Obama's War?? Afghanistan. . . .

Bird of Prey · Sep 11, 2009

Doubt raised on troop boost in Afghanistan war

President Barack Obama's strategy may be at risk as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she doesn't sees many backers in Congress for any new deployments.

By Julian E. Barnes September 11, 2009

Reporting from Washington - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she sees little support in Congress or elsewhere in the country for sending more troops to Afghanistan, signaling trouble for President Obama's new strategy at a critical point in the war.

With the number of casualties rising, Afghanistan embroiled in allegations of widespread election fraud and administration officials mindful that they must show progress by the middle of next year, several experts warned that the administration must move quickly to better explain its approach.

Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, became the highest-ranking lawmaker to publicly express doubt about further troop increases.

Her comment to reporters came the week after the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, submitted a classified assessment that lays the groundwork for what is expected to be a request for additional combat forces. . . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-troops11-2009sep11,0,3097616.story

As soon as I read this, I thought of Johnson and Vietnam. No question, the US is souring on protracted wars. So do we keep going or turn back or try to work with the status qup?? At issue: the Taliban and the fate of nuclear weapons versus the lives of western armed forces, an economic drain and the looming specter of a long term occupation. . . .

Don · Sep 11, 2009

If Obama wants to go fight in Afghanistan, I'll loan him a rifle. I'll even buy him a case of bullets. We need to break the cycle of electing powerful men who send our children off to foreign coutries to kill and be killed.

I can't believe Pelosi and I agree about something. Now how about some support for bringing home the half-million troops we have deployed in all these troubled hot-spots?

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote D’lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Bird of Prey · Sep 11, 2009

Don said:
If Obama wants to go fight in Afghanistan, I'll loan him a rifle. I'll even buy him a case of bullets. We need to break the cycle of electing powerful men who send our children off to foreign coutries to kill and be killed.

I can't believe Pelosi and I agree about something. Now how about some support for bringing home the half-million troops we have deployed in all these troubled hot-spots?

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote D’lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Do you worry that if Afghanistan falls, so will Pakistan??

Williebee · Sep 11, 2009

Denmark and Japan are "troubled hotspots"? The Bahamas??

Don, the thing is, the world is much too interconnected socially, economically, and in terms of health for an isolationist stance to survive, and that sounds like what you are proposing.

Haggis · Sep 11, 2009

Williebee said:
Denmark and Japan are "troubled hotspots"? The Bahamas??

Maybe not them, but Canada's trouble.

Don · Sep 11, 2009

Not isolationist, Willie. Non-interventionist. There's a world of difference.

And at the risk of getting slammed again for quoting instead of expressing original thoughts:

Thomas Jefferson said:
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

My original thoughts are that if we'd been practicing that advice for the last 50 years, we wouldn't be facing the problems we are today.

Synonym · Sep 11, 2009

I'm on the fence with this. Many of the "hot spots" just can't be put out. These people seem bound and determined to fight each other, like it's in the blood or their drinking water. A family tradition?

But, with the world so entangled in each others affairs it's difficult to find an ally that isn't looking nervously at their borders and screaming for help. So, what do you do then?

SPMiller · Sep 11, 2009

Don said:
Not isolationist, Willie. Non-interventionist. There's a world of difference.

Careful what you say in opposition of war for any reason, or you'll be branded a "30s isolationist" and slammed when you defend yourself. These be not unbiased waters, here.

Cranky · Sep 11, 2009

SPMiller said:
Careful what you say in opposition of war for any reason, or you'll be branded a "30s isolationist" and slammed when you defend yourself. These be not unbiased waters, here.

If by that you mean he'll get some argument on his viewpoint, you're right. This isn't an echo chamber.

Don · Sep 11, 2009

SPMiller said:
Careful what you say in opposition of war for any reason, or you'll be branded a "30s isolationist" and slammed when you defend yourself. These be not unbiased waters, here.

