Afghanistan war
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Is Somalia today some anarchist experiment gone wrong or is it a tribal/rival faction killing field as control is sought in the aftermath and blowback of Colonialist (democratic nationbuilding) interventions of the late 19th and into the 20th century? Are they killing rivals in the hopes to be the last one standing in order to be "the ruler" of a given geo-graphic area? How can you have a true "anarchy" movement when the goal is a fight to control power?
Maybe you should rethink your words and consider other options that actually fit the conditions and adhere to more historic defintions of terms. Somalia is not about creating a soceity with no ruler but is fighting now to figure out who that ruler ultimately will be. In otherwords, the killing is because people want a ruler rather than a desire for a lack thereof! In fact, political chaos and look down the list. They have for the most part one thing in common, not a desire for an anarchía world but rather they are infighting among themselves in the hopes of emerging from the political chaos on top. The chaos comes as a result of the State in order to establish the State. That's why when you lay out the number of people killed by established state on the span of time verses the number of people kill by non-state means, the numbers in sheer volume is quite shocking. This link should provide some thought.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
As for Somalia and it's history.
Who is The Mad Mullah and who is Richard Corfield ?
Did Hassan influence Bin Laden?
Understanding the influence not only of western colonial and cold war powers but also religion in the Horn is very important to understanding the events of today in the region.
Understanding the concept of "no ruler" and it's History goes a long way in at least unbinding one's self from the monarchist propoganda we've (including myself) have been conditioned with.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
What is behind or root cause of war?
Interview with the founder of World Wide War Project.
Learn about the pastry war, I kid you not!
Interview with the founder of World Wide War Project.
Learn about the pastry war, I kid you not!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
The Af/Pak war if nothing else, is completely economically unsustainable. First and foremost, is requires economic resources to be shifted from domestic purposes to foreign or international and then to make up for this removal, some mechanism must step in to intervene to maintian the same standard of living. At current, we do this creating debt (Bush and Obama just following an earlier established construct) but then we also have to replace resources in the market place or wrongly intervene when economies self correct because of bubbles wrongly created to in the end serve not the best interest of the people but to serve gov't and it's select corp. partners. Finding the benefitting partners is not hard if one were to look and think! Still think Ron Paul and Alan Grayson are crazy?
How would you feel about the sustainability of Afghanistan when it comes to paying the bill from the homefront when just the gas per gallon is $400?
Like the get rich quick scheme for Goldman Sachs on the economic fears of a crisis, is somebody else getting rich off the fear of another crisis? Didn't someone a few years back make the correct claim, "he played off our fears!"? And like the past adminstration who using fear obviously paved the golden path to riches for some, if they were evil incarnate then, does that not make the present adminstration the same when they are doing the same now?
How would you feel about the sustainability of Afghanistan when it comes to paying the bill from the homefront when just the gas per gallon is $400?
Like the get rich quick scheme for Goldman Sachs on the economic fears of a crisis, is somebody else getting rich off the fear of another crisis? Didn't someone a few years back make the correct claim, "he played off our fears!"? And like the past adminstration who using fear obviously paved the golden path to riches for some, if they were evil incarnate then, does that not make the present adminstration the same when they are doing the same now?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Editorial: Obama should embrace McChrystal's Afghanistan plan
There is no easy solution to the Afghanistan conundrum. Not only is there no clear route to victory, it's difficult to define what victory is.
Yet there is a solid definition of defeat: allowing Afghanistan to descend further into chaotic violence so the Taliban can return to power and resume playing host to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Whatever President Barack Obamadecides, he cannot allow this to happen.The president must decide whether the troop-surge plan by his Afghanistan commander, Gen. StanleyMcChrystal, is more likely to head off such an outcome than the alternative favored by Vice President Joe Biden and others, which is to reduce the U.S. military presence and focus on fighting al-Qaeda.
Make no mistake, this is an exceedingly complex, multilayered problem involving Pakistani nukes, billion-dollar opium-trafficking networks and internecine regional meddling.
Obama cannot turn back the clock on the neglect that occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of 2001; today, he faces a series of bad choices with uncertain prospects. Considering the thousands of lives in the balance, his least bad option is to heed the advice of McChrystal, his hand-picked military adviser, and move quickly to boost American troop levels in Afghanistan.
We do not advocate an open-ended commitment to escalation, but McChrystal's plan deserves a try before the administration turns to other options. Its success or failure could be evident by the time the 2012 presidential campaign begins. American voters may well be the final judges, as they were when they elected Obama last year, knowing his commitment to increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.
