• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war

kansaswhig said:
Well, many, like the VP, advocate a CT strategy that would primarily be focused on killing AQ. Problem is that AQ is not only in AFG...in fact, I think much of AQ has left (or are dead)...leaving the question "what are we doing there". No one asked during the Bush years because they had Iraq to complain about.

You are right about the initial push...problem is that now we've eradicated and gotten rid of so much of AQ that "mission creep" has set in and we've focused on nation-building and fighting the Taliban (because we need someone to fight). The notion of Taliban still "guarding" AQ is kind of a dead idea and certainly isn't as true as it was in 2001.
Click to expand...


Well, if you take Dear Leader at his word when he says that he "isn't comfortable with the term victory" as it relates to AFG, or Jon "Heinz" Kerry this past weekend when he said, "it's not about good governance, but really about good enough governance".... At that point I knew, to start yelling PULL THEM NOW!


j-mac
 
Dr.Gonzo said:
Is he trying to show the doubters that he isn't afraid of war?
Click to expand...

Well, if he is, he has yet to convince them.

Is he taking one last shot at capturing bin Laden to prove his superiority over the Bush admin.?
Click to expand...

IF OBL is alive, I don't think we'll get him...I think that goal is pretty arbitrary at this point.

Or is he taking orders from the right, despite his promises to end the wars?
Click to expand...

No. He didn't promise to end AFG. Did you listen to anything he said during the campaign? While Obama chided Iraq, he was adamant that AFG was "the good war" and said that it was a war we MUST win. Doesn't sound like a promise to end wars.

I think it's a pointless endeavor at this stage, and think we need a defined objective and a time line to achieve it.
Click to expand...

Defined OBJ will come soon. Hopefully it's well thought out. Just know that it is all political at this point.

Time lines are worthless in a COIN war.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't know what he's continuing because he's not doing crap squat at the moment.

Maybe it would be safe to imply: continuing to leave our troops high and dry without intervention or progression.

Maybe he's faithfully continuing the quagmire.

Or perhaps he's continuing with his ideology that "we need to take troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan" ... and, look, here we are, so now he needs to figure out "what comes next" ... only, as Obamanites accused Bush of doing, he's not trying to come up with a timeline and decide exactly that.

He just needs to do something instead of sitting on his indecisive proverbial ass - This is not a war of contrition.
Click to expand...
what would you have him do RIGHT NOW? it seems to me the troops in afghanistan have been left high and dry for years.

i think it's a damned good idea to take the time to consider all the consequences, that certainly WAS NOT done before this administration. it's my hope we get out, but i used to feel different. now, i don't think there's much of a point in staying.
 
liblady said:
what would you have him do RIGHT NOW? it seems to me the troops in afghanistan have been left high and dry for years.

i think it's a damned good idea to take the time to consider all the consequences, that certainly WAS NOT done before this administration. it's my hope we get out, but i used to feel different. now, i don't think there's much of a point in staying.
Click to expand...


Not true. Bush did an exhaustive examination of which he passed on to the Obama administration, and they asked them to not make it public, and they didn't. Now all the libs want to act like nothing was examined.....BS.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Not true. Bush did an exhaustive examination of which he passed on to the Obama administration, and they asked them to not make it public, and they didn't. Now all the libs want to act like nothing was examined.....BS.


j-mac
Click to expand...
so, what would you him do, today?
 
kansaswhig said:
Well, many, like the VP, advocate a CT strategy that would primarily be focused on killing AQ. Problem is that AQ is not only in AFG...in fact, I think much of AQ has left (or are dead)...leaving the question "what are we doing there". No one asked during the Bush years because they had Iraq to complain about.

You are right about the initial push...problem is that now we've eradicated and gotten rid of so much of AQ that "mission creep" has set in and we've focused on nation-building and fighting the Taliban (because we need someone to fight). The notion of Taliban still "guarding" AQ is kind of a dead idea and certainly isn't as true as it was in 2001.
Click to expand...
The obligation arose after running the Taliban off, which only did initially because they wouldn't give up al Qaeda. But nevertheless a void necessitated some humanitarian action.
 
bhkad said:
What if the Afghan government remains questionably corrupt and unresponsive to efforts to reform?

No amount of military might would be sufficient to win the support of the people outside of the large cities.

The decision to add troops to an unstable and/or untenable political situation would spell disaster.

That's why Obama will wait til after the run off election 11/7/09 to decide.

If the people believe the election is bogus we will be throwing good lives away.

This article is enlightening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25filkins.html?hpw
Click to expand...

that first statement could be said and asked of the US.
 
I tell you what, let's turn this over to the UN. Isn't that what they were set up for? We give them 3 years (after planning stage) to get this implimented and fixed.
 
American said:
The obligation arose after running the Taliban off, which only did initially because they wouldn't give up al Qaeda. But nevertheless a void necessitated some humanitarian action.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, pay close attention to my "mission creep" comment:

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Not true. Bush did an exhaustive examination of which he passed on to the Obama administration, and they asked them to not make it public, and they didn't. Now all the libs want to act like nothing was examined.....BS.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I suspect that "exhaustive examination" is BS. If the Bush administration had time to figure out exactly what was needed in Afghanistan, why didn't they implement it? Sounds like another "secret memo" that exonerates all their incompetence.
 
