The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. Recently, comments about our military efforts in Afghanistan are becoming more skeptical. Questions are increasingly being raised about our objectives, the likelihood and cost in lives and money of accomplishing them, and how much longer our policies will be supported by American public opinion.
Some say that the more troops we send to Afghanistan, the more casualties, American and Afghan, there will be and that military action is not likely to achieve our objective of protecting the United States and its allies against terrorism.
I agree with those who say this might be Obama's Viet Nam - I really don't get it. Have you read Three Cups of Tea? It's clear that getting bogged down in another quagmire is not the answer.
I wasn't aware that war was a necessity to life here on earth. Ralph, the bottom line for me is American soldiers should have never been sent there in the first place. Not back in the 1980's, and not now! Look at where it got us. NO WHERE! Great forum topic subject matter.
why can't your military kill each living humans in afghan, it will be simple and easier then.
That's kinda not what we stand for, regardless of what you see on CNN and MSNBC.
so you can always withdraw. then for what reason you are standing
There's a middle ground between wholesale slaughter, as you endorsed, and complete withdrawal. Life ain't that simple.
Peace is hard. Establishing peace is hard. Keeping the peace is hard.
I would accept the New YOrk Times calling Afghanistan a "necessay war", if they would tell the American people the truth in their reporting. Such as we are not fighting an enemy with uniforms. They are dressed as civilians and do have women and children as part of their army. A good example of this is the blowing up of a hi-jacked tanker and the "civilian" deaths. If they were truly civilians how did they know to be there? And did they really think they could get away with stealing? The world knows that U S military will hesitate to act on women and children and they use it against our troops. As the mother and grandmother of military i find the news offensive in their reporting. The body count, I know more young lives lost and destoryed by drugs and idiot behavior than we have lost over there. Do a drug body count, it would be so high they would run out of numbers. It used to be "All The News That Is Fit To Print", now it is all the news that serves our purpose.
Well put. I don't see any war as a "necessary war" at this point. Terrorists are still attacking all over the world regardless of our "war on terror". Granted it hasn't been the mass scale of 9/11 but terrorism is still a threat. So what good is this war really doing? I don't see it. And it is very true that the civilians over there are a part of the enemy, so us using caution over civilians is really a mute point. That just means more terrorists get through.
I think we are just digging a deeper hole.
I was reading about a State Dinner Party, and the Turkish Ambassador was saying that America does not understand the Inner Muslum Man. In short he said we are not prepaired to fight a war in Islam, because we use rules, and They do not. He said America, even as Violent as we have been in past History, is not prepaired for the responsibility, of total death, we have a diferent concept of death, to totaly inialate and defeat a foe!
Maybe we need to put the whole of our Armed forces capability in place and just go for it, win it at all cost, dont look back or politasize, and then come home. Forget the 10,000 here and 5,000 there. Be honest, Openly declare our intentions and then just do it, no BS, no implied rules.
Otherwise I Personaly do not see and end to what we have started. We are already in country way to long. Either fight it all the way, or get out and face the truth.
I think that the world order has changed already (no more cold war etc), US should refrain from sending any more troops to afghanistan to enable them to become a country. That is why we have international organization to help in maintaining peace. UN should be the one to act on Afghanistan not the US only. The US should stop being a big brother to every nation, it should concentrate on domestic problems
We weren't the world's policeman after the Cold War ended. But a bunch of bleeding heart progressives told us we had a moral duty to rebuild nations like Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and others, so what else can you expect. I would like to point out that all those examples are failures with either warlords running things or a continued foreign military presence.
Well America should remove its troops from Afghanistan, it is not America's business. If Afghan was to post troops in the US. we would soon here about it and I doubt they would stay very long.
If everyone, kept their noses out of everyone elses troughs, the World may see a semblance of order.
New Zealand does not go looking for trouble.... But it ticks me off that our Troops are sent in peace keeping missions, and we have had losses. I blame America for those losses.
And America is to be blamed. The US has had its nose in everybody's business in its imperialistic quests. The US wants to rule the world and spares no expense and loss of life to prove it. The military is at the bidding of big business through congress and they are the richer for it.
That is just more hysterical, anti-American nonsense.
You fail to distinguish between the Politics of America and the people of America with your statement. I don't have to prove either way how I feel about America but what is disturbing is your inability to distinguish between the two.
Is my love for America predicated on whether the country can do whatever it wants and not be judged for its' actions? If you believe that then your objectivity will interfere with your credibility. I believe in my right to free speech and to voice it without subjective judgement.
You are so you. When you run out of points you point out useless dribble.
If you consider a fundamental understanding of the nature of the country "useless dribble" that is another of your problems.
When you don't distinguish between elements of the country then I guess it is the wild west when it comes to jumping all over the place to try and answer all of the questions for all of its elements when they are all related. You do live a confused existence.
