|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2009 22:06:24 GMT -8
There could be a problem brewing on the Afghanistan issue. There is some evidence that Obama has maneuvered himself between a rock and a hard place on what he called the good war. The rock is, according to some sources, the inevitable need for many more thousands of troops there if we want to do the job correctly (assuming, of course, that it can be done correctly). The hard place will be the explosion on the Left if Obama sends in another 20,000 or 30,000 more troops. More info here . . . www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/820nkztg.asp?pg=2AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 10, 2009 12:26:19 GMT -8
I might add that if Obama does send in an Afghanistan surge without any real plan as to what to do with the additional troops he will set himself up for more grief from all sides.
|
|
cx4
New Recruit
Posts: 21
|
Post by cx4 on Aug 11, 2009 11:25:49 GMT -8
IMHO, I do not think Afghanistan is winnable. Too many places for the bad guys to take cover, then sneak into a village at night and intimidate the locals into providing supplies and recruits. My take is that these hard liners are persistent and will fight until hell freezes over. In addition, there are many individuals and entities (Saudi Arabia?) in the world who throw money at them so that they stay in business just to harass the US and its allies . Without financing, they are done and without weapons suppliers they are done. Anyone have a guess on who is supplying weapons?
As distasteful as it seems, I think a truce of some sort is in order maybe patterned after Korea. The north half of the country goes to the Neanderthals, the south half goes to the religious moderates; troops to be stationed between the two halves. We've had troops in Korea and Germany for 50-60 years, why not Afghanistan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 11, 2009 16:57:52 GMT -8
IMHO, I do not think Afghanistan is winnable. Too many places for the bad guys to take cover, then sneak into a village at night and intimidate the locals into providing supplies and recruits. As distasteful as it seems, I think a truce of some sort is in order maybe patterned after Korea. The north half of the country goes to the Neanderthals, the south half goes to the religious moderates; troops to be stationed between the two halves. We've had troops in Korea and Germany for 50-60 years, why not Afghanistan? Well first, Afghanistan is not winnable and I don't think Obama and our best and brightest in the military believe it is. The main reason we are there is to hunt down and kill AQ people, who made a huge mistake by putting Atta on one of the 9/11 planes (their best and brightest died on those planes and I suspect one of the reasons they haven't hit us since then is because of that). In the end result, we'll have to cut a deal with the Taliban because a ton of people in Afghanistan agree with their religious principals. The best we can hope for is to negotiate with them that they will not allow AQ or other terrorist groups to exist there while plotting to attack us and in exchange we won't bother with their internal culture. That's the best result we an expect from there. Assuming that "democracy" will take hold is a fool's mission - it won't happen and it shouldn't happen (Prime Directive). Buy them off with buying their poppies and just let them go their own way. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 11, 2009 17:18:48 GMT -8
IMHO, I do not think Afghanistan is winnable. Too many places for the bad guys to take cover, then sneak into a village at night and intimidate the locals into providing supplies and recruits. As distasteful as it seems, I think a truce of some sort is in order maybe patterned after Korea. The north half of the country goes to the Neanderthals, the south half goes to the religious moderates; troops to be stationed between the two halves. We've had troops in Korea and Germany for 50-60 years, why not Afghanistan? Well first, Afghanistan is not winnable and I don't think Obama and our best and brightest in the military believe it is. The main reason we are there is to hunt down and kill AQ people, who made a huge mistake by putting Atta on one of the 9/11 planes (their best and brightest died on those planes and I suspect one of the reasons they haven't hit us since then is because of that). In the end result, we'll have to cut a deal with the Taliban because a ton of people in Afghanistan agree with their religious principals. The best we can hope for is to negotiate with them that they will not allow AQ or other terrorist groups to exist there while plotting to attack us and in exchange we won't bother with their internal culture. That's the best result we an expect from there. Assuming that "democracy" will take hold is a fool's mission - it won't happen and it shouldn't happen (Prime Directive). Buy them off with buying their poppies and just let them go their own way. =Bob It should happen, Bob, though I agree that it will only take root after a long period of evolution in the thinking of the average Afghan. As for negotiating some sort of deal that will not be broken the day after we leave. . . well, Bob, that is just the biggest fool's errand of all. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 12, 2009 6:57:27 GMT -8
Well first, Afghanistan is not winnable and I don't think Obama and our best and brightest in the military believe it is. The main reason we are there is to hunt down and kill AQ people, who made a huge mistake by putting Atta on one of the 9/11 planes (their best and brightest died on those planes and I suspect one of the reasons they haven't hit us since then is because of that). In the end result, we'll have to cut a deal with the Taliban because a ton of people in Afghanistan agree with their religious principals. The best we can hope for is to negotiate with them that they will not allow AQ or other terrorist groups to exist there while plotting to attack us and in exchange we won't bother with their internal culture. That's the best result we an expect from there. Assuming that "democracy" will take hold is a fool's mission - it won't happen and it shouldn't happen (Prime Directive). Buy them off with buying their poppies and just let them go their own way. =Bob It should happen, Bob, though I agree that it will only take root after a long period of evolution in the thinking of the average Afghan. As for negotiating some sort of deal that will not be broken the day after we leave. . . well, Bob, that is just the biggest fool's errand of all. AzWm Negotiations will occur because there is no way we can win. Our only purpose in being there now should be to take out AQ there and in Pakistan and to develop enough of a civilian government that the Taliban will not automatically take over everything due to there being the sort of political vacuum that allowed them to take over the last time. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Aug 12, 2009 8:35:14 GMT -8
The whole thing (both Afghanistan and Iraq) is lose lose for Obama, if he goes in and does the job correctly its going to cost the country hundreds American lives and billions of American dollars and will probably not help our relations with most countries in the region let alone the world. If he pulls out before the job is done then we will be stuck in a similar situation that we were in the 80’s post the Afgan vs Soviet war giving two countries with a weak government and a demolished infrastructure and economy a new reason to hate us even more (which would be justified).
I really disapprove of the job Obama has done thus far in office but he was handed a pile of $h!t on this one and I really don’t think there is much he can do to fix it.
|
|