Lessons from the past
This newspaper opposed Gen. David Petraeus' 2007 troop-surge strategy in Iraq for reasons similar to those skeptics are using to criticize the McChrystal plan. We were wrong; Petraeus was right. His plan brought surprisingly quick results. The insurgency in Iraq is not completely vanquished, but it is manageable enough that Washington can stick to its 2011 withdrawal commitment.
This is not to suggest American commanders always get it right. In Vietnam, a massive troop buildup and heavy bombing led nowhere. Afghanistan is neither Iraq nor Vietnam, but those wars offer valuable cautionary lessons. The Pentagon's understanding of counterinsurgency warfare is light years ahead of what it was during the Vietnam era.
Military might alone will not stop a guerrilla insurgency, as Vietnam proved. Success in Iraq wasn't solely because of the troop surge but depended heavily on the quiet U.S. effort to bribe and cajole Sunni tribal leaders into abandoning support for the insurgency. Americans would have been outraged, amid the carnage of 2005-06, to learn of plans to pay off and negotiate with the very Sunnis who were ordering attacks on U.S. troops. In the end, though, the strategy paid big dividends.
Increased troop strength did allow the U.S. to provide the crucial security component that Iraqis demanded, while buying time to train Iraqi soldiers and police into their proper security roles. Today's vastly improved security conditions, unimaginable in early 2007, are what allow the U.S. to fulfill its 2011 withdrawal promise.
Cautious but realistic goals
McChrystal, a former head of the Joint Special Operations Command who has directed U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for seven years, warns that Afghanistan's challenges are more complex than Iraq's and that the administration should not expect identical results. Yet the basic requirements remain the same: Afghans need security before they can join the effort to stabilize their country.
Just as Iraqi security forces were timid and desertions rampant in the early days of the surge, Afghan troops and police today are reluctant because they are outnumbered and outgunned by the Taliban. Building confidence requires a clear demonstration of U.S. and NATO resolve. The Taliban's advance cannot be halted and reversed at existing U.S. troop levels – much less the reduced levels envisioned by Biden.
It's also important to identify less-radical elements within the Taliban. Before the 9/11 attacks, Republican and Democratic administrations had 33 documented conversations with the Taliban leadership. Even today, the Taliban maintains Western news media contacts, suggesting a desire to keep communication lines open. Ask no less a conservative than former Speaker Newt Gingrich whether the approach used with moderate Sunnis in Iraq would work with the Taliban: "That would be your goal, I think, to split them," he said.
The primary goal remains to relentlessly pursue al-Qaeda while putting heavy pressure on the Taliban so its leadership realizes that the insurgents cannot seize power through military force. Wiping them out isn't feasible, but Taliban leaders – especially moderates – must learn that fighting the U.S. entails increasingly painful consequences.
Once that message gets through, prospects will grow for an accommodation with the Taliban, giving Afghans the security and stability they seek.
Weighing the consequences
No one can predict whether McChrystal's plan will work. But it's reasonable to expect an Afghan implosion if U.S. troops withdraw, giving both the Taliban and al-Qaeda a claim of victory and an enormous boost in recruiting power, setting back U.S. anti-terrorism efforts years, if not decades.
Little would remain to block radical elements from sweeping through Afghanistan and Pakistan. They could easily reignite the conflict in Kashmir between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India. A nuclear conflagration is not unthinkable under this scenario, with al-Qaeda moving ever closer to accessing Pakistan's nuclear weaponry.
Leaving U.S. troops at current levels allows the Taliban to continue exploiting Afghanistan's deteriorating conditions. Corruption and massive vote tampering by President Hamid Karzai are adding to Afghan disaffection and hopelessness. The longer Obama waits, the worse it gets.
Biden proposes an end to fighting the Taliban, but that doesn't mean the Taliban will suddenly stop attacking U.S. troops. They will continue, and the mission of fighting al-Qaeda will be undermined as Taliban forces keep advancing.
What McChrystal proposes will be a long, difficult slog. There are other important theaters to be addressed, particularly in Pakistan, and plans must be developed to contend with new threats as they develop. But Afghanistan is the question Obama must address now.
By embracing McChrystal's plan, Obama will hardly wow his liberal supporters or advance his standing as a Nobel peace laureate, but he will increase the chances for security in a country that has known only war and hardship since the Soviet invasion in 1979.
Mr. President, this is a risk worth taking.
There is no easy solution to the Afghanistan conundrum. Not only is there no clear route to victory, it's difficult to define what victory is.