The Taliban, Afghanistan's once and (if we fail) future government made it America's business when they supported unprovoked attacks on US soil.
You might want to be careful with that unprovoked word. Was ignoring the relationship between the US and Israel something Al Quaeda and the Taliban were doing prior to the unprovoked attack?
They would not be focussing on America if America kept off their soil.
Ralph, after doing what I could to sort through the various posts on this thread, I copied your original "starter dough" here so that I could be sure to stay on topic....
As you well know, I tend to come down on the conservative side of most issues but must confess to having always had a HUGE question in my mind regarding Afghanistan. Namely: Why did we (at least in the beginning) appear to believe we would fare so much better as invaders of that country than did the U.S.S.R. (1979-1988)?
I've never seen this issue addressed anywhere, yet "The Soviets' Vietnam" is one place I'd have been very cautious about sending American troops from the get-go. Whether or not it had to be done is a different issue entirely, BUT: Did we (meaning the Bush Administration) simply assume that we were better than the Soviets at warfare and could not would not bog down? Did we assume that since we helped SUPPORT Afghan fighters against the Soviets (even once sending Rambo in his what, 3rd movie?)...that they'd be pushovers against Americans? Did it not matter that the U.S.S.R. had a much shorter distance to go to get there geoghraphically yet STILL they got their heads handed to them?
Or do our leaders truly have early Alzheimer's and simply don't REMEMBER such recent lessons of history?
No, I don't have the answers. But I surely do have questions which seem to have been blithely ignored...at best.
With no legitimate government and run by greed and terrorism, I think we need an exit strategy now! What are we doing there? Kartika
I went to Vietnam.They said It was necessary too,that one almost tore America apart.If the government reinstituted the Draft I'd shoot my kid in the foot.
Uncle Sam is deploying and positioning an abundance of troops in the middle east region to buttress Israeli troops after their invasion of Iraq. What’s the real threat in Afghanistan anyway?
Uncle Sam is deploying and positioning an abundance of troops in the middle east region to buttress Israeli troops after their invasion of Iraq. What’s the real threat in Afghanistan anyway?
The threat is perceived. America is far enough away from the continent anyway, the US has no physical threat from Europe, Asia or Africa, the threat only exists because they are there. The threat is real in terms of power but the US are going to lose power either way because the government cannot keep out of others business.
pylos26 it is indeed a bit odd, if you ask me. I mean, think about it. Clearly Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda don't like America very much. That is cause for concern, to be sure. But al Qaeda is not a country. I mean, let's say Afghanistan and Pakistan were "purged" of this violent, anti-American element (as if such a ludicrous suggestion were even possible, but I digress...).
Aren't there, you know, OTHER countries in the world? I mean can't I get on a plane and go somewhere else. Like Algeria, for example. They've got tons of space/desert. No-one would find them there. They could go anywhere!
And, in any case, it is a *network* - the London bombers were British. The Madrid bombers didn't fly in from Afghanistan!
It's all depressingly foolish, unfortunately, if you ask me.
Good question Ralph, how about we just win the damn thing and go home? Do what needs to be done to show those who want to kill us what we can actually do, Nahhhh. never work, its too easy to really win a war. Let Paul Krugman figure it out.
How will we know when we have won? And how many more troops and how long do you think that would take?
Another good question,Tactical nuke strike in the Hindu Kush and wait and see who crawls out and kill them! Harsh? Yep, but killing is killing!
Oh yes great idea. Lets nuke the taliban, and then wait and see how long it takes for Iranian or Pakistani nuclear weapons to end up in their possession. Pakistan, who have been supplied nuclear technology by China, has great instability and is ridden with taliban and al qaeda. What happens then?
Pakistani nuclear weapons find their way into the hands of extremists, they subsequently attack allied forces, and possibly India. India then attacks Pakistan. China and Iran then attack India, Russia attacks Pakistan. Why doesnt America just cause World War III?
Lets have yet another nuclear scare. Hasn't the world learnt from the destruction of Hiroshima and the global effects of the cold war? Is America going to be at the heart of this once more?
Thank god for Obama, we can be assured that this will not happen until at least 2012.
If your not prepared to fight to win then pull them out! Ok with you? Is "learnt" even a word?
Yes learnt is a word, it is an English word. Just because you Americans altered our language, and decide to still call it 'English' does not mean that you are right. We were speaking our language before the English even stepped foot on American soil. Is 'learned' even a word? Yes. But its a much newer one.
Amen, Tex. Nukes might be a bit much be we definitely need to change the rules of engagement: http://tinyurl.com/yl7mmal
Army Infantry Mom reported on these changes months ago and now we're seeing the fruits of these moronic decisions. I think Obama might be a worse Commander-in-Chief than Clinton, and that takes some doing.
"Let's"? Aren't you British?
Why don't you get the fact that extremists already want to kill you and us? Do you hope they might not notice our ongoing efforts to kill them as long as we don't use nuklar weapons?