American said:
I tell you what, let's turn this over to the UN. Isn't that what they were set up for? We give them 3 years (after planning stage) to get this implimented and fixed.
Click to expand...

UN is pacifist. They would most likely recognize the Taliban's right to sovereignty or something rediculous like that.
 
American said:
I tell you what, let's turn this over to the UN. Isn't that what they were set up for? We give them 3 years (after planning stage) to get this implimented and fixed.
Click to expand...

Turn what over to them? The point of going into Afghanistan was to break up the AlQaeda training camps. The Taliban and their treatment of women is not our concern. The tribal politics of Afghanistan and their pursuit of "democracy" is not worth a dime of American money. Just because our troops are getting attacked is no reason to persist. If we cannot fight and destroy Alqaeda we have no business being there.
 
WillRockwell said:
Turn what over to them? The point of going into Afghanistan was to break up the AlQaeda training camps. The Taliban and their treatment of women is not our concern.
Click to expand...

Really?

More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in your country," Bush said.

The foreign nationals he spoke of are eight Westerners, including two Americans, who were detained by the Taliban, and are on trial, for preaching Christianity -- a crime punishable by death in Taliban-controlled areas.

"None of these demands was met, and now, the Taliban will pay a price," Bush said.
Click to expand...

You sure the Taliban weren't our concern, the President makes this very clear, you weren't listening or what?

The tribal politics of Afghanistan and their pursuit of "democracy" is not worth a dime of American money.
Click to expand...

This statement proven wrong on 9-11, indeed, the tribal politics of Afghanistan left to itself results in terror attacks. I thought this was fairly obvious.

Just because our troops are getting attacked is no reason to persist. If we cannot fight and destroy Alqaeda we have no business being there.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the Taliban why is that?
 
liblady said:
so, what would you him do, today?
Click to expand...


Well, I can certainly tell you what I wouldn't have him do, and that is what he did, and is doing now, which is implement a foolish policy of engagement that puts their lives at risk, and then sit there and ponder what he is going to do while they get killed.

Either you are there to win, or you are just playing around with politics at home, in which case bring them home.


j-mac
 
liblady said:
so, what would you him do, today?
Click to expand...

Quit pretending like he doesn't already have a policy in place. Admit that his initial war policy needs adjustment rather than pretending he hasn't already sent McChrystal and troops to Afghanistan to implement his strategy. If he's saying now he's not going to send troops into harms way without a plan, where is the plan he used to surge in the first place?
 
j-mac said:
Well, I can certainly tell you what I wouldn't have him do, and that is what he did, and is doing now, which is implement a foolish policy of engagement that puts their lives at risk, and then sit there and ponder what he is going to do while they get killed.

Either you are there to win, or you are just playing around with politics at home, in which case bring them home.


j-mac
Click to expand...
really? so you've disagreed with bush the entire time as well, right?
 
Charles Martel said:
Quit pretending like he doesn't already have a policy in place. Admit that his initial war policy needs adjustment rather than pretending he hasn't already sent McChrystal and troops to Afghanistan to implement his strategy. If he's saying now he's not going to send troops into harms way without a plan, where is the plan he used to surge in the first place?
Click to expand...
thanks, an honest reply. could it be he's reassessing the situation?
 
j-mac said:
On Afghanistan? Yeah, pretty much since Tora Bora.


j-mac
Click to expand...
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.
 
liblady said:
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.
Click to expand...

Oh - so Bush was in a quagmire and Obama is just being careful? (general statement poking at all those who protested one and now support the other).

We can't claim his action is out of "carefullness" until the end result in known. And we won't be getting to the end result until he does something.

He's had the last decade, almost, to keep up with the issues that were and that he "inherited" as he put it - and that he has proceeded with in Afghanistan since he was elected.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh - so Bush was in a quagmire and Obama is just being careful? (general statement poking at all those who protested one and now support the other).

We can't claim his action is out of "carefullness" until the end result in known. And we won't be getting to the end result until he does something.

He's had the last decade, almost, to keep up with the issues that were and that he "inherited" as he put it - and that he has proceeded with in Afghanistan since he was elected.
Click to expand...
look, bush started the quagmire. obama now has to clean it up. i can't believe anybody thinks it can be done overnight.

do you really think anything would be significantly different if someone else were in office right now?
 
liblady said:
okay, thanks. i can only say that i think obama is being very careful, as he should. we don't need any more recklessness from a WH.
Click to expand...


I think he is looking for some mythical middle ground where he can see the return of the Taliban, and justify it by saying that we were never at war with them.....It is dangerous, but if we are not going to do the necessary things to win, then as a former 101st weapons specialist, we shouldn't be there with one hand tied behind our backs.


j-mac
 
apdst said:
And the breakdown begins. This is why morale is so important. When morale goes to hell, the talented people who can make a difference, who are able to walk off, leaving those who can't walk away to flounder in the muck of a ****ed up situation.
Click to expand...

I am amused when the OPINIONS of a retired Captain far outweigh those of the GENERAL in charge.

There will be many more stories like these as the media and Librul campaign to justify running away from Afghanistan now increases. Let's face it folks, Libruls and their media allies never think any war is justified and will find any excuse to hand our enemies a victory....as Osama stated before, the template was created in Vietnam and they never tire bringing it out.

By the way, how is all that TALK Obama promised us working? :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom