Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[Fly Rod]

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

[Raven]

BULLSH1T ......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan.

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns. this is so riddled with lame drivel, but i still love ya JD...

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.so, all of the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" poured into the country after we invaded..all of their leadership and memebership just showed up so that we could kill them, they aren't very smart are they?

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

I fished all night, haven't gotten to the RADICAL RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS website yet this morning

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War. Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

It's worth noting that we were "drawn" into the Gulf war to protect US oil interests in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia paid for about 2/3's the cost of the war!

The reason we didn't take out Saddam was simple. The administration understood it would have been a cluster%$%$%$%$. Even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney didn't support the assertion. Colin Powell coined his famous "Pottery Barn" anecdote about Iraq - you break it, you own it.

Bush 41 took a lot of heat for egging on the Shiite's in the south to stand up to Saddam, then doing nothing to help while Saddam's gunships went to work.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed i believe we should have gotten out of there.

All having nothing to do with Saddam.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.

This isn't really how it happened though.

Saddam DID let the inspectors in, and the UN inspectors found nothing. Saddam was absolutely hampering the inspection process at first, and more pressure was put on the regime to cooperate.

Before the UN, Hans Blix testified that even though Saddam was not cooperating, it was not compromising the inspection on WMD.

Blix wanted time to finish the report, which was going to state that Saddam had no WMD (the same conclusion that Duelfer came to a few years later) and this obviously conflicted with Bush's war plans which were already in motion.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta. And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before Bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest.

-spence

I believe his short term interest was to stop the WOMD and secondly, after we had been there, make it worthwhile to provide a base for long term interests in the region with the Iranian threats.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father really, have you asked them about their relationship?, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan. is this similar to the stimulus marketing plan and the commie care marketing plan?


I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. didn't stop a whole bunch of democrats from claiming that he did and also had evil nuclear intentions "prior to the invasion"...just gets forgotten like the Carter years and Woodrow Wilson...The Syria link is equally without substance prove it. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by everyone?/most people? multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended he was such a kidder to still have them with the possible probable? intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted. he seemed pretty much undaunted be sanctions or resolutions, managed to bribe his way around quite well...

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest OR BOTH!?. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

you should do seances, you have the ability to magically conjur up the intimate thoughts and dreams of so many people that you've never even met ....

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

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

[scottw]

I thought Obama was going to have a beer with he "good" Taliban and straighten this all out right after he had tea with Amadinajad?....so easy to pontificate when you have no accountability, just soaring rhetoric for the entranced... now the shoes is on the other foot for Obama, it's his RESPONSIBILITY and he's tripping all over his untied laces....what a fraud...just keeps blaming someone else as he continues to display utter incompetence...maybe he'll GROW into the job...we can all HOPE...

[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?