And so the quagmire continues and deepens.
The troops will come out of Iraq, or from the US unemployed who use the Army as employer of last resort.
As Iraq troop levels are reduced, Iraq will blow up.
It's all a total, irredeemable waste of lives and money, -canning both -can countries.
Oh my good where's code pink?
You didn't read the article. Obama never said combat troops yet. The quagmire that Bush and pro-surge people won for the Dem's who declared the OIF lost.
If we've already won in Iraq, why don't we withdraw? Instead, we're sending more troops and contractors there.You didn't read the article. Obama never said combat troops yet. The quagmire that Bush and pro-surge people won for the Dem's who declared the OIF lost.
We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.
We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.
We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with su ion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.
The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world.
So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.
-FDR
Maybe I misread that. I thought the support troops were heading to Afghan?
IMO we are there still because the same reason we are still in Germany and Japan. Gen in Iraq says we can redeploy faster than expected.
Why are we in Germany and Japan?IMO we are there still because the same reason we are still in Germany and Japan.
If you had said: for the same reason as South Korea that would make some sense. How are Germany and Japan analogous to Afghanistan?
S Korea is a better example. The Ger posts being a fuel point and midway point are some strategic reasons. They still have combat troops but not alot and I think they are in the deploying cycles. Japan is good stragetically, for the navy and airforce. For all the Asia threats; To keep waterways open and available.
Did Obama say all soldiers would be out of Iraq? This type of build up might not happen. IMO we could have soldiers there because we are trying to slowly transition in case the militia, terrorists, or Iran try and take over.
Indirectly, SnC, you raise a point that is little discussed here. Are there traditional geostrategic reasons for the prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan apart from the threat of terrorism?
Containment/encirclement of Iran would one reason; influencing overland energy flows is another; countering Chinese/Russian influence in central Asia is MK Bhadrakumar's favored hypothesis.
All these ideas are more or less plausible but none of them sell quite as well as terrorism.
In your opinion, SnC, is it possible that our stated reasons for being there might be opportunistic, that is, a smoke screen for broader, long term objectives?
It wasn't the surge that "won" anything. It was the rapid shift in strategy that accompanied the surge. A shift caused by a very secret strategy study on the part of the Bush administration after they realized they were losing.
A shift that would not have been necessary, had the administration been able to find it's collective ass with both hands, and done things right from the start, instead of the Republican administration sacrificing 3000 servicemembers on the altar of their own stupidity.
They aren't.
Both of those nations had functioning governments and workforces that were skilled and fairly educated, after the war was over.
Afghanistan...doesn't.
We will be in Afghanistan when my 6 year old is eligible for the draft. Don't let anyone lie to you about that.
It will take us the better part of a generation, if not two, to bring a country with a development level akin to the middle ages into the 21st century.
Once we have done so, it will be interesting to see how they run things.
As you well know, I am considerably less sanguine about the wisdom of sacrificing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars more, on the mere presumption that we will successfully convert a tribal and semi-feudal society that is a nation only in the bare political sense, into a pro-western, liberal-democratic regime that enjoys domestic legitimacy.
You could be right, RG. But if you are wrong, we will have sacrificed the wealth and the blood of "a generation or two" on the altar of misplaced hope.
We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?
DarrinS, a few questions:
1) Do you think the US military can effectively deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons?
2) Do you think the best method is by staging a long "nation building" ground campaign?
3) Do you think this is the best use of resources?
4) Do you think it is a worthy expenditure of resources?
This is a phony an hesis. Pulling up stakes completely isn't the only alternative to generational counterinsurgency. It also isn't going to happen. It's a scarecrow, D, and you know it. Obama isn't even considering it.
But, supposing it were a real possibility: IMO There's a good case to be made that letting the Taliban reinvest Afghanistan would relieve the pressure in Pakistan, just as our invasion exacerbated it.
Pressuring Pakistan to democratize also appears to have been a big mistake; Zardari is even more despised than Mussharraf and notably weaker.
On the whole, our presence in the region is not stabilizing. Quite the contrary. Things have gotten much worse and much more dangerous since we got there.
Those are all good questions. The answer to the first is: I don't know. I keep using fire ant killer in my yard and those little bas s just reappear in a different location a week or so later. I think the US has to maintain some kind of presence in the region.
To the second question -- I don't know how you build something that was never there in the first place. All I know is that we need to leave that place in a condition that's not an easy sanctuary for growing little terrorists. (easier said than done)
Only history will answer Q3 and Q4.
This meme is so lamebrained. The whole world is a potential sanctuary for terrorists. The more pressure we apply, the more resistance we create. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Al Qaeda's best recruiters.All I know is that we need to leave that place in a condition that's not an easy sanctuary for growing little terrorists.
If people are still worried about Afghanistan being a pre 9/11 base for an organization like Al Qaeda I'm amazed. You think American government would let that happen with or without a presence on the ground? I find that laughable.
It is a great way of getting into the heart of Russia's sphere of influence. I know I use stratfor alot but Next 100 Years author brings this up. HE talks about the main goal for Muslim country is to make sure they do not become united. He believes keeping Russia from building up their sphere (Caucasian mtns, and Poland) are going to be the big areas for America's next real foreign policy issues in the next 30 yrs. I believe IMO we went into Afghanistan for the real reason of fighting the terrorists and taliban. HOwever We will probably stay forever because of the strategic aspect.
I disagree. I think leaving Mogadishu was a far greater tool for the terrorists than the two wars. Also not responding to any of the Al Qieda attacks as well as being wishy washy with Saddam.
We can respond to terror attacks without invading and occupying other countries. It isn't proven to work, creates new enemies and sets a bad example for other countries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
