Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

Ikari said:

Is this the Rumsfeld defense? I'm not too keen on thinking it's valid.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I'm not a Rumsfeld fan. However, I am rather keen on General David Petraeus.

Devil505 said:

Locals do police work?
What have I been doing all my life.....Pumping gas??

Click to expand...

The average local will work approximately 10 times more cases in his/her career than the average DEA agent. Just sayin.' I work with DEA, ATF, FBI, USAO, and others. I am very familiar with what they do.

Different workload, different standards, different jobs.

Catz Part Deux said:

Not necessarily. I'm not a Rumsfeld fan. However, I am rather keen on General David Petraeus.

Click to expand...

Yeah but the whole "trust us, we know what we're doing. This is hard stuff, we're smarter than you and know what to do, so you need to shut up and sit down and just support us" sort of mantra never sat right with me. Especially when coming out of the government.

Ikari said:

Yeah but the whole "trust us, we know what we're doing. This is hard stuff, we're smarter than you and know what to do, so you need to shut up and sit down and just support us" sort of mantra never sat right with me. Especially when coming out of the government.

Click to expand...

I think it's a fine balance. The simple fact of the matter is that most policy issues are now rather more complicated than they were 50 or 100 years ago. I've spent 19 years learning my field. My perspective is obviously going to be more informed than the average guy on the street.

For the record, the military takes advice from people like me on my field of expertise. I prefer taking advice from them on military matters. That doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to be informed, but there is simply no way that I can understand military tactical decisions as well as someone who has done it for 20 years. I have no shame in admitting that.

Similarly, economics. Stekim is my god when it comes to econ. He knows the issues backwards and forwards and upside down. I'm a specialist. I don't have time to understand those issues like he does. So, I find someone who knows the subject and appears to be headed in the right direction, and I listen to that guy.

I think we all do that on many subjects. There is simply no way for us to be equally informed on all subjects. There is too much information out there to learn it all.

Catz Part Deux said:

The average local will work approximately 10 times more cases in his/her career than the average DEA agent. Just sayin.' I work with DEA, ATF, FBI, USAO, and others. I am very familiar with what they do.

Different workload, different standards, different jobs.

Click to expand...

10 times more cases?...Why is that important?
Police work should not be graded on the number of cases worked but on the importance of the case & the sucess of the prosecutions.
In point of fact, I'll stack the hours the average DEA agent works against a state or local any day.
We DEA agents get what's called "Premium Pay" which means we get paid for working 10 extra hours per week....or 50 hours instead of the usual 40 that most government employees work.

We get paid for 50 hrs a week but actually work more like 70-80 hrs per week &....god help any DEA agent that reports more than 50 hours on his/her time slip!:lol:

Devil505 said:

10 times more cases?...Why is that important?
Police work should not be graded on the number of cases worked but on the importance of the case & the sucess of the prosecutions. In point of fact, I'll stack the hours the average DEA agent works against a state or local any day.

Click to expand...

If you're good, you don't need to work 50 hours a day, or pillage local intelligence files, or burn local CIs. Just sayin.

Catz Part Deux said:

If you're good, you don't need to work 50 hours a day, or pillage local intelligence files, or burn local CIs. Just sayin.

Click to expand...

That's BS & you should know it if you really are familiar with poilce work at the federal level. Cases take time & surveillance is usually round the clock. C.I.'s need to be cultivated, protected & often "sweet talked."
You work with the feds you say....Ever heard of Task Forces?
(they are groups of DEA agents, state & locals all working together out o a DEA field office & they are very effective!..Typically the state & locals know the people better & have the C.I.'s......We feds usually have the money they need to make big buys & for "Flash Rolls" as we (hopefully) move up the food chain)
Anyway....I lost what my point was ....:3oops:


So..........Take That!!:lol:


Edit: Now I remember my point!!:lol:

My point was all these things take lots of time so anyone who tells you tbhat feds can works successfully with bankers hours is full of you know what!

Devil505 said:

That's BS & you should know it if you really are familiar with poilce work at the federal level. Cases take time & surveillance is usually round the clock. C.I.'s need to be cultivated, protected & often "sweet talked."
You work with the feds you say....Ever heard of Task Forces?
(they are groups of DEA agents, state & locals all working together out o a DEA field office & they are very effective!..Typically the state & locals know the people better & have the C.I.'s......We feds usually have the money they need to make big buys & for "Flash Rolls" as we (hopefully) move up the food chain)
Anyway....I lost what my point was ....:3oops:


So..........Take That!!:lol:

Click to expand...