London might be a smoking radioactive heap if Germany had finished their bomb first. You think they would have waited?
"We"? Aren't you British?
Anyway, why don't you ring up North Korea the next time your country needs bailing out. There's a reason y'all wanna be friends with us. Can you figure that one out?
So would it be better then to run with our tails between our legs?
What would that do in respect to the moral of our troops serving in other parts of the world? To our troops which would come home? To other brave people who would want to enlist?
And too, how would much of a benefit would that be to the enemy that we are fighting over there? Yeah uhm, don't think that would be smart as it would only strengthen their reserve while eliminating our own.
It is an immoral war about a pipeline unless you haven't been reading. We deserve to lose. We don't have any business even fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban weren't so detestible to Unocal who put them up in a five star hotel in Texas.
It is an immoral war about a pipeline unless you haven't been reading. We deserve to lose. We don't have any business even fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban weren't so detestible to Unocal who put them up in a five star hotel in Texas.
I think a good indication would be if the following things were to happen:
1. There is a stable, functioning democracy in Afghanistan, without the establishment being able to manipulate the system to stay on in power, as Mr. Karzai's Govt is apparently seeming to look like. This is important because a Govt. that is seen to be unfair, dictatorial, opaque is going to build up resentment within the population and going to strengthen the hands of the Taliban by providing them fodder to accuse the existing Govt. This should not take decades. If there is a more hands-on approach with Mr. Karzai, it can be ensured that a totally independent electoral body is set up that can conduct free and fair elections.
2. A situation wherein the Afghan Army can at least handle the internal security all by themselves. There would of course need to be a sort of a peace-keeping troop presence along the Pakistan border to prevent the Pakistanis from getting too adventurous and prevent them from seeking to influence internal Afghan dynamics.
3. A scenario in which the drug production is significantly reduced by moving the Afghan farmers to other alternative, productive crops. Reason being the drug trade forms a significant part of the Taliban's funding.
4. Institution building by providing the resources commited to the Afghans and if necessary by taking the implementation of the same into western hands to circumvent any chances of funds being diverted through corruption.
5. A targeted strategy that focuses on going after the Taliban safehouses within Pakistani territory. Unless the safehouses are destroyed, there would be a steady stream of volunteers being indoctrinated by the Taliban bosses sitting in Pakistan.
I believe a lot of this could have been achieved if there was a clear strategy to start with when the war started. However, Iraq was a major distraction (totally uncalled for). That certainly didn't help.
As for the troops, it would be a good idea to listen to the military and equip them adequately to combat the situation they face on the ground - which they know the best. It wouldn't be wise to question them. Politicians seek to do that, however, they are not the ones fighting the war on the ground. This war was never going to be an easy war - I think there needs to be a better realization of that across the board!!
Russia helps U.S. in Afghanistan, perhaps due to problems with heroin according to Juan Cole.
Australia takes the same view as America - Afghanistan is a major terrorist base, so the war there has to be won.
I'm going to be politically incorrect here. Look back in history at all the previous wars - from the Vietnam war, all the way back in history. How many soldiers died winning those wars?
Now look at the casualty rates for Allied soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course those deaths are tragic for the families of the fallen, especially if there's a question mark over the rightness of the war - but it's that old saying, "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs".
I get the impression that governments are terrified of the negative media impact of casualties and the armed forces are under instructions to minimize them - which surely means they can't be fighting as effectively as they could be. Which only drags the war out for longer.
Although I agree with most of what you said, are you really convinced that America ever 'won' the war in Vietnam? The BBC, ABC, and The New York Times.... amongst many other great journalistic institutions, have long held the belief that the Americans were defeated in Vietnam. In fact, they were. They returned home to the USA, and left the South Vietnamese to fight alone.
In addition, we have already seen the Russians defeated in Afghanistan. That war nearly bankrupted them, just like it is bankrupting the US and the UK. People like the Chinese and the Russians are laughing at the 'allies' for the amount they have invested in the war..... whilst places like the UAE and Uzbekistan, countries on their doorstep, foot none of the cost whatsoever.
Personally I never consider a war 'won', I only see the 'loss'.
Wow Ralph, something we seem to agree on! Can't remember when this happened last time.
You can't win this war. You won't win it. The sooner you finish it, the less casualties you will suffer. The same refers to the war in Iraq of course.
And believe it or not Misha, that is something that even we agree on too. Your own nation of birth saw sense the first time around, and we should see sense this time around.
I am not sure USSR saw sense, it just could not continue the war any more and pretty soon went bankrupt partly because of this war. Given striking similarities between USSR collapse back then and USA today, I would think something similar will happen here too
Yes indeed, it is clear that much of the American debt under Bush (and the UK debt under Blair) can be attributed directly to the costs of war. So yes your right, we are all paying the price financially for this war and will be for the long term. Of course, both of these countries believe that they will regain this money through Afghan oil - the real motive I strongly believe that the primary motive for this war is oil, but I do not believe that it is a gamble that will pay off
The real motive? So where is our Iraqi oil? Conspiracies everywhere!!
