Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[spence]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them. weren't they just a "paper tiger" or something, going to collapse anyway?

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit. right, there's probably noone there that actually wants a peaceful existence...those animals..can you similarly apply those beliefs to Oh, I don't know...certain areas of Detriot, Chicago, LA, NY...just wondering

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. because there is none Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.
that's how they do elections in tribal, nationalistic countries
-spence

[spence]

I'd offer up a counter argument, but I don't really see one to counter.

Could you please try to actually make a point?

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;709431]The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

I believe what stcroixman meant by 100% commitment was, not only a government policy, but the full backing of the people. The USSR NEVER had that. It was a militarily enforced federation of irredentist minded citizens, most of whom didn't see Afghanistan as an important matter. We failed in Vietnam because our populace was persuaded that it was not worth American life. The war against the Iraqi "insurgents" was made difficult because they saw the left's portrayal of the war as another Vietnam and so hoped that continued resistance would, similarly, break the American populist will to fight.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

"Nationalistic country" is redundant. All nations are nationalistic. And, if war is resisted change, war is not only a "habit", but a necessity for those entities who wish to maintain their integrity.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.-spence[QUOTE]

Sounds similar to the Bush strategy. As for NATO, without a US, Afghani, and Pakistani defeat of the Taliban, NATO, as already demonstrated, can do nothing.

[scottw]

see Spence...I had some points

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=detbuch;709445]


[COLOR="darkgreen"] All nations are nationalistic.

I would say that is one of our country's problems, we are not nationalistic anymore.
We are a nation split on what we stand for. Where immigrants used to come here, take pride in their citizenship and be grateful for the opportunities,
they left their countries behind and became Americans and believed in our country and what it stood for.

We are becoming more divided everyday. Way to many ideas of who we are and
what we believe to be nationalistic anymore, imho.

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

Are you saying that Bush was forever going to focus on Iraq and that he was never going to turn defence over to the Iraqi military, and that he would not return his focus to Afghanistan?