Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    I agree with you, WI Crippler.

    IMO, helping each region in terms of infrastructure improvement, education, economic development, and formation of credible local security forces would probably promote an improved outcome.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    There is no single "key" to success in Afghanistan, and saying US forces are not a key to success in Afghanistan is ignorant. How can we shape the Afghan forces without a strong military presence!? Teleconferencing, perhaps?

    I'm also saddened by the far left's recent bout of defeatism; it seems they're intent on undermining any efforts on the part of the President to pursue victory in Afghanistan. The only way this will turn into another Vietnam is if the media and politicians pursuade Americans we can't win again, or that fighting AQ is the same as fighting the Vietcong.

    If Obama wants to commit to Afghanistan and send more troops, I will fully support him. Even though he's taking forever to make up his mind, I'll still support him if he commits to Afghanistan. The Republicans should do the same...
    Last edited by Ethereal; 11-30-09 at 02:38 AM.

  3. #13
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    There is no single "key" to success in Afghanistan, and saying US forces are not a key to success in Afghanistan is ignorant. How can we shape the Afghan forces without a strong military presence!? Teleconferencing, perhaps?

    I'm also saddened by the far left's recent bout of defeatism; it seems they're intent on undermining any efforts on the part of the President to pursue victory in Afghanistan. The only way this will turn into another Vietnam is if the media and politicians pursuade Americans we can't win again, or that fighting AQ is the same as fighting the Vietcong.

    If Obama wants to commit to Afghanistan and send more troops, I will fully support him. Even though he's taking forever to make up his mind, I'll still support him if he commits to Afghanistan. The Republicans should do the same...
    I don't support Obama in this and his efforts should be undermined. We have no business being there. He should shut it down and bring our troops home.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, placing emphasis on working with the tribal leaders rather than the inept, corrupt, and among many Afghans, illegitimate, government in Kabul will be key. Reliance on Kabul will likely lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. A more robust counterinsurgency strategy will probably fare little better. Unfortunately, from scraps of information that have been made public, it appears that the new strategy will remain Kabul-centric.

    Afghanistan is not a "nation" in the true sense of the word. It is comprised of largely autonomous areas, each with its own leaders, traditions, cultures, and needs. A functional military strategy has to be built on the structure that exists in Afghanistan, not one that might be preferable but is not present. A Kabul-centric strategy will likely leave things pretty much as they currently stand, with swaths of territory held by the Taliban and Taliban attacks continuing.

    In such circumstances, one can expect numerous excuses from those who engaged in the military planning. The reality will be, as it is now, poor military planning that did not take into consideration the historic experience in Afghanistan (British and Soviet) nor the structure of Afghan society did much to shape the outcome. By then, American strategic interests will have been further damaged.
    Perhaps they should resort to a partition solution, similiar to the one Biden proposed in regards to Iraq.

  5. #15
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Perhaps they should resort to a partition solution, similiar to the one Biden proposed in regards to Iraq.
    Just what we needed ..another stupid, longterm occupation.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    I don't support Obama in this and his efforts should be undermined.
    If Obama commits to the war, supporting him and the military helps troops win, and stay alive.

    We have no business being there.
    9/11.

    He should shut it down and bring our troops home.
    And this solves our problems, how? You think AQ is just going to forget about desotrying our country?

    Osama Bin Laden would slice your mother's head off for the chance to nuke an American city...

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Just what we needed ..another stupid, longterm occupation.
    Yes. One must occupy land in order to defeat their enemies. Basic principle of warfare, I'm afraid.

  8. #18
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    If Obama commits to the war, supporting him and the military helps troops win, and stay alive.
    I won't support a war I don't believe in.

    There's no way we'll ever win this war, unless we commit tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite occupation.

    Our best option at this point is to cut our losses and go home.

  9. #19
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Yes. One must occupy land in order to defeat their enemies. Basic principle of warfare, I'm afraid.
    How long are you prepared to stay? ..10 years? ..20years? ..50 years?

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    I won't support a war I don't believe in.

    There's no way we'll ever win this war, unless we commit tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite occupation.
    We can draw down the number of troops over the years.

    Bottom line, we should keep as many troops in Afghanistan as are necessary for as long as is necessary to achieve victory. There is no time limit on wars.

    Our best option at this point is to cut our losses and go home.
    Once again, how does this solve our problems? AQ will still try to destroy America. We have to be proactive, not reactive in our approach to America's enemies.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •