[stupendousman]

I'll refrain from speculating on motive, but I want to publicly say that I think that Obama made a very good decision in giving the "men on the ground" what they said they thought they'd need (for the most part) to get the job done in Afghanistan. If you ask me, in the year or two of experience he's had in foreign relations, it seems that in regards to the war on terrorism, he has learned something.

He strongly opposed the original "surge" but later after seeing it worked backtracked and admitted that he'd made a mistake. Now he's ignoring those on the far left urging him to pull out now, and he's listening to the people who know best as far as sending in troops.

Thanks. That's one of the most important things that can be asked of a Commander in Chief.

[OldManMac]

Sadly, he's going to learn what the Soviets learned; that Afghanistan is not a country, but a disjointed group of tribes, with the vast majority of the population being illiterate, who aren't interested in being ruled by outsiders, or in learning about anything other than their medieval beliefs. Anyone who thinks we're going to "win" something there is terribly delusional.

[besson3c]

What's the catch here? Where's the but?

[Shaddim]

I agree, he did a good job on this one.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Sadly, he's going to learn what the Soviets learned; that Afghanistan is not a country, but a disjointed group of tribes, with the vast majority of the population being illiterate, who aren't interested in being ruled by outsiders, or in learning about anything other than their medieval beliefs. Anyone who thinks we're going to "win" something there is terribly delusional.

QFT.

It's pure arrogance to think that we can do any better than the Russians did. The Russians are hard, hard people.

First thing that went through my mind when I heard about the extra 30,000 troops was "so why exactly does Barry want all of the most patriotic Americans nowhere near the US?".

[Shaddim]

From what I remember the Russians were trying to occupy them, we just want to kick their asses.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

From what I remember the Russians were trying to occupy them, we just want to kick their asses.

No need for troops then. Just carpet nape the whole lot.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

From what I remember the Russians were trying to occupy them, we just want to kick their asses.

..and we already did it once already. Seriously, we lost focus with two wars going on. Now that the surge worked in Iraq, we need to finish there. Apparently, Obama's going to keep his campaign promise to win in Afghanistan, and that's a good thing.

I reserve the right to change my mind in the future, but there are currently no "buts" to ad to my comments.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Now that the surge worked in Iraq, we need to finish there.

The sad thing is that you believe that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The sad thing is that you believe that.

So does Obama, and most of the rest of the world.

Looks like you are on the outside looking in.

[turtle777]

It's pretty funny that "change" for Obama means realizing that the typical democratic rhetoric was wrong.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I reserve the right to change my mind in the future, but there are currently no "buts" to ad to my comments.

How about butts?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Adding more troops was a good thing, but announcing any sort of timetable for withdrawal was pretty naive. Set up an internal timetable for withdrawal and present it to whatever passes for a legit Afghan govt as the date they need to get their **** together by, sure, but don't announce it to your enemy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Adding more troops was a good thing, but announcing any sort of timetable for withdrawal was pretty naive. Set up an internal timetable for withdrawal and present it to whatever passes for a legit Afghan govt as the date they need to get their **** together by, sure, but don't announce it to your enemy.

I believe he gave the timetable with the caveat that the problem be solved, and he didn't say how many troops would be leaving and how quickly.

In theory I agree with you, but practically I'm not sure it makes much difference. I understand he said it as CYA for his base who doesn't approve in the first place.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So does Obama, and most of the rest of the world.

Looks like you are on the outside looking in.

The rest of the world once was 100% sure the earth was flat. The rest of the world once was 100% sure that the sun revolved around the earth. Not too long ago, well educated people thought that the way to cure many illnesses was to drain blood.

You can't solve a problem if you don't understand the basics of how it got to be a problem.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The rest of the world once was 100% sure the earth was flat. The rest of the world once was 100% sure that the sun revolved around the earth. Not too long ago, well educated people thought that the way to cure many illnesses was to drain blood.

You can't solve a problem if you don't understand the basics of how it got to be a problem.

So there is now more violence and deaths in Iraq now than pre-surge?

