obama would be present for Sarah Palin’s inauguration and be sent back to Chicago. My Daughter would be commissioned and flying the new F-22 with a nuke option.
Off to fly fish for dinner. Carry on and gdad can kiss my All American backside.
Obama can do Ramadan and He is NOT My Commander in Chief. I am happily retired.
He is just the punk that wastes my tax dollars and fumbles. The American Idol Prez, free ice cream that never appeared.
No offense Scotty but I do not have a space in Arlington yet.
I am still breathing and have a few campaign ribbons that may be older than you are.
LOL! “maybe” oh…..you make me feel so young, butchya probably do!
Well, Old Trooper, after that last rambling piece of nonsense, I can’t decide whether you are off your meds or have taken too many. Which is it?
Ivan, I never said we couldn’t handle both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, we didn’t because GW had such a jones about Iraq. He let Afghanistan slide slowly back toward the abyss. And I personally don’t think we had any business at all in Iraq. Now that we are, I suspect we’re going to be there for a very, very, very long time.
I do want Obama to commit to doing something in Afghanistan/Pakistan. While I’ve never thought we had any business in Iraq, I always supported our efforts in Afghanistan. That’s where the 9/11 attackers came from (NOT from Iraq) and Pakistan is a country that has nukes (NOT Iraq).
Old Trooper, let me guess, you’re one of those birther guys. Talk about fools.
distraction, subject change, personal attack….the standard tactics of the losing leftist, the Obama Admin, and the Democrats’ Congress. Worked great for 8yrs, but not anymore.
“You are in big trouble, boy. Countdown til Old Trooper has his way with you. 10, 9, 8, 7,…….”
I’m shaking.
gdad…if Old Trooper is a Birther then you must be an “After-Birther”.
“Ivan, I never said we couldn’t handle both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, we didn’t because GW had such a jones about Iraq. He let Afghanistan slide slowly back toward the abyss. And I personally don’t think we had any business at all in Iraq. Now that we are, I suspect we’re going to be there for a very, very, very long time.”
Sorry Gdad, Bush knew the temperment of the American public and knew they wouldn’t stand for a full-time war footing like we had in WW2.
Take a look at how poorly the American public accepted the paltry casualties we suffered in Iraq. 2-3 a day? We took Iraq and held it on the cheap. Yes, on the cheap. We fought an excellent COIN in Iraq and it paid off. An eney of the United States was hung like a chicken.
History:
Russian KIA (WW2): 20,000 A DAY for nearly 4 years.
German KIA (WW2): 5,000 a day in the last year of the war.
American KIA (WW2): 200 a day for the entire war.
American KIA (Iraq): 1-2 a day.
Do you remember the howling the Americans carried on about when the casualities hit 3-4 a day in 2006?
Sorry, Americans don’t have the stomach to fight a real war anymore. Our enemies know it and right now they are taking advantage of this fact.
Blame Bush all you want, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the American pussies couldn’t stomach 500,000 men deployed in Afghanistan.
Speaking of ignoramus qualities, you’ve aptly displayed them all, gdad.
Bush and the US did not “abandon” the Afghan theatre. They did exactly what all you pompous armchair generals demand in every instance… they turned it over to the int’l community. The entire Afghan state’s security has been under NATO’s control since the summer of 2006. Don’t like that timeline? Here’s another from BBC that may bring you into the sphere of reality – note NATO’s takeover of leadership of the military ops in July 2006.
Didn’t know that, I bet. Wasn’t widely touted by an equally ignorant western media. Putting out the truth of the power shift makes it too inconvenient to blame the US and Bush. Yet how many times does the cry go up, “we have to have UN or int’l approval!”. Answer? Everytime there is a chance of US military intervention.
Well, in Afghanistan, Bush did exactly what Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the bozos living off the US taxpayer want and passed on responsibility to int’l powers.
Coincidently, with the NATO’s Barbie doll ROE, and NATO’s assumption of military leadership, Afghanistan started sliding into the abyss where they are today. Think you might remember this lesson in the future? Probably only when it’s convenient for a POTUS you like.