Iraqi gas and oil is being pumped straight into central europe, it was not before occupation. There are thousands of western oil workers in Iraq.
Royal Dutch Shell has a 25 year contract entitling them to half of the profits on all Southern Iraqi gas, a complete monopoly. This gas is being pumped straight to central europe.
BP and CNPC (Chinese) are running the 17 billion barrel Rumalia oil field.
CNOOC, Sinopec, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Occidental Petroleum, Korea Gas Corp, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Petronas, ONGC, Gazprom, and several other companies...... are all in the bidding for the rights to 8 further oil or gas fields.
And that is just the start. Iraq has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Iraq has a minimum of 115 billion barrels of oil, suspected to actually be about 400 billion by the time exploration has been completed.
At the moment, corporations are fighting over 43 billion barrels of that oil.
So shove your 'conspiracy theories' comment straight back up your arse, significant amounts of Gas are being pumped to Europe from Iraq for the first time in 35 years. And soon oil will be shipped all over the world from Iraq.
No conspiracy theories, go and read the investors news or company reports from any of those businesses - and it is right there in the print.
Dont think that you know it all A Texan, you clearly do very little reading about global business.
So the Europeans are getting oil for our dead? Wheres ours Rotten tooth
And what country do you think Exxon Mobil Corporation are from dipshit? And what country do you think Shell Oil Company is from 12 toes? Chevron are in on the bidding too douchebag.
Why do you think that Chinese companies are in on that deal dumbshit? BECAUSE THEY FINANCED YOUR FUCKING WAR.
BP? They are British. Oil for our dead?
That oil does not belong to Europe or America, its Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people should own that oil.
You know we altered foul language here and you stole it, how dare you...Rotten tooth! Since you have not provided any proof I will simply say prove it, until then floss everyday and brush after each meal.
Read your own newspapers, watch your own television, look at any investment website, read company reports via an online stockbroker.
It costs very little to educate yourself trailor trash.
First of all you said that the reason we went to war was for oil! Because the Iraqi Government chooses to sell their oil does not prove that what you said is true! Prove it...Rotten tooth By the way the only trailer I own is to haul one of my many vehicles, sucks to be you, huh?
That attitude have something to do with the Soviet experience?
Of course yes, and with USA experience in Vietnam and Korea, too
There are no winners in war, only losers. But if you had to pick a winner in Vietnam, it sure wasn't American
Our military didn't lose that war we won every major engagement going away! Our enlightened progressives lost that war they turned their backs on the real men and women of America. I can't forgive the progessives for their cowardice and selfrighteousness, they make me sick.(no joke!)
Of course their cowards, but they're tough when they cuss you from Britain or in Ducks case "the hill country"
Ask the families of the 56000 dead American soldiers whether there were any winners in that war. I suppose that many of them tell themselves that they were 'winners' to make them feel better about it, but they were no winners - they won jack. What about the thousands of vets that topped themselves? Did they feel like winners?
Keep on telling yourself that there is a winner in war. There is no 'winner' in war. But to many Americans, global politics is just a big game. I prefer Scrabble or Monopoly personally, its a lot cheaper and better for my physical and mental health.
Don't worry no one will ask you to be brave to stand by your and fight. You are free to run your mouth and say any thing you want but atleast if you're not brave enough to fight show some respect for those who did. Enjoy the freedom you have to run your mouth but if you're a coward be a coward. Don't ever put you or your pathetic excuses on the same level of the brave men and women who fight and die for you.
ah, the flim flam man cometh. let's see, sneak, over on another thread you're preaching religion and then you come over here and preach rush limpbow. you might have fooled some of the women on here the other nite with your waving of the white flag, but really, you are what you are.
Are you fooling any women Duck? You're a tucker aintchya? I think I'll call you Buffalo Bill, you little cross dresser you!
It doesn't matter what you cry about, if we send Americans to fight you let them win! You don't start making rules of engagement, this the problem in the middle east. If a situation requires military force you let fly with everything then that becomes a deterent for the next lunatic.
Now o'Great spewer of crap, if you knew what motivates us religious folks you'd know Jesus said," Give Rome what is Romes, and Give me what is mine." That would mean if your country needs you to fight, you fight! You are a man with no honor.
He has said he hates the Military Industrial Complex, and he has no honor, but he dresses in Women's clothes
The next lunatic? America is responsible for millions of them.
yes, and hubpages is doing its best to be the new breeding grounds for them. amazing to watch the flames of ignorance spread across the land.
I doubt it's millions, so you going to add lieing to your list of progressive attributes. Don't worry being a liar now-a-days means nothing its just another moral gone bye-bye sweetie.