People can call me an isolationist if they don't mind twisting the truth. I've made it plain any number of times that I'm no such critter. If they call me such, I'll be glad to set them straight again.

Heck, SP, there are still people here who keep claiming I'm a conservative, when the primary things I have in common with conservatives are a belief in the Second Amendment and what used to be a conservative belief that a small government is a better government, and the best is none at all.

Believing that half a million American troops stationed in 150 countries is unnecessary hardly makes me an isolationist.

Romantic Heretic · Sep 11, 2009

Haggis said:
Maybe not them, but Canada's trouble.

Thank you. :evil

Andrew · Sep 11, 2009

In my view, like our thrust during the Bush years and still with Obama--we either decide to win and use bigger bombs (after appropriate warning) or we leave their misery to them.

Sarpedon · Sep 11, 2009

I will make history and agree with Don here. Iraq and Afganistan have shown just how futile nation-building is. I think we allowed our 'successes' with Germany and Japan after ww2 cloud our perceptions about how difficult it is to impose a new system of government on a nation. The sheer arrogance of thinking that we could use force to fundamentally change a culture, or that our way of life is simply so wonderful that everyone would want it if only they had the chance, has led us into a conflict that, even if we win, it won't be worth the cost.

And leaving troops in so many other countries is simply a waste of money. I could see maintaining a few in europe for training purposes, and there's definitely good reason to keep them in South Korea, but the bulk of US forces overseas are there for political reasons. I believe it is inappropriate to use the military for political ends, no matter what Clauswitz says.

How many more people have to die before we realize that pride just simply isn't worth it?

Kurtz · Sep 11, 2009

Andrew said:
In my view, like our thrust during the Bush years and still with Obama--we either decide to win and use bigger bombs (after appropriate warning) or we leave their misery to them.

Vietnam.

Bird of Prey · Sep 11, 2009

Sarpedon said:
I will make history and agree with Don here. Iraq and Afganistan have shown just how futile nation-building is. I think we allowed our 'successes' with Germany and Japan after ww2 cloud our perceptions about how difficult it is to impose a new system of government on a nation. The sheer arrogance of thinking that we could use force to fundamentally change a culture, or that our way of life is simply so wonderful that everyone would want it if only they had the chance, has led us into a conflict that, even if we win, it won't be worth the cost.

And leaving troops in so many other countries is simply a waste of money. I could see maintaining a few in europe for training purposes, and there's definitely good reason to keep them in South Korea, but the bulk of US forces overseas are there for political reasons. I believe it is inappropriate to use the military for political ends, no matter what Clauswitz says.

How many more people have to die before we realize that pride just simply isn't worth it?

Do you think it's pride or a real threat? If Afghanistan falls, do you it's likely that Pakistan will also? And if it does, does it bother you that nuclear weapons are at stake?

Noah Body · Sep 11, 2009

Sarpedon said:
I believe it is inappropriate to use the military for political ends, no matter what Clauswitz says.

How many more people have to die before we realize that pride just simply isn't worth it?

A standing military has long been a tool politicians can wield amidst the competition of nations.

In addition, having troops forward deployed works to the advantage of the United States, in much the same way as it works by having the USN make ports of call.

Prozyan · Sep 11, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
Do you think it's pride or a real threat? If Afghanistan falls, do you it's likely that Pakistan will also? And if it does, does it bother you that nuclear weapons are at stake?

I think its a real threat and that if Afghanistan collapses it will have dire consequences for Pakistan. Another factor you are leaving out is that India won't allow a destabalized (and nuclear armed) Pakistan. Adds another dimension to the whole mess.

Our only real options are to fully dedicate both the military resources and the financial and civil resourses needed to transform Afghanistan or pull out and pray for the best.

The problem with full dedication is that it will occupy the primary strength of the US for a long time, leaving North Korea and, more importantly China, relatively unchecked in that region.

Fran · Sep 11, 2009

There are US troops here? Why? We're no trouble.