For what you said to be true, that would have to be the case. If it's not, then you are either mistaken on the facts, or mistaken on what the surge was supposed to accomplish.

[besson3c]

The problem with the surge is that it does not address the long term problems. It's kind of a no-brainer that adding more troops will quell the violence there for as long as they are there. The question is, what happens when we leave? If violence resumes after we leave, is it our responsibility, and how long of a period of time should it be before we can conclude that the violence was not related to our leaving?

This is precisely the problem that Bush never seemed to really grapple with, and I'm unsure whether Obama is now. If a return to violence is inevitable once we leave, why bother staying there? We cannot provide this sort of relief indefinitely, and it is pretty pointless if there is no long term solution in place.

I've heard politicians talk about Iraq building up their ability to police, but is it wise to help them transition from a dictatorship to a police state? The same thing applies to Afghanistan. If they are unable or unwilling to establish the political accommodations necessary to really start to solve their problems, what is the point of our providing them with temporary relief to an inevitable problem?

The problem with most Republicans that I hear from is that they love to talk about us "winning" there, but they cannot define exactly what that is. What is "winning", and what is realistic?

[besson3c]

An analogy I like is this...

When kids in school don't get along with each other the teacher "breaks them up". During recess somebody makes sure that the kids stay separated, and some amount of constant attention is needed to separate these kids. It seems that our role in this is the teacher.

When the teacher leaves the scene and the kids confront each other, one of a few things can happen... Either enough time has passed where the two can truly move on, the problem resurfaces over time, or the problem resurfaces immediately. Sometimes problems cannot be ignored and have to be confronted head on.

[Chuckit]

I think the idea isn't to "quell the violence" — it's to take out the people causing the violence. The Taliban isn't much of a problem if its people are all six feet under.

[Chongo]

This guy didn't think much of the speech.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think the idea isn't to "quell the violence" — it's to take out the people causing the violence. The Taliban isn't much of a problem if its people are all six feet under.

The problem is that you can't take out all of the Taliban without taking out most of the Pashtuns ... the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan. Remember when the US first invaded Afghanistan US troops the overthrow of the Taliban was done with the aid of the Northern Alliance ... which was a group of primarily non-Pashtun, anti-Taliban factions. So these are the guys in power now. Even though Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun he is anti-Taliban which is likely due in part to the suspected Taliban assassination of his father. What's going on in Afghanistan is a civil war .... where the largest ethnic group is trying to regain it's dominance of the country.

Now having said that, while I would prefer to see the war ended and the focus put on a covert war against Al-Qaeda ... I do support President Obama's approach. Given the military, budgetary, and political circumstances he needed to "split the baby" and come up with a way to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, give the government there a reasonable chance of preventing a Taliban overthrow, and return the focus to Al-Qaeda. We need to keep in mind that the Taliban never attacked the US ... Al-Qaeda did. Now the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda for sure, because Bin Laden assisted and fought with the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. Consequently, they refused to hand Bin Laden over to the US directly because in their society they were honor-bound not to. They did offer to turn him over to a neutral country for trial but the Bush Administration rejected that. So here we are in the middle of a big mess where Al-Qaeda moved over to Pakistan and we are fighting a war against the Taliban because they might allow Al-Qaeda to setup shop in Afghanistan again. After the last a*s-kicking the US military gave them for doing that I seriously question that ... but be that as it may, this is the situation on the ground. So it's heartening to see the President focus the mission on Al-Qaeda and not on "defeating the Taliban" ... because to defeat the Taliban you have to "defeat" the Pashtuns and that would be like trying to "defeat" the Han in China. Never. Gonna. Happen. It's one thing to defeat a military and overthrow a government. It's quite another to occupy a country and control it when the largest ethnic group is hellbent on resisting you and fighting your very presence there.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the idea isn't to "quell the violence" — it's to take out the people causing the violence. The Taliban isn't much of a problem if its people are all six feet under.

The people are not as much threat to us as their ideas are, but unfortunately ideas cannot be put six feet under at gunpoint.

[stupendousman]

I understand what some of you are saying and to some point agree; the "surge" in and of itself can't solve all problems Iraq has. I get that.