I am still waiting on the proof of "the real motive" why we invaded Iraq, you must have proof, a memo, something from Bush or Blair stating that we invaded Iraq for their oil.
Iraq is a free nation that chooses to sell their oil for Billions possibly Trillions of dollars to whomever can afford to pump it and pay!
Your turn, Rotten tooth
you're right, tex (with a little t, getting smaller by the day), it wasn't about the oil. it was so the u.s. could have its own weapons experiment site:
remember, if we deform them over there, we won't have to deform them over here...
Do you think that it may be time to stop feeding the troll? If we just ignore him, he will probably disappear.
Maybe you should just prove your statement or admit you lied, might try that Rotten tooth
the only problem with him disappearing is twofold.
1) we lose our intellectual stimulation.
2 ) similar to a bad dream, could he ever disappear for good?
I'll just let you two caress each other while I wait for proof.
I am also about 80% certain that he is some sort of alter-ego. He would probably come back tree-hugging, liberal minded, anti-war, peace loving and pro-obama......
In fact he probably already is on his other browser
Who are we and why all of us are in our respective places? Because my parents were living here and I was born here, I am here and they call me IndiaN.
ONLY CIRCUMSTANCES PLACE ALL OF US IN OUR PLACES.
Like that why did America enter Afganistan? Its original policy was prevention of communism from spreading. So, when Russia (Soviet Union) occupied Afganistan, America tried its best by creating Taliban, Al Qaeda, and armed Pakistan. That one day's (Sept.11) happening was the flashpoint when American imaginations that they have helped in retrieving Afganistan went wrong. Those terrorists, after hitting the twin towers escaped to Pakistan and went to the hideouts in Afganistan. How can they be let off after doing such a grave offence? That circumstance led to the posting of American troops to Afganistan.
NEVER FIND FAULT WITH THE PRESENT WITHOUT TRACKING THE ROUTE.
OUR RULERS, PAST AND PRESENT, ARE MORE INTELLIGENT.
Back on topic. We're supposed to be taking out the Taliban, and I'm concerned enough that we haven't yet succeeded.
Well maybe there is some hope for withdrawing your troops. New Zealand are about to send or crack troops there.
God knows what equipment they will be reliant on... we still service our WW2 Front Line transport and aircraft;
Texan, just stop now, please. Ryankett has run circles around you and you are just making all of us Americans look like idiots. Nuclear strike in the Middle East? Get a clue. If you are so tough on terrorism, why aren't you in the marines instead of hiding behind your computer screen?
The war in Afghanistan is losing support not because we don't know why we are there, but because we are realizing that winning will not be so easy (who would have thought...) Our generals are making realistic predictions for once -- maybe we are finally starting to learn from Vietnam and Iraq -- and they are predicting a long, bloody, war, which is EXACTLY what the Taliban will give us. Just ask the Russians.
There's some sharp thinking ...
Does that also mean he can't talk about health care unless he goes to medical school? Stupid argument.
I'm not in the Marines because I'm old! Still haven't seen one shred of evidence that oil was the "real motive" for going into Iraq, you can keep saying it but that doesn't mean its true!
enlighten yourself. go read crossing the rubicon. there you'll find almost 600 pages of direct as well as indirect evidence. if you have the ability, peruse the 40 pages of endnotes that accompany those facts.
of course, that would take you into the foreign land of four and five syllable words, an even more foreign land than where you practiced your "special" skills.
Sorry Buffalo Bill not going to read more propaganda from the left, watched about 50 minutes of it last night. It matters not what you think of me or my "special" skills, but if you had a clue or came under fire you would be thankful for those special skills. I don't expect an old Austin hippie pining away for his lost cosmic cowboy days to ever get it.
we all have choices. stay uninformed.
regarding the special skills you repeatedly refer to, those with the most special skills don't go around advertising it. the blowhard's special skill has always been, and will continue to be, his ignorance.
I never said I had "special" skills you did, I said I had certain skills, thats why you are a liar! If reading more conspiracy theories is informing myself, then yes I will stay uninformed. As far as being a blowhard I should have never said anything about skills and I regret it, but I can't change facts or the past!
boohoo, now you show signs of remorse. keep waving the white flag, like your shadow sneak did the other nite. who knows, you might get lucky and win some the ladies of hubpages into your fold.
good luck with that, you natural born loser.
I show signs of remorse for something bigger than me and much bigger than you could ever be! "Natural born loser?" Ha Ha Ha, hows that hill country working for ya? Would you like to buy a piece of it? This "Natural born loser" owns a whole lot of it, go back to taking pictures of the landscape and if you ever get a dime drop me an email and we can talk about a rent to own plan!
