• 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

look, bush started the quagmire. obama now has to clean it up.

I am amused when Libruls constantly rail about the mess their political opponents created and how they have to clean it up.

I didn't hear Bush rail about the mess Clinton created and how he had to clean it up; he just did his job like a MATURE person knowing that any mess is OUR mess, not just a political party's mess.

Trust me, the next President will have a far bigger "MESS" than Obama ever imagined in his naive, inexperienced and tragically misguided way.

Obama wanted the job just like any other highly ambitious, arrogant and highly opinionated person; the notion that he is not responsible for the "MESS" is beyond absurd, it is an outright copout.

:roll:
 
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

It's not our primary mission to insure that Afghanistan has a flawless government. Our primary mission is to destroy the Taliban's will and ability to wage war, thereby sending a signal to any other agresser that if they **** with the United States, we will rain down the same amount of death and destruction on them, as well.


i posted this in the warfare forum......i was wondering what everyone thought.

his position is that we are fighting a civil war, and we shouldn't even be there. at this point, i tend to agree.


Of course you agree. You're going to agree with any point of view that suggests that we cut-n-run. If someone said that we shouldn't b in Afghanistan because the phase of the moon is wrong, you would agree.
 
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.

Bravo...... :applaud
 
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?



Yes.


j-mac
 
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?

I'm not going to debate hypotheticals of "what if someone else" because there is no one else - there was Bush, and now there's Obama.
I will say that I do not approve of stagnation and a failure to act or attempt to develop a plan - I didn't approve of it when Bush seemed to rot over it and I wouldn't approve of it regardless of whoever is in office.

Obama, since he took office, has officially ended our involvement with Iraq - that is what Bush was into knee-deep. He has redirected the situation to Afghanistan. Thus, this is Obama's issue, not Bush's. (and by 'end' I cite pulling out the majority of the troops, closing down bases, and officially handing things back to the new Iraqi government as well as the most recent action of ending funding).

He weened himself from that tit and cut his own cord. . .so there's no more "but Buuuush" - there is only Obama and his Congress.

Instead, though, he's devised a plan that has detailed the reconstructed our entire healthcare system - top to bottom. Instead of making progress or devising a plan about Afghanistan he traveled the world and focused on other things that he, apparently, deemed more important, like vying for the Olypics in Chicago and appologizing for actons of the US.

I hope, honestly, that he doesn't play the fool. I hope they (government) do the right thing and they make it out of the thicket. I oppose him but I definitely don't want him to fail - nor do I wish to truly continue a war of stagnation.
 
Last edited:
He might have won legitimately anyway as the incumbent so you can't just disqualify him.

Given the evidence and the fact all fraud points to it being done by him and his supporters I seriously doubt he would have won as an incumbent. It simply does not follow the pattern for Islamic countries.
 
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.

The Afghan campaign was relatively quiet from the time of Operation Anaconda in 2002 into 2007. Then it got hot. I agree we should withdraw completely for a variety of reasons. Obama will have to depend on Republicans for support if he doesn't quit. The temptation for Republicans to sandbag Obama is great. Afghanistan is a no win situation for Obama.
 
Last edited:
Fine dissection of my post, KsWhig.

I am quite certain I was oversimplifying, and we both agree an exit strategy needs to be well thought out.

But you didn't answer my question.

What IS the motivation? There is at least an oil reserve under Iraq. Motive.

And yes, I am aware that it is all politics at this point. That's what I can't stand.

But how deep are we cutting into this fat? Afghanistan is a failed effort, perpetuated by a man who proclaimed 'Change'.

And for the record, I did listen to him on the campaign trail, but you can't always put stock in that, of course.

I assumed he, like many liberals, was illustrating the fact that Afghan, Al-Qaeda (Saudis), should have been the target, not Iraq, whose leader was a secular despot - less of a threat than an ideologically driven society out to destroy the infidels.
 
I hate to agree with you, but I do.

Sometimes elections aren't the answer-- it only legitimizes a corrupt government and people outside of kabul couldn't care less.

Dude, bhkad is almost always on the money when it comes to COIN operations. I may disagree with him on basically everything else, but the man knows his COIN.
 
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.

I agree with this to a degree. The Bush Administration knew what would end the conflict. They just had no idea how to get there. Without economic development, we will never, ever, ever win. Bush likely knew this. The problem is how to get there. Bush never addressed this for 7 years because there isn't an obvious choice. What the partisan hacks here are refusing to acknowledge is that Obama faces the same stark problem. Hypocrisy yes, but that is an over abundant resource here.
 
It's not our primary mission to insure that Afghanistan has a flawless government.

I see you did not learn a thing from Vietnam eh?

Without a reasonably efficient and clean government coupled with economic development, we will never leave Afghanistan. It is in our best interest to promote a reasonably efficient and clean government. Military only solutions will not work. If that was the case, the French would still be in control of IndoChina and the Russians in control of Afghanistan.

Our primary mission is to destroy the Taliban's will and ability to wage war, thereby sending a signal to any other agresser that if they **** with the United States, we will rain down the same amount of death and destruction on them, as well.

Lockheed Martin must love you. Endless conflict with that view.

Bkhad has proven beyond a doubt he understands successful COIN. You have not.
 
Sorry I am late to the party. I just found this thread after posting another one on the same article.

I am all about COIN. It is better to protect the local population than to fight the enemy head on. When the enemy IS the local population, why then you have a serious problem.

I thought this paragraph from the OP's article was particularly illuminating and I didn't see it quoted.
Hoh's doubts increased with Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election, marked by low turnout and widespread fraud. He concluded, he said in his resignation letter, that the war "has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency."

With "multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups," he wrote, the insurgency "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and Nato presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."

How do you solve that perception problem? If we cannot, we ought to get the hell out, because military force isn't going to cut it.
 
Here's the Christian Science Monitor's take on this story:

Matthew Hoh: new poster boy for critics of Afghanistan war
Matthew Hoh, a former Marine officer, resigned from his current State Department post in Afghanistan, saying he no longer believes the war is worth American lives.
By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 27, 2009 edition



Matthew Hoh, perhaps unintentionally and unavoidably, has instantly made himself the poster boy for Vice President Joe Biden, liberal Democrats, and every American who looks at a troop surge in Afghanistan with deep skepticism.

Mr. Hoh, a respected retired marine captain, resigned his post as a Foreign Service officer in Afghanistan last week, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

The reason: "I fail to see the value or the worth in continued US casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war," he said in his resignation letter.

Hoh is perhaps the highest profile official with a military background to question the wisdom of the war in Afghanistan. With President Obama nearing a decision on a new Afghan strategy, Hoh's words come at a crucial time.

So far, the US military has spoken with resounding unanimity. Overwhelmingly, generals have backed the prescription of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal says American security would be best served by sending 44,000 more troops to stabilize Afghanistan.

Though Hoh makes pains to underscore the difficulty of his decision, he has chosen to respectfully – and publicly – disagree.

He is already scheduled to meet with the foreign policy adviser for Mr. Biden – the most vocal proponent of a more limited military presence in Afghanistan. Biden advocates a "counterterrorism" strategy that relies more on Predator drone strikes against Al Qaeda targets – a strategy that has shown some success in Pakistan's tribal territories. McChrystal pointedly dismissed such an idea.

But Hoh now gives this argument a degree of military credibility. Hoh says that the was is not truly a pan-Afghan insurgency, but rather a hundred different wars with variables unique to each valley. In many cases, "holy war" is virtually a cottage industry for local power-brokers – and the US is merely providing a convenient enemy.

Moreover, he echoes a key Obama administration concern: Corruption in the Afghan government makes it an unreliable partner.

In his letter, he calls Afghan President Hamid Karzai "a president whose confidants and chief advisers comprise drug lords and war crimes villains, who mock our own rule of law and counternarcotics efforts."

The report comes on the heels of Sen. John Kerry's comments Monday that McChrystal's plan "reaches too far, too fast."

Senator Kerry has emerged as one of Mr. Obama's key point men on Afghanistan. It was Kerry who was in Afghanistan to persuade Mr. Karzai to accept a Nov. 7 runoff after investigations found massive fraud in his favor.

Kerry said three conditions must be met before Afghanistan would be ready for a troop surge: more capable Afghan troops, less corruption, and enough development capacity to build upon military gains.

Now, Democrats in Congress have another voice suggesting that Afghanistan is not worth American blood and treasure. Hoh tells the Post that the US should decrease its combat forces in Afghanistan, if not remove them entirely.

Hoh's military credentials are impressive. He served twice in Iraq with distinction, mastering the difficult tasks that today's insurgencies demand of warriors – knowing when to fight and when to act as scholars, peace-brokers, or aid workers to rebuild shattered communities, according to the Post account.

After leaving the Marines as a captain, he became a Foreign Service officer in Afghanistan's Zabul Province – a wild and forbidding land near the epicenter of the Afghan insurgency.

There, he became convinced that the US presence merely provided "an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p02s09-usmi.html
 
I am all about COIN. It is better to protect the local population than to fight the enemy head on. When the enemy IS the local population, why then you have a serious problem.

Agreed, brother. But, we've got to take a realist approach and know when we can be successful in COIN ops and not successful. I happen to believe that the COIN effort in Iraq will be infinetely easier than if we choose this endevour in AFG. It's so much more difficult for so many reasons; despite the obvious: it's bigger, worse terrain, worse weather, no infastructure, more multi-ethnic, etc. Plus I'd argue the Taliban is a much more organized and ferocious enemy than anyone in Iraq. I also feel that the Iraqis may have been more easier to "convince" to allow us to secure them than the Afghans will be. Iraqis had access to media (sat. TV, internet, etc). Not the case in AFG. A full on COIN strategy in AFG will require more than what McChrystal is asking for, IMO.

I thought this paragraph from the OP's article was particularly illuminating and I didn't see it quoted.

Well, the intent was the everyone read the linked article and resignation before commenting, which I'm sure didn't happen. I didn't want to put the entire article in quotes. Thanks for highlighting it though.

How do you solve that perception problem? If we cannot, we ought to get the hell out, because military force isn't going to cut it.

Agreed. The military isn't going to get the help from the civilian organizations that it requires, either.
 
Fine dissection of my post, KsWhig.

Thanks.

I am quite certain I was oversimplifying, and we both agree an exit strategy needs to be well thought out.

Well, as I said, "exit plans" aren't really applicable in a full on COIN strategy.

But you didn't answer my question.

What IS the motivation? There is at least an oil reserve under Iraq. Motive.

Oil was hardly the motive in Iraq, since we didn't take any. Motive in AFG? National security.

But how deep are we cutting into this fat? Afghanistan is a failed effort, perpetuated by a man who proclaimed 'Change'.

I wouldn't call AFG a failure, because to fail, you must have clearly defined goals that aren't met. We haven't done that. If you think about it, Obama didn't have much of a choice but to jump on the AFG bandwagon. He was so anti-Iraq that to also be anti-AFG would have hurt him politically. I think the "change" part in AFG was to set goals and implement a strategy, which we are still waiting on...

And for the record, I did listen to him on the campaign trail, but you can't always put stock in that, of course.

No, but on something as critical as AFG, you don't expect to intentions to change so quickly.

I assumed he, like many liberals, was illustrating the fact that Afghan, Al-Qaeda (Saudis), should have been the target

I don't know any prominent liberal who called for targeting Saudis.

not Iraq, whose leader was a secular despot - less of a threat than an ideologically driven society out to destroy the infidels.

I agree with you there. But don't forget that the majority of Democrats voted for War in Iraq, something they seem to forget sometimes.
 
reefedjib said:
How do you solve that perception problem? If we cannot, we ought to get the hell out, because military force isn't going to cut it.

Agreed. The military isn't going to get the help from the civilian organizations that it requires, either.

I reread the quote and it occured to me that this isn't merely a perception problem. That was a bad choice of words. It is a cultural problem: rural vs urban, traditional vs modern, etc.

That lack of PRT or whatever is serious as well, as you pointed out.
 
Things may have changed now, but I was in 584th Maint. Co.

Nope they are still there. Everything has been streamlined into Brigades (now there are four) as I'm sure you know.
 
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.


Not at all, and if you had been paying attention to the news the past several days you would have heard that this examination of Afghanistan was done by the Bush Administration about 2 months before transition over to our current communist occupying the WH.

It was then handed over to Barry, with Barry's request that Bush keep it quiet, and they did, while Barry and team proceeded to implement many of the suggestions in the report and take credit for coming up with them. Now, he want's ..... Well, I don't know what he wants but it ain't victory pal. More Clintonian than anything.


j-mac
 
Nope they are still there. Everything has been streamlined into Brigades (now there are four) as I'm sure you know.


Yeah, they were just starting that as I was on my way out.....Playing around with concepts of a strike unit, coupled with a maint unit, and hospital unit all in the same battalion for quick insertion.


j-mac
 
Yeah, they were just starting that as I was on my way out.....Playing around with concepts of a strike unit, coupled with a maint unit, and hospital unit all in the same battalion for quick insertion.

Yeah, I think the Brigade and BN TF concepts have streamlined so much, particularly in regards to logistics. I think it was good.
 
Yeah, I think the Brigade and BN TF concepts have streamlined so much, particularly in regards to logistics. I think it was good.


It was a real wake up call for Maint units especially, used to being back behind the lines in terms of mission, but we got a real charge of being out there with the real eagles. We all had our wings, of course couldn't step into the base with out the commanding General demanding that you attain them, but to do the exercises with the actual AAsualt forces gave us all a real return to the real mission.


j-mac
 
And now the NYT reports that Karzai's brother, an opium smuggling war lord, is on the payroll of the CIA. So let me see if I've got this straight? We don't like Pres Karzai stealing the election, but smuggling opium is AOK?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

two questions:

1) What authority does the NYT have to release classified information.

2) How accurate is the information which is attributed to an anonymous source?

Sounds like a criminal investigation should be launched to find how the NYT got this information and to look into prosecuting the journalists who released it.
 
Back
Top Bottom