On the other hand, Iraq… the Bush war… has a nation determined to stand firm and remain free. That is, and is continuing to be, a successful theatre. The only one that can mess that up now is Obama… when he abandons the Iraqis.
Pakistan became a Muslim ally after 911, thanks to the Bush admin. Now that they are under siege from the knave playing CIC inbetween townhalls and weekly DC cocktail parties, I suspect that relationship is being damaged along with the UK and Israel’s. Thus far, this POTUS has been a disaster as commander of our military, and in his diplomatic choices.
To honor Scott’s request… sorry guy, but jack-a’s coming in here, completely devoid of historical facts, riles us up, you know. We just can’t let something that stupid sit on a thread with correcting it.
Afghanistan… the problem as I see is is few recognize it as a completely different war than Iraq. It has no semblence of modern cities. It has no natural resources, no infrastructure and communication lines, etal. This is a large dust bin poppy field sparsely populated by tribes who don’t see one bit of advantage to a central government if they can’t give them what a central government is meant to do. And they are correct in this.
The Afghan army can’t defend their nation… it’s local militias. The nation has no cash, and no resources at this time to offer as exports but heroin.
Without a sense of nationality, and the common exploitation of national resources (ala perhaps becoming a farm belt for food?), I can’t see this being anything but a constant beat down of the Islamic jihad movement militant bands, amidst a patch of tribal villages that are like nations unto their own.
I’d say if you found a way to nurture nationality, you will find a way to win the war. Otherwise, it’s going to be a very long military/police action and a perpetual battlefield.
Every intelligence service on the planet was sure Iraq had WMDs except one and that one was the Iraqi intelligence service.
I am sick and tired of the left wingnuts trying to rewrite history, but then they are never interested in trugh.
WMDs in Iraq? Not now, they were all moved into Syria. Remember the long lines of big trucks sitting at the border waiting to get into Syria? Even the MSM was reporting it. Of course, all they removed was what was left after gassing the Kurds. Anyone care to remember that? To say Saddam Hussien never had any WMDs is like saying we don’t need oxygen to breathe.
Just my opinion
Madalyn
yep
no wmd
no ties to Al Queda
Scott,
sorry, Sadaam gave medical support to AQ in 2001 when some of them came over into Iraq for surgury.
Game over.
@Ivan:
You should probably know that Scott was being sarcastic in #31 .
He is extremely experienced in the subject of Saddam, WMD, and the ties between Iraq and AQ.
yes, you are correct! I assumed, always dangerous, I was dealing with a Sadaam apologist, as usual.
Sorry Scott!
Drawing conclusions from assumptions is using logic in a vacuum, and nothing lives in a vacuum.
“Drawing conclusions from assumptions is using logic in a vacuum, and nothing lives in a vacuum.”
And sometimes all one can do is draw “soft” conclusions from assumptions. It’s called a hypothesis.
“Your “soft” conclusion is not a conclusion because nothing is concluded with a hypothesis, it is tested.”
Blah, blah, blah….grow up Red.
Is someone having a bad day?? Ivan it is what it is, and it ain’t what it ain’t.
Synonyms for conclusion: ending, termination, completion, finale.
gdad – Comment #6 – So, it’s back to blaming Bush huh? How long has your messiah been in charge? Not enough troops? Who’s to blame for that? Your messiah could have sent more. Not enough funds? Who’s to blame for that? Your messiah could have found the funds if he had not already given all available funds to ACORN, SEIU, ACLU, Code Pink, etc. It’s no longer reasonable to blame Bush, sorry – you idiots have been touting that far too long to be believable. Obama has had the opportunity to “rectify” Bushes underfunding, not enough troops, etc, and what does he do? Makes a bee-line to nationalize our banks, car industry, health care, and more. Get real. He needs to be removed from office for lack of integrity, lack of class, lack of honesty, lack of reality, I could go on and on and on but I think the picture is pretty clear.
Just my opinion.