Yet there is a solid definition of defeat: allowing Afghanistan to descend further into chaotic violence so the Taliban can return to power and resume playing host to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Whatever President Barack Obamadecides, he cannot allow this to happen.The president must decide whether the troop-surge plan by his Afghanistan commander, Gen. StanleyMcChrystal, is more likely to head off such an outcome than the alternative favored by Vice President Joe Biden and others, which is to reduce the U.S. military presence and focus on fighting al-Qaeda.
Make no mistake, this is an exceedingly complex, multilayered problem involving Pakistani nukes, billion-dollar opium-trafficking networks and internecine regional meddling.
Obama cannot turn back the clock on the neglect that occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of 2001; today, he faces a series of bad choices with uncertain prospects. Considering the thousands of lives in the balance, his least bad option is to heed the advice of McChrystal, his hand-picked military adviser, and move quickly to boost American troop levels in Afghanistan.
We do not advocate an open-ended commitment to escalation, but McChrystal's plan deserves a try before the administration turns to other options. Its success or failure could be evident by the time the 2012 presidential campaign begins. American voters may well be the final judges, as they were when they elected Obama last year, knowing his commitment to increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.
Lessons from the past
This newspaper opposed Gen. David Petraeus' 2007 troop-surge strategy in Iraq for reasons similar to those skeptics are using to criticize the McChrystal plan. We were wrong; Petraeus was right. His plan brought surprisingly quick results. The insurgency in Iraq is not completely vanquished, but it is manageable enough that Washington can stick to its 2011 withdrawal commitment.
This is not to suggest American commanders always get it right. In Vietnam, a massive troop buildup and heavy bombing led nowhere. Afghanistan is neither Iraq nor Vietnam, but those wars offer valuable cautionary lessons. The Pentagon's understanding of counterinsurgency warfare is light years ahead of what it was during the Vietnam era.
Military might alone will not stop a guerrilla insurgency, as Vietnam proved. Success in Iraq wasn't solely because of the troop surge but depended heavily on the quiet U.S. effort to bribe and cajole Sunni tribal leaders into abandoning support for the insurgency. Americans would have been outraged, amid the carnage of 2005-06, to learn of plans to pay off and negotiate with the very Sunnis who were ordering attacks on U.S. troops. In the end, though, the strategy paid big dividends.
Increased troop strength did allow the U.S. to provide the crucial security component that Iraqis demanded, while buying time to train Iraqi soldiers and police into their proper security roles. Today's vastly improved security conditions, unimaginable in early 2007, are what allow the U.S. to fulfill its 2011 withdrawal promise.
Cautious but realistic goals
McChrystal, a former head of the Joint Special Operations Command who has directed U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for seven years, warns that Afghanistan's challenges are more complex than Iraq's and that the administration should not expect identical results. Yet the basic requirements remain the same: Afghans need security before they can join the effort to stabilize their country.
Just as Iraqi security forces were timid and desertions rampant in the early days of the surge, Afghan troops and police today are reluctant because they are outnumbered and outgunned by the Taliban. Building confidence requires a clear demonstration of U.S. and NATO resolve. The Taliban's advance cannot be halted and reversed at existing U.S. troop levels – much less the reduced levels envisioned by Biden.
It's also important to identify less-radical elements within the Taliban. Before the 9/11 attacks, Republican and Democratic administrations had 33 documented conversations with the Taliban leadership. Even today, the Taliban maintains Western news media contacts, suggesting a desire to keep communication lines open. Ask no less a conservative than former Speaker Newt Gingrich whether the approach used with moderate Sunnis in Iraq would work with the Taliban: "That would be your goal, I think, to split them," he said.
The primary goal remains to relentlessly pursue al-Qaeda while putting heavy pressure on the Taliban so its leadership realizes that the insurgents cannot seize power through military force. Wiping them out isn't feasible, but Taliban leaders – especially moderates – must learn that fighting the U.S. entails increasingly painful consequences.
Once that message gets through, prospects will grow for an accommodation with the Taliban, giving Afghans the security and stability they seek.
Weighing the consequences
No one can predict whether McChrystal's plan will work. But it's reasonable to expect an Afghan implosion if U.S. troops withdraw, giving both the Taliban and al-Qaeda a claim of victory and an enormous boost in recruiting power, setting back U.S. anti-terrorism efforts years, if not decades.