Then why are you not protesting in front of the White House instead of hiding behind your computer screen? The lessons learned from Viet Nam is that liberals can affect foreign policy by whining! The last time I checked Iraq's army had been defeated and it has a government in place so where is the defeat you are talking about? As far as Rotten Tooth the only thing he has offered is his words that Iraq is selling its oil, nothing more!
1. I never said that the Iraq war was for oil. 2. I am not protesting in front of the White House because I agree with most of our current policies, I am not the one "whining," you are. 3. If that is all you learned from the war in Vietnam, you have some history to learn. Maybe if you did a little more of that you wouldn't think that dropping a nuke in Afghanistan was a good idea.
You're right, Iraq's ARMY was defeated in 2003, yet we've still been fighting for the past 6 years. Could it be that Iraq is too complicated to just label all enemies of the American army the "Iraqi army?" The only reason it is somewhat stable now is because EDUCATED generals like David Petraus and Ray Odierno changed our policy around, and all this accomplished was making an Iraq that is not a chaotic nightmare. If you think we "won," you are sorely mistaken.
And I never said you said the War was for oil, what are the policies you agree with? A tactical nuke is not the same as a conventional nuke! What else could be learned from the Viet Nam war except how to lose, every major battle was won by the US, you can't bomb the enemy for 2 days and wait 2 weeks to see what happened! I am all for pulling out of Afghanistan if we are not going to wage a real war!
here's a clue for you, loser: it's not about winning wars. it's about weapons manufacturing. here's another clue: profits made from weapons manufacturing. keep touting your special skills while you line the pockets of those with a vested interest in weapons manufacturing. keep the brotherhood alive. very "manly" of you.
But that's just the point! What is a "real" war? World War II? This is a GUERILLA WAR. THAT is the lesson of Vietnam and Iraq. You can't fight an enemy that mingles in the population with an army and bombs. You need to protect the population, which is how the surge worked in Iraq. You have to actually understand the conflict you are in, which is why Vietnam was a mess. Do you think "tactically nuking" Afghanistan is going to rally the people behind the United States and make them become our ally? Have you been paying attention at all?
WW2 Was not a war for the Hearts and Minds of the enemy, it was for the annihilation of the enemy! We destroyed that Country because we were prepared to wage war! Did we beg the Germans to be our allies? No we conquered them, we should and could do the same in Afghanistan. If we do not intend on actually killing the enemy then get out
Seriously, I am starting to think you have mental disabilities. You obviously didn't read my last post. My point was that Afghanistan IS NOT LIKE WORLD WAR II, IT IS LIKE VIETNAM. You cannot fight a guerrilla war like a conventional war. Get a clue!!
he definitely has a split personality, uh, alter ego.
Jesus you are hard headed, yes it can be fought like a "conventional war" we just choose to not destroy everything. Maybe you should get a clue.
No, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, it is undisputed fact. We tried to fight a conventional war in Vietnam and it was a disaster. We didn't learn our lesson, tried to do it again in Iraq, and it was a disaster. It was this EXACT fact that changed in 2006 under Petraus and Odierno; they made the #1 goal protecting the population. There are countless books on this. You clearly have just not been paying attention.
You said it yourself it is a guerrilla war, that is the opposite of conventional warfare! Its real simple if we are not going to wage war then we should leave, what is so hard to understand? I wouldn't call freeing a country a disaster, getting rid of a tyrant and bringing a real electoral process to a deserving nation is not a disaster! You are just like Duck, facts seem to fly way over your head!
still failing Duck, can you photograph failure?
don't know much about photographing failure, but many of us are getting a crash course in correspondence failure 101, just by engaging with you.
if you're not going to write a poem, then maybe i will. think i'll google coffee, caffeine, and aspirin for a few keywords...
Don't correspond with me then, good luck with the poem
sorry to have ruined your morning. maybe you'll get a life now. at the very least, quit being an asshole on hubpages. we're all in this together. if you feel the need to persist, i'll continue emailing those who you've been such a jerk toward. you get to decide, poet.
We can win any war were allowed to win any way we want. We have been able to do this since WWII. What we have to do is turn off the enlightened citizens and get to work. We would have less casualties and alot more success. You have to expect there will be civilian casualties and possibly more than combatants. We fight enemies without uniforms you don't know who the enemies are but, they do so they have to fear us more than they do the enemies in amongst them. When countries police themselves our job will be finished and the memory of what could happen will never allow things to get to the point that got us there in the first place.
The only other option, and I'm for whole heartedly, is isolationism, no more help, no more technology, no more immigration, no more forgien bases, no more nothing! Close our borders and we take care of ourselves, then you can have your healthcare, college and infastructure repairs. This should include a two year requirement for national service for all Americans that way everybody has a vested interest in this country and this country only. Then if any group or country attacks us , may God have mercy on their souls.
well, golly gee, let's close the borders so they can't attack us, but just in case they do attack us, let's let god have mercy on their souls.
Wrong. We have not won every war since WWII. Korea was more or less a tie. We lost in Vietnam. Whatever you want to call Iraq, we did NOT win.
Your rationale that the population will give up the enemy if they fear us more has been proved wrong in both Vietnam and Iraq. More civilian casualties rallies an entire population against us, whereas protecting the population isolates the enemy.
The 'War" in Afghanistan cannot be won by bombing campaigns, more troops deployed, or meddling in another country's election process that was doomed and a farce to begin with. Diplomacy through negotiating grievances might be a start. The U.S. has to consider Pakistan, Iran, India, and other surrounding nations to rid the globe of terrorism which is a daunting task to say the least. Did the U.S. win the war in VietNam, Iraq, or here at home regarding terrorist activity?
War Made Easy video by Norman Solomon Part 1
More War Made Easy videos
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p … +made+easy
Letters to the NY Times on Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opini … =1&hpw
Would anyone agree that elimination of the volatility of the greater area is of supreme importance to the security of the world in general?
Given the area is occupied by people and organizations sworn to destroy the tenants of the free global society and destruction’s goal to reinstate the Islamic rule of thousands of years ago, would this goal be possible with the overthrow of the Pakistani Government and its Military?
Is the goal stated above a possibility?
If the answer to any of these is YES, then our forces being there is apparent and necessary.
If this is just a portion of the goals of the Taliban and al qaeda as they have continually stated then Afghanistan is just one of the battlefields.
Further as the father of two servicemen that have served multiple tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq I support their efforts, those of the military in general and the objective of ruining the goals of those who would kill us by any means they could devise. The American Military has always protected the world and it peoples at large. You may disagree with the policy decisions, made by civilians, but as Americans we should be supportive of our Military and the men and women who serve.
A Texan, as a capitalist, do you feel that participating in debates that will never be won (much like wars) limits the amount of money that you make on hubpages? You are trailing far behind me in terms of the number of hubs published in a two month period. What does it feel like to be beaten by a liberal in a capitalist game? You may feel like you are winning the debate, but Im beating you on your own soil sir. And yes, I did publish my first hub two months ago.
Well Ryan if I was in it for the money then I may be concerned, but alas I am not worried about how many Hubs I write or any imagined competition with you. Wars can be won, American Revolution is an example, WW2 another, should I continue showing how wrong you are? Why not prove to everyone hear that invading Iraq was to steal oil? You said it, prove it!
actually, it's been suggested that you read crossing the rubicon. that's if you want proof. if you don't want proof, quit asking for proof. isn't it about time for you to tune out here and tune in to rush, radio 1200?
There is nobody here, 'everybody hear' (sic) is 'you', and you have the social skills of a sloth, so any efforts of a well considered and balanced debate would be blown out immediately.
You ladies have a hard time with reality, my social skills have always served me well, just because I don't use them with you or Duck does not mean they do not exist. Run away now!
if you think his social skills are bad, try reading his poetry.
You're not a liberal, you're an idiot! you and Blue Bozo should get together I see a relationship here!
'Blue Dog' is a decent man, so I am happy to have a 'relationship' with him. A relationship of mutual respect. Of course, a self confessed homophobe (thats you) would automatically relate any kind of respectful man to man communication to homosexuality. It must be hard not having any friends?
Look Ryan if you're gay be gay don't worry about what we say, just be you. You're not my friend? I thought we were all friends! Were not? Oh woe is me!
Had to go check to see if I have ever written a poem, sorry no poems.
hmmm, I'm not worried about Afghanistan half as much as I am with the war zone in here. My, my all that name calling and rage. No wonder we have wars.
The reason we are in Afghanistan has been forgotten, the attacks of September the 11th, 2001! I am Canadian and though the number of dead and wounded is small compared to the united States losses, we are doing what we can with very limited Military resources. I see the European powers, cowering in protected bases, never venturing out to fight and help defeat the semi/religious zealots called Taliban.
A great deal of the blame can be laid at the feet of several Nations for the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan: Iran, Pakistan, Syria and The United States. All contributed to the development, arming/training of the original Mujahideen to fight the Russian invasion. When the Russians left the forces continued to be supported by Pakistani Intelligence, Iran also meddled as did Syria. These are not our friends**
It may take decades to resolve. We must force Europe to stand with us or leave, and typically spend money but NO blood.
When you refer to Europe, please remember that Britain is in Europe. We have the second largest number of troops out of any country in Afghanistan with 9000 troops. I dont think that you can tarnish all of Europe with that brush of yours. I hope that you are not suggesting that our 200+ dead were 'cowering in protected bases'.
Enjoy yer relationship Blue Dog, jeez its deff getting kinda gay about Hubs these days for sure !
it's amazing, isn't it? this week alone, we find out lita's a man and blue dog's a woman. this is indeed a bizarre place to hang out.