Madalyn
Of course American is physically able to fight two wars at the same time but it also more squeamish about the loss incurred. Even in WWII when you are fighting in more than one area/theatre then there are priorities (defeating Germany took priority over defeating Japan) and Iraq has unfortunatley been a much bigger priority than Afghanistan in terms of resources spent on it – even though it was Afghanistan where the 9/11 plot originated.
The Taliban need to be wiped out otherwise we waste our servicemen and women lives by taking areas and moving on (as resources are thin) only for the Taliban & Al Qaeda to take those places back. And unfortunately it shows up the weaknesses of NATO where some countries are reluctant to add or increase their troops numbers. However it is still US led and the US needs to show leadership to bring this 8 year war to an end and ensure all Afghanistan is free from Taliban/Al Qaeda.
I’m not sure if Dunkirk etc are relevant. Despite the mess of the BEF – Dunkirk was a tactical triumph (yes a defeat – but necessary so the troops could fight again and a huge morale boost). Unlike Hitler who stupidly ordered his troops to fight to the last man when sometimes retreat would have been better.
Whereas Afghanistan is a whole country and war in itself. Leaving Afghanistan wouldn’t be a tactical loss of a battle but a whole loss of the war there. Bush dropped the ball on Afghanistan and despite all his rhetoric I don’t see Obama picking it up.
“Bush dropped the ball on Afghanistan and despite all his rhetoric I don’t see Obama picking it up.”
An this canard keeps raising it’s ugly head.
The Taliban were almost to a man erradicated in 2002-2005.
The problem is, and no one wants to discuss the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room.
Pakistan. Thousands upon thousands of Taliban were trained the madrassas of Pakistan to fight “jihad” in Afghanistan. And every year those “Graduates” flood over to Afghanistan.
GaffaUK, you could have and still could put every swining dick that is in Iraq and place them in Afghanistan and you’d still be behind the 8-ball. Until you close the border with Pakistan, and Iran, you’re never going to be able to erradicate the Taliban. Pakistan is 245 million people, many who wish to fight Jihad.
Now do you honestly believe the West, which means that flacid, impudent NATO, is read to invade and subjugate Pakistan? Are you ready to see the 1st MARDIV vaporized as it hits the beach by a Pakistani nuke? Please, give me a friggen break.
Let’s face it, the West has a death wish and the Paks are more than happy to lend a hand.
Nice… You almost had it right when you talked about the weakness of NATO… but still couldn’t resist blaming Bush and the US, eh?
NATO’s inadequate and military pansies. They are, and have been, without question, *in charge* since July 2006.
But to you, it’s still Bush and the US’s fault?
No, Gaffa… the US is *not* in charge. We merely supply all the soldiers the lazy ass NATO countries will not. And for that, we get jerks like you still blaming us for the int’l army’s ineptness.
Then again, if we kept *real* control, it would be a “US war” and a “US footprint” you’d still blame us.
Blow it out your temp-Aussie ear, guy. Tired of hearing this crap over and over. You lie, you lie, and then you lie again. And I’m not going to sit here and listen to it.
Mata,
So right you are. The scarry thing is that the Taliban have shown that NATO really is a paper tiger, aside from the USA and partially the UK.
It’s a good thing the Warsaw Pact never attacked as we now know they probably had overrun West Germany in 5 days given their poor performance (NATO’s) in Afghanistan.
@Ivan
I suppose you would do what the Russians (and the British did over a hundred years ago) did and give up? Give up and wait for another 9/11. Not exactly smart move. There may be between 160-180 million (not sure where you go the extra 245 million from) in Pakistan but the amount of Taliban and Al Qaeda strength is measured only in tens of thousands. Not every Pakistani is a wannabe terrorist and Pakistan is supposed to be a US ally (although a very poor one).
As for NATO – yes it’s past it’s sell by date. It was there to defend against the Evil Russian Empire which fortunately imploded.
@MataHarley
As you can see I blame Bush AND Obama. And not just the US but those countries which aren’t pulling their weight. I’m more than happy to also include Blair & Brown for not giving our troops decent equipment etc. Nethertheless the UK has approx twice the number of troops in Afghanistan in proportion to it’s population compared to the other 27 NATO countries – and that’s proportionally significantly more than any country. Why did the US bother to hand it over to NATO in the first place? That would of been like the UK handing over the Falklands war over to the EU halfway through rather than seeing the job got done. What a mistake. NATO has always been US dominated but for clarity of command it would of been better if it was an international force as headed up and controlled by the US.