I worked for a multijurisdictional task force for five years. And the only reason that the locals EVER want to work with DEA is for money.

But, we can discuss this elsewhere rather than mucking up this thread with the locals vs. feds discussion.

Catz Part Deux said:

I worked for a multijurisdictional task force for five years. And the only reason that the locals EVER want to work with DEA is for money.

But, we can discuss this elsewhere rather than mucking up this thread with the locals vs. feds discussion.

Click to expand...

I agree both about the money & a different thread.
(but what's wrong with needing us for the additional resources (both technical & monetary) that we can bring to bare?...(or is it bear....always confuse those in this type of sentence))

Catz Part Deux said:

I think it's a fine balance. The simple fact of the matter is that most policy issues are now rather more complicated than they were 50 or 100 years ago. I've spent 19 years learning my field. My perspective is obviously going to be more informed than the average guy on the street.

For the record, the military takes advice from people like me on my field of expertise. I prefer taking advice from them on military matters. That doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to be informed, but there is simply no way that I can understand military tactical decisions as well as someone who has done it for 20 years. I have no shame in admitting that.

Similarly, economics. Stekim is my god when it comes to econ. He knows the issues backwards and forwards and upside down. I'm a specialist. I don't have time to understand those issues like he does. So, I find someone who knows the subject and appears to be headed in the right direction, and I listen to that guy.

I think we all do that on many subjects. There is simply no way for us to be equally informed on all subjects. There is too much information out there to learn it all.

Click to expand...

I don't know. My adviser is a specialist, he's a professor with a huge research program. Yet, he knows more about economics then most economists and we're well versed in international politics and such. I mean, I don't think I need to know the exact troop movements to be able to say that we should no longer be monkeying around in the ME the way we currently are. Just because someone may not be a self professed "expert" doesn't mean they can't have valid opinions especially on the broad, overall dynamics. Especially when it's the government, the People are in control, we own it. To tell us to shut up and sit down is telling the sovereign to piss off.

Ikari said:

the People are in control, we own it. To tell us to shut up and sit down is telling the sovereign to piss off.

Click to expand...

But, do you consider the overall populace well-informed on the issues? That's part of the problem.

Devil505 said:

Then don't volunteer other's kids.

Click to expand...

What can one say to such patently asinine hyper partisan rhetoric?

No one is volunteering ANYONE's kids; they VOLUNTEER on their own.

You are the poster child for "wrong." :doh

Catz Part Deux said:

This is an interesting one for me, because I'm not a military tactician, and it's not my job to make these kinds of decisions. But, I do listen to my two favorite military guys on the subject, and they're split, decisively. My boss is a former army colonel who spent time in Vietnam and was involved in military intelligence. My boyfriend is a navy commander who spent a year doing planning for the Army in Iraq (in Tikrit).

They are evenly split on the issue. My boss believes that Afghanistan is where empires go to die, and that we are going to run into the same kind of quagmire we did in Vietnam there (and duplicate the Russian scenario).

My boyfriend believes that Afghanistan is more important to stabilize than Iraq and that we need more troops there to do the job.

Truthfully, I don't know what the answer is.

Click to expand...

I’m going with your boyfriend on this one; although your boss has historic facts with his remarks, he forgets that America is not an empire and we are not attempting empire building like those historic days he recounts.

Devil505 said:

I've made my point quite often & clearly here but I'll say it again:

It is not in U.S. interests to waste further American lives or treasure in a hopeless Bush/Neocon war where we can't even define what victory is, let alone ever expect to achieve it. We will be leaving that god forsaken country one day, so why not leave now & save American lives.
I'm not saying we should just rush out of their hastily....We should let our forces have a leisurely lunch....& then get the hell out of the entire middle eat by 5:00PM!

Clear enough?

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old failed policy of getting ourselves out of the ME and this will miraculously make us safer and more secure in the future. :rofl

Yes, let's pretend that our allies in particular, and ourselves are highly dependent on the vast petroleum reserves that reside deep in the sands of the ME and that terrorists and despots would like nothing more than to find a way to control them, and without our involvement, this goal might be achievable.

Better yet, while we are pretending that this will solve our ME dilemma, we can also pretend that the UN is an effective organization that has Americas and her allies best interests in mind.