*looks around warily*

Noah Body · Sep 11, 2009

Prozyan said:
The problem with full dedication is that it will occupy the primary strength of the US for a long time, leaving North Korea and, more importantly China, relatively unchecked in that region.

How do you figure this? The DPRK has a central military focal point--the ROK--and it is unlikely that the Eighth US Army will be withdrawn from that long-standing commitment.

Along similar lines, the PLA is in the midst of a military modernization wherein its target is to be able to oppose the US military, or at least beef itself up enough to deny USN intervention in the Taiwan Strait. Even though they are dropping billions of dollars into their modernization process, they are at least two decades behind the US in terms of mass...and it's not like the US military will forgo perpetual modernization itself.

Sarpedon · Sep 11, 2009

Umm, no I guess I don't think a country of 167 million needs to fear much from a country with a population of 28 million, especially considering that the former also has a much higher per capita income. Mexico is stronger relative to the USA than Afganistan is to Pakistan. And I'm not suggesting we stop aiding Pakistan. Pakistan is a big boy. Its problems are from within, not without. The flirtation that discontent Pakistanis have had with the Taliban seems to be pretty much over, anyhow.

And we're a few decades late with the whole 'domino effect' scare tactic. Losing Vietnam didn't make the whole world Communist, did it?

Do you deny that pride is a big factor? If it isn't, why do people automatically sneer at anything that could be called 'cut and run?'

Don · Sep 11, 2009

I didn't answer that question earlier, BoP, and I don't know the ultimate answer.

I'll just point out that containment was the excuse for Vietnam, and before that, for Korea. So I somehow doubt that whether Afghanistan falls or not, Pakistan will play out the way we're being told it will.

FedGov has a long, long history of mushrooming the American people when it comes to foreign policy. I see zero indications that has changed in any way whatsoever.

Of course it bothers me that nuclear weapons are at stake. I'm concerned that some idiot will get their hands on them, and decide to once again punish the American people for the actions of their political ruling class. I'd feel much better if DC was on an island out in the middle of the Atlantic.

Noah Body · Sep 11, 2009

Don said:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote D’lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Your list includes many, many nations where US troops have deployed for field training exercises and military personnel exchanges. We do not have forces in permanent deployment in many of those nations, only on temporary duty, and mostly for training and interoperational purposes only.

Noah Body · Sep 11, 2009

Fran said:
There are US troops here? Why? We're no trouble.

*looks around warily*

You drink your beer at room temperature, so clearly, your nation is not to be trusted. Not only that, dpaterso is a Scotsman, so that's reason enough!

Fran · Sep 11, 2009

Noah Body said:
You drink your beer at room temperature, so clearly, your nation is not to be trusted. Not only that, dpaterso is a Scotsman, so that's reason enough!

Nobody I know drinks their beer at room temperature. Maybe they've all been disappeared...

Sarpedon · Sep 11, 2009

Noah said:
In addition, having troops forward deployed works to the advantage of the United States, in much the same way as it works by having the USN make ports of call.

I have no doubt that having a big military is an advantage in war. I merely question whether this advantage is worth the cost. It seems to me that most wars the USA has won we started out ill-prepared for. It also seems that wars that we were well prepared for, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan, have been disappointing.

I also think that the assumption of a future war makes such a war more likely. I am not alone in this belief. It is the dominant view of historians who study the events leading up to World War 1, for example. This is why I always look askance at people who say that war with China is inevitable, and are constantly attempting to drum up fears to that end.

Obama's War?? Afghanistan. . . .

Benefactor Member

All Living is Local

Benefactor Member

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Evil, undead Chihuahua

All Living is Local

Prodigiously Hanged

All Living is Local

uncoerced

Most of the rules gotta go...

Fix up, look sharp.

Benefactor Member

Entertainment Ronin

Are you one, Herbert?

Slate grey mole person

Entertainment Ronin

All Living is Local

Entertainment Ronin

Entertainment Ronin

Slate grey mole person