I don't think though that was the purpose of the surge.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand what some of you are saying and to some point agree; the "surge" in and of itself can't solve all problems Iraq has. I get that.

I don't think though that was the purpose of the surge.

The purpose was to buy more time for Iraq to get their act together, but it was predicated around the fact that they would and that the surge would therefore be worth our while.

To turn around and say that because we accomplished half of that and that therefore the entire premise was valid doesn't go over well with me. If you want to make the argument that in addition to the surge stabilizing Iraq that it helped setup a stable government and security within the country for years to come, that would be a fair point. I'm honestly ambivalent as to the current condition of Iraq, I just have a problem with the simplistic argument that the surge "worked". This needs further definition and clarification.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So there is now more violence and deaths in Iraq now than pre-surge?

For what you said to be true, that would have to be the case. If it's not, then you are either mistaken on the facts, or mistaken on what the surge was supposed to accomplish.

You've obviously never heard the analogy about putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Others here have pointed out that the problem is a long term, systemic one, and this surge is not even at the level of putting a small band-aid on an open chest cavity. For some reason, even well-educated people think that they can walk up to a problem, and offer their solution, even though they have no grasp of the history and depth of the problem at hand. In their arrogance and hubris, which is what a large part of the solution this surge was founded on, they can't understand that they can't simply blow a few people to smithereens and solve the problem. You can't walk in to an area (I don't like using the term country, as neither Iraq of Afghanistan are really cohesive countries) at gunpoint, and think that your bullets are going to change many centuries of its citizen's beliefs and life views. That is precisely what we're attempting to do. Just because we do it in the guise of calling it democracy doesn't change a damn thing, except show how disingenuous we really are about our mission, and how gullible those are who believe that was the original intent of our invasion, simply because our president repeated it ad nauseam.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the idea isn't to "quell the violence" — it's to take out the people causing the violence. The Taliban isn't much of a problem if its people are all six feet under.

If it were only so simple. We're already operating at a ratio of over 12:1, and they're making us look like fools. America has never understood, and thus never been effective against, guerrilla warfare, because most of the wars we've fought in were against well-defined enemies, and because our hubris has inflated our sense of invincibility. We lost over 50,000 men and women in VietNam, as did the French before us, because we couldn't conceive their fighting style.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The purpose was to buy more time for Iraq to get their act together, but it was predicated around the fact that they would and that the surge would therefore be worth our while.

I think that fewer dead Americans is always worth our while, and it did buy time. The surge did what it was supposed to do. You can debate whether we've achieved our overall goal in regards to the war itself, but the surge did exactly as predicted by those who supported it, and even people who didn't support it initially have came around (like Obama).

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You've obviously never heard the analogy about putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Others here have pointed out that the problem is a long term, systemic one, and this surge is not even at the level of putting a small band-aid on an open chest cavity.

The surge was never intended as a "be all, end all" solution unto itself. No one ever claimed or believed that our problems there would end if we'd just accomplish what the surge ended up accomplishing. The surge was simply designed to quell the violence and buy time. It did that in spades. You assigning "goal posts" to the surge that were never intended to be put into place.

[besson3c]

What do you think the surge was supposed to do?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that fewer dead Americans is always worth our while, and it did buy time. The surge did what it was supposed to do. You can debate whether we've achieved our overall goal in regards to the war itself, but the surge did exactly as predicted by those who supported it, and even people who didn't support it initially have came around (like Obama).



The surge was never intended as a "be all, end all" solution unto itself. No one ever claimed or believed that our problems there would end if we'd just accomplish what the surge ended up accomplishing. The surge was simply designed to quell the violence and buy time. It did that in spades. You assigning "goal posts" to the surge that were never intended to be put into place.

To buy time for what? Can we buy another thousand years, so the Sunni and the Shia, and the Kurds, and Pashtuns, and whoever else is there don't hate each other, and want to kill each other? Can we buy more centuries, until the warlords, who've carved out sections of these "countries," decide they're going to sing Kumbaya and shed tears over how terribly they've treated their fellow man?