Truth Detector said:

Ah yes, the old failed policy of getting ourselves out of the ME and this will miraculously make us safer and more secure in the future. :rofl

Yes, let's pretend that our allies in particular, and ourselves are highly dependent on the vast petroleum reserves that reside deep in the sands of the ME and that terrorists and despots would like nothing more than to find a way to control them, and without our involvement, this goal might be achievable.

Better yet, while we are pretending that this will solve our ME dilemma, we can also pretend that the UN is an effective organization that has Americas and her allies best interests in mind.

Click to expand...

Staying their & making even more enemies does not advance our interests or make us anything but LESS safe here at home.

Ikari said:

I don't know. My adviser is a specialist, he's a professor with a huge research program. Yet, he knows more about economics then most economists and we're well versed in international politics and such. I mean, I don't think I need to know the exact troop movements to be able to say that we should no longer be monkeying around in the ME the way we currently are. Just because someone may not be a self professed "expert" doesn't mean they can't have valid opinions especially on the broad, overall dynamics. Especially when it's the government, the People are in control, we own it. To tell us to shut up and sit down is telling the sovereign to piss off.

Click to expand...

Does anyone with a modicum of historic information and being unformed really think that if we abandon the Middle East the global political ramifications won't affect us?

I am stunned when I see what appears to be relatively intelligent people making the claim that if we NEVER involved ourselves in the Middle East, we would not have been the targets of terrorists or that our economy and borders would be safer.

Anyone versed in tactics and strategy will tell you that a better defense is a good strong offense. No fight has EVER, let me repeat, no fight has EVER been one by having a good defense.

The ONLY reason America has been involved in the ME was due to the meddling and failures of Europe and other nations and the request of the global community to become the "middle man" in the negotiations between terrorists like Arafat and the PLO and the Israelis.

America also, after initially being against it, went along with the creation of the Jewish State and now realizes that the world and America owes it to the Israeli's to stand by them and prevent their possible annihilation. Anything less is morally repugnant.

So with that, how can anyone suggest that the best strategy now is to give up what over 4,500 young men and women have given up already and the thousands lost on 9-11 because the job is just too hard? I find those opinions and positions stunningly short sighted and incredibly uninformed.

Devil505 said:

Staying their & making even more enemies does not advance our interests or make us anything but LESS safe here at home.

Click to expand...

Suggesting that we are making more enemies is nothing more than hyperbolic BS that is born from ignorance and falling for Bin Laden terrorist propaganda where there are no CREDIBLE facts to support such uninformed conclusions.

What makes your argument even more laughable is that it also requires taking the position that we caused the terrorist attacks on 9-11 because we weren’t there creating enemies.

windovervocalcords said:

Victory is killing or capturing Bin Laden.

Click to expand...

Osama Bin Laden is long dead in my opinion. I've been stating this for a couple years now. Think about it.....

Historically this is a vain man. He made a local name for himself in college when he rallied for the twisted preachings of Qutb. His activism took him to Afghanistan where he would be a leader and a financier for his "holy" war against communism. When that was over he moved on to continue preaching the evils of capitalism, democracy, pan-Arabism, socialism, and communism while forming pocket organizations in the Balkans and in Africa. And he was very fond of putting his image on video tape.

Why would this stop just around the moment Al-Queda staring taking beating in Iraq? With the Tali-Ban being slaughtered wherever they emerge and Al-Queda being little more than a bloody stump at this point, wouldn't a video image of Osama Bin Laden still defying the evil American empire be the moral boost so desperately needed? They get only recordings. No real proof of life in them but a few references that could imply life (I hear Nostradamus has this ability even to this day too).

But why would the Tali-Ban and Al-Queda need him to appear alive? Because the ignorant misguided souls still prepared to travel across the region to die for his God might be dissuaded if the Tali-Ban's great protector was dead. Because Al-Queda is more of an idea these days and still needs the illusion of a fearless leader to even breathe.

And why would the CIA shy from declaring his probable death? Because without Osama Bin Laden to hunt down...why are we there? And considering how screwed up this area of the Middle East is and the close proximity of nuclear weapons...

- Pakistan's Cold War with India to the East
- Iran's lust for the ultimate weapon to the west

...we have to be there (in one way or another).



But who knows? Maybe he is alive still and simply forsaking his own natural tendency for attention and leadership in the name of his God. Maybe giving his Islamic fighters absolutely no hope is a new tactic. After all...How long did it take to get the Unibomber in our own lands?