Little would remain to block radical elements from sweeping through Afghanistan and Pakistan. They could easily reignite the conflict in Kashmir between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India. A nuclear conflagration is not unthinkable under this scenario, with al-Qaeda moving ever closer to accessing Pakistan's nuclear weaponry.
Leaving U.S. troops at current levels allows the Taliban to continue exploiting Afghanistan's deteriorating conditions. Corruption and massive vote tampering by President Hamid Karzai are adding to Afghan disaffection and hopelessness. The longer Obama waits, the worse it gets.
Biden proposes an end to fighting the Taliban, but that doesn't mean the Taliban will suddenly stop attacking U.S. troops. They will continue, and the mission of fighting al-Qaeda will be undermined as Taliban forces keep advancing.
What McChrystal proposes will be a long, difficult slog. There are other important theaters to be addressed, particularly in Pakistan, and plans must be developed to contend with new threats as they develop. But Afghanistan is the question Obama must address now.
By embracing McChrystal's plan, Obama will hardly wow his liberal supporters or advance his standing as a Nobel peace laureate, but he will increase the chances for security in a country that has known only war and hardship since the Soviet invasion in 1979.
Mr. President, this is a risk worth taking.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
island1fox
Well-Known Member
There have been many comments and discussions --even here on the Cafe ---What we truly need now is a DECISION.Will President Obama please make a decision --Bring the troops home or give them the support they need. Now !!!!!!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Will President Obama please make a decision --Bring the troops home or give them the support they need. Now !!!!!!
He can't he is to busy playing golf to have time to make a decision.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
As are young are sacraficed and are in harms way ---it is "politics" as usual ------so much for CHANGE !!!!
As are young are sacraficed and are in harms way ---it is "politics" as usual ------so much for CHANGE !!!!
Island,
were you in a coma for the last 8 years?? Requests for more troops sat on Mr Bush's desk for years and never addressed.... Where were you when many of US demanded more resources for the troops in Afghanistan for 8 years? Many have died waiting.
How do you blame the war in Afghanistan on Obama now??
How do you qualify such a claim?
The troops requested are NOT to WIN the war, they are to merely to sustain our efforts so far, as there is NO PLAN for winning and there never was a plan from the "getgo".
How do you give a free pass to the republican controlled congress and white house for FAILING the U.S. military for 8 years??
Afghanistan wasnt OBAMAs war, it was BUSH and CHENEY, they got us into it, and someone has to get us out of it.
The republicans are always using the same quote: "why throw good money after bad"...after 8 years, are we not just doing just that?
Every expert in the world agrees, there is no way to win in afghanistan using strickly the military.
People who believe that they can KNOW nothing about War.
The republicans started these wars and created the mess, now its the democrats time to actually consider all the facts, create a new plan and implement that plan once the details are worked out.
Generals fight the wars, they dont make policy. Thats why we have civilians in charge.
A general is suppose to do what he is told, not the other way around.
Get a clue island, nobody wants any of our troops to suffer more deaths.
"Step off the soap box".
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Island,
were you in a coma for the last 8 years?? Requests for more troops sat on Mr Bush's desk for years and never addressed.... Where were you when many of US demanded more resources for the troops in Afghanistan for 8 years? Many have died waiting.
That is because Cindy Shehan was stressing him out so he could not make a decision right away for fear that she would eat him.
How do you blame the war in Afghanistan on Obama now??
Who is blaming Obama for the Afghan war??? He just needs to crap or get of the pot. Send the troops the general asks for.
How do you qualify such a claim?
I agree...you cant blame Obama for the war. So who is blaming him for that. We need to kick some but and finish what we started out to do. Wipe out the Taliban enough so the Afghans can take care of bussiness themselves.
The troops requested are NOT to WIN the war, they are to merely to sustain our efforts so far, as there is NO PLAN for winning and there never was a plan from the "getgo".
So what do you suggest we do? Pull out all our troops and let the Taliban and terrorists get stronger so they can come back to America and blow some crap up? Hey, maybe Obama can sit down with Osama and have a beer summit. Maybe Obama could apoligize for America being so mean to all the Islamic terroists.
How do you give a free pass to the republican controlled congress and white house for FAILING the U.S. military for 8 years??
No free pass here...The Bush admin and congress sucked also. But we did finnaly get a decent raise under the Bush admin instead of all the cuts we got under Clinton. Also the final push in Iraq was what was needed and now we need to do so in Afghan.
Afghanistan wasnt OBAMAs war, it was BUSH and CHENEY, they got us into it, and someone has to get us out of it.