Gaffa,
Either you commit the proper number of troops, that would proably number about 500,000, or yes, go home. If Afghanistan causes trouble again nuke them.
Problem solved.
Obviously you missed years of the liberals screaming for “international” approval, intervention and implementation so it was not a “US” war. However it is always true that if the US wants something done right, they should just stay in control of the reins.
No shit, Sherlock…. However despite a history of UN and/or NATO pathetic performance, it’s always the same cry for “int’l” approval for any military action.
Well now, Gaffa… if a NATO operation was “headed up and controlled” by the US, it wouldn’t be NATO, would it?
And including Obama in your “blame” doesn’t alleviate the error that you are blaming a US Commander in Chief for NATO’s inadequacies.
@MataHarley
So if the liberals told you or Bush to jump off a cliff you would do it? lol. The responsibility lies squarely with the person who takes the action/decision not those giving advice. And I would expect that not all liberals would advocate NATO and possibly some Conservatives. Irrespective Bush made the decision.
Seems Dubya needed a Sherlock to stop him making such a shit decision. Oh hang on – it’s wasn’t his fault – the Liberals made him do it! lol yep right…why not throw in the MSM in as well.
Who ever is in power has to deal with different people giving different advice. If a POTUS can’t deal with that then they aren’t fit to be POTUS.
The US is a major part of NATO – there are plenty of US decision makers in NATO. But reread my post – you did an distorting edit there – I didn’t say NATO was headed up and controlled by the US – now did I? I said NATO was dominated by the US whereas instead it should be an international force which is headed up and controlled by the US – i.e. not NATO. The US is the leading country within NATO. Who comes close to the US in terms of military might?
I’m not only blaming the POTUS but the US can’t simply hand over control over to NATO and then wash it’s hands of any responsibility. The US is (a large) part of NATO. Sure you can point the fingers at tiny countries like Latvia etc if that makes you feel any better. The US has a massive stake in Afghanistan – and a large responsibility (not total) lies on the US as presided by the President.
So GaffaUk, what should the:
1. US do.
2. UK do.
3. NATO do.
We’re all ears.
Cute, Gaffa. Trust me, were I the POTUS, NATO (nor UN peacekeepers) wouldn’t be allowed to get within an inch of any theatre where our soldiers were engaged. But this isn’t about me, bozo.
You forget that after the US had Afghanistan under control, we were also in Iraq. And the liberals.. as well as ME strategists around the world… insisted that a “US footprint” as opposed to an “int’l footprint” was not as advantageous for Afghanistan’s future. From U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan William Wood’s interview with ABC Feb 2009, i.e.
Yeah… we did what the world felt was politically correct in order to keep int’l support for Afghanistan. And despite it being under control of NATO, we *still* increased our deployment and security assistance. Defeated, under NATO leadership…. reading the reports today. That sounds like we “abandoned” Afghanistan, eh?
Bush needed quid pro quo from the liberal US Congress, and the world, to keep the Iraq theatre supported. Since Afghanistan was under control (Taliban cleansed and security/nation building needed) when we left it in NATO’s hands (partially in 2004 save the extreme southern outposts, and entirely in 2006), one wouldn’t expect it could deteriorate into the cluster f*#k it became so quickly under their sage leadership.
But then, pass a perfectly good situation into the hands of inepts, and that’s all we can expect.
So you may try to “blame Bush” all you want, but you still portray yourself the ideological and partisan fool when you place the piss poor actions of NATO onto the shoulders of the US military and Bush (or even Obama now… as it’s STILL under NATO’s command). And you insult this country and our military when you suggest we “abandoned” Afghanistan. Come say that to my face, you pampered and protected twit. I’ll be happy to take you on.
You would “expect not all liberals would advocate”?? Exactly what is that point supposed to be? If you’re looking for absolutes on anything in life, leave the planet. Ain’t gonna happen.