Truth Detector said:

Does anyone with a modicum of historic information and being unformed really think that if we abandon the Middle East the global political ramifications won't affect us?

I am stunned when I see what appears to be relatively intelligent people making the claim that if we NEVER involved ourselves in the Middle East, we would not have been the targets of terrorists or that our economy and borders would be safer.

Anyone versed in tactics and strategy will tell you that a better defense is a good strong offense. No fight has EVER, let me repeat, no fight has EVER been one by having a good defense.

The ONLY reason America has been involved in the ME was due to the meddling and failures of Europe and other nations and the request of the global community to become the "middle man" in the negotiations between terrorists like Arafat and the PLO and the Israelis.

America also, after initially being against it, went along with the creation of the Jewish State and now realizes that the world and America owes it to the Israeli's to stand by them and prevent their possible annihilation. Anything less is morally repugnant.

So with that, how can anyone suggest that the best strategy now is to give up what over 4,500 young men and women have given up already and the thousands lost on 9-11 because the job is just too hard? I find those opinions and positions stunningly short sighted and incredibly uninformed.

Click to expand...

Holy logic leap batman! Nothing you quoted suggests any of that. That's your supposition and preconceived notions.

But I find it stunning that people keep bringing up the deaths from terrorist attack and soldiers being lost in Iraq as excuse to engage in activities which will cause more death. If you were really interested in preventing those deaths, you'd seek alternatives which doesn't lead to more Americans dying.

I supported the war in Afghanistan until it unnecessarily bled into Iraq, then I saw the campaign for what it was. I saw genuine strategic and structural good in invading Afghanistan, but like with most Western campaigns, too many people saw dollar signs and power play opportunities with old foes, and the good was lost. Now we are just trying to maintain a status quo as Western nations withdraw one by one. Canada will be doing so in 2011.

I agree with GySgt when he says that Bin Laden is dead, and he probably has been for a while. The fact that it isn't being announced goes to show that the whole premise for the war was bogus. I'm not saying 9-11 was a conspiracy. It was a real event that provided a well timed pretext. That's all.

Orius said:

I supported the war in Afghanistan until it unnecessarily bled into Iraq, then I saw the campaign for what it was. I saw genuine strategic and structural good in invading Afghanistan, but like with most Western campaigns, too many people saw dollar signs and power play opportunities with old foes, and the good was lost. Now we are just trying to maintain a status quo as Western nations withdraw one by one. Canada will be doing so in 2011.

I agree with GySgt when he says that Bin Laden is dead, and he probably has been for a while. The fact that it isn't being announced goes to show that the whole premise for the war was bogus. I'm not saying 9-11 was a conspiracy. It was a real event that provided a well timed pretext. That's all.

Click to expand...

I think our continued presence in Afghanistan makes us less safe here at home, costs to much money (that we don't have), is wasting American lives, is losing support everywhere & it's time to leave. Keep small mobile forces within striking range in safe, friendly places where we are wanted or at sea from aircraft carriers.
Terrorists are like criminals....They will always be around. so let's fight them intelligently.

You don't need to drop an A-bomb to kill a fly.

Devil505 said:

I think our continued presence in Afghanistan make us less safe here at home, costs to much money (that we don't have), is wasting American lives, is losing support everywhere & it's time to leave. Keep small mobile forces within striking range in safe, friendly places where we are wanted or at sea from aircraft carriers.
Terrorists are like criminals....They will always be around. so let's fight them intelligently.

You don't need to drop an A-bomb to kill a fly.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by safe. If it's safe militarily, I don't think that's a problem. 9-11 was a blip, mostly because the White House ignored all warning signs that an attack was imminent. Economically? Well... the trans Middle Eastern pipeline under construction will ensure a stable oil flow for at least the next 50-100 years to the Mediterranean, with private U.S. contractors at the forefront of that development. So it does bring some resource security.

There are results being seen in Afghanistan that could make it sustainable in the short term, but I really think the geopolitics of the whole region will render victories temporary.

Orius said:

It depends on what you mean by safe. If it's safe militarily, I don't think that's a problem. 9-11 was a blip, mostly because the White House ignored all warning signs that an attack was imminent. Economically? Well... the trans Middle Eastern pipeline under construction will ensure a stable oil flow for at least the next 50-100 years to the Mediterranean, with private U.S. contractors at the forefront of that development. So it does bring some resource security.