[lpkmckenna]

I found it interesting that Obama plans to begin bringing troops home in 2011 - the same year Canada decided years ago to begin coming home. Once again, the US follows the example set by Canadian policy. If the US did this more often (particularly, if US conservatives were to emulate Canadian conservatives), the US would be less screwed up.

I think re-dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan into Afghanistan, Pashtunistan, and Pakistan would produce some good results. Not for the Pashtun people, particularly their women, but Pakistan only nominally governs the mountain regions anyway. But giving the entire southern half of Afghanistan away to the Pashtun basically returns the Taliban to power. Before allowing that to happen, a re-partition agreement should require the banning of the Taliban in exchange for independence.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you think the surge was supposed to do?

What is different now in Iraq than say, 2 or 3 years ago?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What is different now in Iraq than say, 2 or 3 years ago?

Don't have an answer, just ask another question.

[OAW]

Regarding the surge in Iraq, while it certainly improved the situation .... its success has been overhyped. An honest assessment of the situation shows that the dramatic drop in violence around that time was primarily due to the US government paying off the Sunnis to give up the insurgency moreso than the military surge itself. Al-Qaeda had overplayed its hand in trying to stoke sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and the Shia. They ended up killing lots of Sunnis indiscriminately and the Sunni tribal leaders turned against them. The Bush Administration deftly took advantage of this opportunity to work with the Awakening Councils of the Sunnis and basically paid them to patrol their own communities, keep order, and stop attacking US soldiers.

In any event, the combined strategy worked.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Don't have an answer, just ask another question.

It's because a question was asked where an answer has already been provided, and obvious. This was done because it's clear that you don't understand the objective of "the surge" was in the first place. You believe that the surge was intended to solve all the problems in Iraq and end all differences between those involved. It was not.

[quote]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Regarding the surge in Iraq, while it certainly improved the situation .... its success has been overhyped.

I can accept this as a reasonable "difference of opinion." You can debate as to whether the successful surge achieved a broader goal, but you can't really argue that the surge did not set out to do what it was supposed to do, in my opinion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What is different now in Iraq than say, 2 or 3 years ago?

What was the surge supposed to do?

[OldManMac]

[QUOTE=stupendousman;3912298]It's because a question was asked where an answer has already been provided, and obvious. This was done because it's clear that you don't understand the objective of "the surge" was in the first place. You believe that the surge was intended to solve all the problems in Iraq and end all differences between those involved. It was not.

I can accept this as a reasonable "difference of opinion." You can debate as to whether the successful surge achieved a broader goal, but you can't really argue that the surge did not set out to do what it was supposed to do, in my opinion.

I don't recall saying the surge was intended to solve all the problems. If you've read any of my posts, here, it would be patently clear that I believe this is a very long term problem (and one in which I believe we have no business being), and it would be impossible to make an inference that I believe the surge was supposed to solve a long term problem, especially militarily. Do try to keep up, please.

[besson3c]

So, after the Oslo speech will some of you conservatives now agree that Obama is a good public speaker?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, after the Oslo speech will some of you conservatives now agree that Obama is a good public speaker?

Obama is a good public speaker.

This thread has two instances of me complimenting Obama.

You are welcome.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, after the Oslo speech will some of you conservatives now agree that Obama is a good public speaker?

Wouldn't you prefer a good president?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama is a good public speaker.

This thread has two instances of me complimenting Obama.

You are welcome.

Thank you!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wouldn't you prefer a good president?

I say the jury is still out on that one...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I say the jury is still out on that one...

I'll see you in three years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll see you in three years.

How do you know I'll be here in three years? If I were you I'd enjoy me while you can. Take me in.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you know I'll be here in three years? If I were you I'd enjoy me while you can. Take me in.

You know I don't swing that way Bess. I appreciate the offer and all though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You know I don't swing that way Bess. I appreciate the offer and all though.

You will want to have sex with me, it's just a mere matter of time. This is nothing new for me.

I'm not saying that I would say yes to you, but it is clear that I'm the best there is.