|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 8, 2009 10:05:40 GMT -8
Another view of the war in Afghanistan. Focus here is twofold. First, the author believes the situation is not (yet) hopeless. Second, she asks to what extent Barack Obama is willing to support our effort there. There is no doubt that many here and in Europe are less than enthusiastic about the war in Afghanistan. (Though she does not allude to it, the issue of how many more troops Gen. McChrystal is going to request, and Obama's response to that request, is very important. How the President responds may well tell us how far Obama is willing to go to succeed in Afghanistan.) www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702071.html AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 8, 2009 13:45:18 GMT -8
I wonder if what Gen. McChrystal is going to ask for or what he really thinks will even see the light of day. The Obama Mob has the means to stifle the way Gen. McChrystal presents his views. There is nothing that I would not think Obama is capable of doing. I hope that I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 8, 2009 15:07:58 GMT -8
And as always, you miss the main point. The debate within the Administration is what the troop level should be while the right-wing, or at least George Will, is calling for a bug-out in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of a sudden a Democratic President is in favor or war while the Republicans want to cut and run. Odd turn of events.
I don't disagree with her that we should stay for a while longer, but sooner or later, through Pakistan, I think we will cut some sort of deal with the Taliban, or at least the more moderate clerics. It's not a war we can win militarily and I think the Administration recognizes that.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 8, 2009 15:27:59 GMT -8
And as always, you miss the main point. The debate within the Administration is what the troop level should be while the right-wing, or at least George Will, is calling for a bug-out in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of a sudden a Democratic President is in favor or war while the Republicans want to cut and run. Odd turn of events. I don't disagree with her that we should stay for a while longer, but sooner or later, through Pakistan, I think we will cut some sort of deal with the Taliban, or at least the more moderate clerics. It's not a war we can win militarily and I think the Administration recognizes that. =Bob What makes you think George Will is a spokesman for the "right-wing"? And the rest of your post seems to suggest that you agree with him.  You just don't like it, because you want to paint Will's comments as insincere, and are made only to injure your Messiah. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 8, 2009 15:45:02 GMT -8
For the moment, Will represents a minority of those on the Right.
Whatever happens, I don't want to see more Taliban throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan girls who dare to go to school.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 9, 2009 7:30:29 GMT -8
Whatever happens, I don't want to see more Taliban throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan girls who dare to go to school. AzWm Agree 100%. The problem is how do we accomplish it without completely occupying most of the middle east and going to war with Pakistan? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 9, 2009 16:20:45 GMT -8
Whatever happens, I don't want to see more Taliban throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan girls who dare to go to school. AzWm Agree 100%. The problem is how do we accomplish it without completely occupying most of the middle east and going to war with Pakistan? Agree that it is a tough question, but when the musing includes a declaration that it is not winnable as stated by =Bob above then you are starting the discussion and looking at the problem form a weak defeatist point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 18:24:13 GMT -8
And as always, you miss the main point. The debate within the Administration is what the troop level should be while the right-wing, or at least George Will, is calling for a bug-out in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of a sudden a Democratic President is in favor or war while the Republicans want to cut and run. Odd turn of events. I don't disagree with her that we should stay for a while longer, but sooner or later, through Pakistan, I think we will cut some sort of deal with the Taliban, or at least the more moderate clerics. It's not a war we can win militarily and I think the Administration recognizes that. =Bob What makes you think George Will is a spokesman for the "right-wing"? What makes you assume that he isn't? Who would you offer as a spokesman for the right? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 18:30:09 GMT -8
Agree 100%. The problem is how do we accomplish it without completely occupying most of the middle east and going to war with Pakistan? Agree that it is a tough question, but when the musing includes a declaration that it is not winnable as stated by =Bob above then you are starting the discussion and looking at the problem form a weak defeatist point of view. Define "winnable". You statement is pretty much the same as what I saw offered by those who supported the Vietnam war (although Afghanistan is not Vietnam - it's worse). But hey, given that you're a "military man" (as pronounced in Lovely Rita), please offer your solution for what we do in the country where, "empires go to die"? Given that you claim what I'm writing is done "form (sic) a weak defeatist point of view", please tell us what your solution to this is. After all, I didn't serve in the military and you did, so I assume that gives you some sort of view of strategy that I am incapable of understanding. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2009 10:46:12 GMT -8
Agree that it is a tough question, but when the musing includes a declaration that it is not winnable as stated by =Bob above then you are starting the discussion and looking at the problem form a weak defeatist point of view. Define "winnable". You statement is pretty much the same as what I saw offered by those who supported the Vietnam war (although Afghanistan is not Vietnam - it's worse). But hey, given that you're a "military man" (as pronounced in Lovely Rita), please offer your solution for what we do in the country where, "empires go to die"? Given that you claim what I'm writing is done "form (sic) a weak defeatist point of view", please tell us what your solution to this is. After all, I didn't serve in the military and you did, so I assume that gives you some sort of view of strategy that I am incapable of understanding. =Bob Since you admit that you are incapable of understanding, why would I engage in an exercise that would be complex, politically unpalatable, and full of "collateral causalities"? |
|