Now, INRE your comment:
I repeat… you lie, you lie, and then you lie again. It’s either that or you are a blithering idiot can’t scroll a webpage. Shall we revisit your exact words?
NATO is *not* US led. I will repeat again, the US provides the most troops to cover the lazy ass NATO nations that do not or can’t, and also because we have, bar none, the best military on the planet. We do this because we are generous to the world. Our troop numbers and quality, however, do not mean that NATO is “US led” and that the “US needs to show leadership”. If we did, it wouldn’t be a NATO operation or int’l led operation. Do they confer? Of course. But the buck and military strategy stops with NATO, not the US.
Can’t win with jerks like you, can we? If it’s a “US war”, you whine. When we make it an int’l effort because the world demands it, and put it in the hands of NATO… or in other cases, the UN peacekeepers… and it goes down the drain, you still blame the US.
I repeat, blow it out your ear… only this time make it out the lower orifice. I’m tired of listening to your whining about how we don’t protect your ass (or the rest of the world’ ass) well enough… no matter what we do. Damned if we do. Damned if we don’t.
Were it up to me, and with current UK and Aussie leadership, I’d say fend for yourselves.
MataHarley
Bozo. lol. How is it that you can’t have a discussion with restoring to dull childish insults? C’mon you are better than that – we have had some decent conversations in the past. No it’s not about you but I discussing the responsibility of the POTUS and that it’s sad when you have to whine and defend his actions just because others wanted him to hand responsibility over to NATO – an organisation clearly built for the Cold War.
Exactly see how Iraq impacts Afghanistan. Bush should have stayed the course.
I agree – so clearly a bad mistake on Bush’s fault.
Yes my exact words were led and not headed up and controlled in regards to NATO. You can lead something but not control it. You can dominate something but not head it up. Dance around semantics all you want – but that’s English and little to do with Queen vs. colonial English. And what exactly did I lie about? Bizarre.
Abandoned? I haven’t suggested anything of the such. I have said dropped the ball. Shall I explain what that means? It means the focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq to the detriment of Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden. Yes remember him? Job not done.
Scary – fighting talk. Why let your intellect do the talking when you can spout such classic crap as this. Puh-lease give it a rest and either get back to a polite discussion where we can respect each others views even if we disagree on some points or don’t bother reply with such turgid threats. Of course I guess you saw red when I mentioned Dubya.
Right. All nations like people are inheritantly selfish. The US and it’s allies are in Afghanistan not because they are feeling generous to the world. lol. It’s to defend it’s interests and safeguard it’s own security which totally reasonable.
Jerks. Boring. So if I started calling you such names – that is how you would like to conduct discussions? The only whining I’m hearing is you defending Bush by insinuating he is not responsible for his actions for handing over responsibility to NATO because the ‘liberals’ made him do it. Boo hoo. lol. How lame is that excuse? I have always supported the reasons for the Afghan War and I have always believe it should be an international effort headed up and controlled by the US. Of course that may be too complex for you to understand – so you rather do a lazy assumptions and lump all jerks (i.e. anybody who disagrees with you) into the same group. Beyond the peaceniks – few people whine about the concept of US war per se – they may agree or not with a war on the specifics of that war. Again that’s heady complex stuff isn’t it? I guess it’s easier to support every war your own country gets involved in and be a real non-thinking patriot – whether your are American defending Vietnam, British defending Iraq or German defending WWII.
Getting mad are we? lol. What nonsense you are now speaking.
Wow – now have a think and let me know what Empire or Superpower in history has ever not been in that situation? Sounds like whining to me.
Well it’s true the current UK leadership is shocking but actually Blair & Brown have been very good in regards to the GWOT – at least by providing troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. So it seems you would scupper your allies and become isolationist? lol – yep really smart move. Is this where you would normally put a ‘Duh’. And what’s your beef with the Aussie leadership? Australia has troops in Afghanistan and it’s not even in NATO.
So what’s it to be – put this discussion back on track – or am I to get more boring & feeble insults which completely detract from any valid point you may be trying to convey? Your call….