So after 9/11 you would have just sat on your hands and did nothing? Islamic extremests flew planes into our buildings and they needed to pay. Iraq was stupid idea at the time with bad info from our CIA but we needed to kick some Taliban butt in Afghan. Eventually we would have went back to Iraq because we did not finish the job the first time in desert storm.
The republicans are always using the same quote: "why throw good money after bad"...after 8 years, are we not just doing just that?
Yes we sure are and its even worse this time around. If it keeps up we will all be working for the goverment just to survive.
Every expert in the world agrees, there is no way to win in afghanistan using strickly the military.
So many experts and so little time. So we should just pull out and forget about it then? I remember that being said about Iraq also.
People who believe that they can KNOW nothing about War.
Yes, we should all go to college at Columbia because they are experts at war...or is it Harvard.
The republicans started these wars and created the mess, now its the democrats time to actually consider all the facts, create a new plan and implement that plan once the details are worked out.
Lets wait for a few more months while more of are American men and woman are killed because we dont have enough troops to back them up. The general put in charge knows nothing., he just sits behind and desk. Oh wait thats the president who sits behind and desk.
Generals fight the wars, they dont make policy. Thats why we have civilians in charge.
Generals fight the wars that is correct. They get the information from the battle comanders who get it from the field commanders, etc. But they dont really need 40,000 more troops...they just fight the wars and dont know nothing. Obama needs to consider all his options and take his time making a decision. I think and nice round of golf and maybe a salsa dance party while he thinks it over would be a great idea.
A general is suppose to do what he is told, not the other way around.
Sir yes sir!!!!
Get a clue island, nobody wants any of our troops to suffer more deaths.
Come on island you need to get a clue and get on the Obama brain drain train.
"Step off the soap box".
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Afghanistan a Success-Time to Come Home!
by LRC columnist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. and retired USAF lieutenant colonel
by LRC columnist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. and retired USAF lieutenant colonel
island1fox
Well-Known Member
The Other sideP.S. Bush is no longer President !
I live in the present ----I learn from the past ---This is how you impact the future ------I just want our President to make a decision --not to difficult to understand --is it ?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
A resignation letter worth reading!
The State Department has said they take the remarks of Mr. Hoh seriously, but then go on to say how he hasn't been in the position long, and isn't a career employee. ie he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Over,
This man has been in the country of Afghanistan for years. He is directly involved with the day to day operations throughout the country.
This is a very detailed letter.
Ironically, it mirrors what I have been saying for years and more recently in some of my posts on this subject.
No matter who would be in office ( republican or democrat) the goverment will always try to distance itself from this kind of information.
Mr HOH spells out the failures of the war, the lack of progress made in 8 years and the likelyhood of failure in years to come.
He talks about the corruption of our "installed" president in Harmid Karzai and his failure to lead his country. He advises us that the Karzai goverment is made up of drug lords and gangs.
No one would have better knowledge of Afghanistan than this man.
As I said before on this thread and Mr HOH repeats in his letter, there was no plan to WIN from the start and there is NO plan coming down the pike.
In addition, as I stated when responding to AV8, Afghanistan is a waste of time as the 911 attacks were planned and funded in europe and our real enemies are in surrounding countries and if WE are not prepared to go into them (and he lists the same countries) we will have no chance of being successful.
He states that the continued loss of amercan life isnt worth the effort.
I agree.
Like I said previously, this is a political war now without objective, purpose or rational.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Over,
This man has been in the country of Afghanistan for years. He is directly involved with the day to day operations throughout the country.
This is a very detailed letter.
Ironically, it mirrors what I have been saying for years and more recently in some of my posts on this subject.
No matter who would be in office ( republican or democrat) the goverment will always try to distance itself from this kind of information.
Mr HOH spells out the failures of the war, the lack of progress made in 8 years and the likelyhood of failure in years to come.
He talks about the corruption of our "installed" president in Harmid Karzai and his failure to lead his country. He advises us that the Karzai goverment is made up of drug lords and gangs.
No one would have better knowledge of Afghanistan than this man.
As I said before on this thread and Mr HOH repeats in his letter, there was no plan to WIN from the start and there is NO plan coming down the pike.
In addition, as I stated when responding to AV8, Afghanistan is a waste of time as the 911 attacks were planned and funded in europe and our real enemies are in surrounding countries and if WE are not prepared to go into them (and he lists the same countries) we will have no chance of being successful.
He states that the continued loss of amercan life isnt worth the effort.
I agree.
Like I said previously, this is a political war now without objective, purpose or rational.
Excellent post! Well said on all accounts.