There are results being seen in Afghanistan that could make it sustainable in the short term, but I really think the geopolitics of the whole region will render victories temporary.

Click to expand...

I mean station a small force where they are safe militarily. Not in "Indian Country"
It seems to me that our most effective anti-terrorist actions have come from predator UAV's armed with Hellfires. That can be done without leaving a base in the U.S. southeast.
Totally agree that 9/11 was so horribly successful (for the terrorists) due to mishandling by the Bush admin...bordering on dereliction of duty, imo.

I'm not so sure I would go quite as far as saying 9/11 was so successful because of failures on the Bush admin. But all the freaking out about it is a bit much. 3,000 people is quite a bit, but more than that die each year from cars and I'm not supposed to freak out about that. There are smart ways to address terrorism. We should note that there will always be terrorists and occasionally there will be an attack. That's it. It's still less probability than me being hit by a car. Starting forever wars in countries we've already ****ed over for the past few decades may not be the wisest of plans.

Ikari said:

Holy logic leap batman! Nothing you quoted suggests any of that. That's your supposition and preconceived notions.

But I find it stunning that people keep bringing up the deaths from terrorist attack and soldiers being lost in Iraq as excuse to engage in activities which will cause more death. If you were really interested in preventing those deaths, you'd seek alternatives which doesn't lead to more Americans dying.

Click to expand...

Once again you attempt to pretend that security and freedom can be obtained without cost. Even though I doubt many will get past the second paragraph, I will tell you what is now happening and why I am hardly surprised that now we debate whether the right war is worth the cost now.

Please show me ONE instance in history where this occurred. Thank you; now we can move on and attempt to comprehend what I am saying instead of running off at the mouth without addressing the FACTS that support my issue with the notion of abandoning more allies for the sake of minimizing our losses and expenses rather than maintaining the commitments we entered into when we all made the decisions to go in.

I use the events of 9-11 and the deaths of our soldiers as a constant reminder of why we are there and the cost we have paid to succeed. I do this because people like you appear to need this constant reminder.

History is our constant reminder of what happens when we abandon our allies and nations that we have CHOSEN to invade in an effort to enforce our rights and the UN's resolutions.

There has been a coherent and factual argument for staying because it will promote a CHANGE in the previous past failed policies regarding the ME which will promote democratically elected Governments and allow prosperity to bloom for their people; this is the BEST strategy, and only one in my opinion, to defeat terrorism which the ME appears to be the breeding ground for.

You cannot negotiate with these people, you cannot talk to these people and you certainly cannot make agreements with these people so it leaves little else for us to do in order to contain this problem where it is bred instead of attempting to do the impossible and intercept every potential threat on our own homeland.

In addition, this strategy is an effective offensive effort where professional soldiers who VOLUNTEER to do this will fight these thugs instead of attempting to fight them on our home ground.

The notion that abandoning our allies and the nations we CHOSE to invade now without finishing the job and ensuring their security will do NOTHING but encourage the enemy who's strategy all along suggested that Western nations were too spineless to make the commitment necessary and that if they just killed enough of us we would walk away; using Vietnam as their template.

Now people like you with selective memories and no historic reference to support your naive notions think it makes perfect sense to abandon the effort handing Osama the victory he claimed would occur knowing that most Westerners think like you.

I find it stunning that today we are now entering into a similar debate we had on Iraq, by the very people who ranted about the legitimacy of Afghanistan while denigrating the Iraq effort now using the same tactics, to suggest that we cannot now succeed in the war that they claimed was justified.

Are you seeing a theme here?

Many, like myself, knew that this would happen during the debate about Iraq and that Afghanistan was going to be the next target of disinformation by those who never believed ANY war is worth fighting and will happily place their fellow citizens at greater risk in the future to support their weak, passivist and naively dangerous notions about how to effectively deal with terrorists, despots and dictators who are a grave threat to the freedoms people all over the world hold dear.

Contrary to the Liberals and "moderates" who claimed they supported the Afghanistan affair and stood by their ally the USA in this endeavor, we now see it was empty rhetoric and now see the truth come out that they never had the will to see this through, never believed in the effort and just wanted a fast food war where we go in and kill some terrorists then retreat back to our borders kissing the asses of the despots and dictators who control the worlds most strategic resource and wait for the next terrorist attack while doing NOTHING to end this reign of terror that exists thanks to the lack of freely elected democracies in the region.

Bravo! :doh