Wohhhhhhhhhhh rewind, Lita is a man, when did that sex change take place ?
and you're a REAL man because you write real manly poetry. get a life. loser. take your buddy dean/sneaker with you when you go.
Sneakorock acrually has hidden gay meanings, doncha think Captain ?
Please, don't talk with your mouth full.
Is that it pmsl, omg it took you 4 full minutes to come back with that unwitty piece of shit, don't insult my intelligence !
Are you a schoolboy because basically that is just repeating back my reply. Where are you from oh thick one ?
Don't waste your typing energy on this one, CabinGirl. Empty vessell. You're much too good for him.
Hey hotstuff tell me something I dont know but I like toying with dumb men ya know plus I have sharpened my nails just for this one. Enjoy ok x
Have had similar run ins with this choice character. Claws extracted, ready to strike! Behind you all the way in this cat fight. Not hard to outsmart this one!
Oh look! Its the princess of pot! Hey CG I see an opportunity for a relationship for you. You can play whatever you want she'll never know the difference.
Ok braindead scroll back to the bit where I asked you were ya where from, if Mummy is home ask her to point it out on the map, don't worry I have a spare 5 mins to wait on yer witty reply. Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn !
Pmsl oh the yellow rose of Texas, ok so yer a Texan big deal I am Irish and proud. So hows the ranch manage when yer online, I bet you live alone am I right. Ok lets play a game its called the truth game I ask you and you ask me.
Did yer wife bugger off on you cause yer a twat ?
Oh I have a surprise for you my little Irish wench. My wife of 33yrs is still here and her families from Largon.(may be spelled wrong) However, she is quite sure I'm a moron so you may have something in common.
Lol awwwwww my poor baby you are prob nearly 60 and not getting any, not a wonder you are a sad and twisted loser. Oh and trust me you are a moron but listen being old and not getting any isnt the end of yer life.
Ooops, I lied, it is
You do realize a man can only take so much Irish wench before he goes blind and I type well for being blind. You're not from Ireland or you would have recognized the town, so you're a lieing Irish wench, or you do your best and only work lying down.
Man I just noticed yer fav book is Call of the Wild by Jack London and that is one of my all time favs. I have hope for you, we just might be able to claw back the old you lol !
He's out squeezing some teats. Only ones he has or will ever have access to.
Dearest Wordscribble, you don't even know what a teat is, go smoke another joint and you be just in time for Bullwinkle and Rocky.
Awwwwwww falling back on Wordscribe are ya, whats up, am I too much for ya ?
Well, yes. I'm past most of my interest in little girls although they do still catch my eye from time to time. I enjoy fishing and hunting now and leave the little girls to my son who is about your age. He is quite the ladies man and never wants for a date, and from what I've been told hes apparently a catch.
So why act the prick on here as you seem actually ok, funny thing is I actually notice that if you take the time most people are. I dunno but you seem to have a big chip there man, ya shud lose it !
No chip, honestly! I like to start trouble and word it out with the young people on the Hubs. I enjoy you're fire and spunk! I have nothing against any one actually I come here to play around. Its raining and I had no work today so I was bored. I hope you can afford a moron some fun.
Sorry, sad retort. Lived in Oklahoma, had some teats there, my friend. The pot thing doesn't bother me in the least, unsolidasarock. Wouldn't touch the stuff. However, it may do you a world of good to mellow out a bit. Isn't this awfully unchristian of you?
I am Belfast born and bred, I know all about War as I have seen friends die in the name of a flag so don't ever question my birthplace !
Then you are familiar with Largon? You also Know why so many left for the states. Northern Ireland is a very nice place now things have calmed down. Do they still check your bags at the bigger shops?
Bag checking stopped years ago, the paramilitary beatings still go on as does the bigotry. We live in our own religious divides and only last week we had a major riot involving at least a dozen police jeeps. Northern Ireland will always have religious hatred because Prods and Catholics live apart in different Estates and areas and the beatings and the bigotry continues !
The peace process is a farce and the British Government sold us down the river !
Well that makes me sad. My wifes family is from Largon and she has relatives still there. I pray Ireland will know real peace some day.
You know nothing about Ireland, I was beaten up 4 times by the British Army just for being Irish, ever been strip searched, ever seen yer 19 year old friend shot dead, ever walked home 3 miles longer to avoid a religious beating. You know shit !
You're right I'm sorry. It's none of my buisness. Please be careful.
I used to go on holiday to Spain with three Irish lads every year until last year. They were from Dublin, didn't even live in Northern Ireland, and would get into fights about this shit every single year. My dad grew up as a Celtic fan courtesy of his Irish mums brothers, who would take him up to Parkhead/Celtic Park. The whole situation in Northern Ireland makes me feel a little sick; I don't think that it will ever be fixed. Not that I pretend to know enough about it, and I don't know if your a loyalist or republican (I want to avoid saying catholic or protestant) so I am very very wary of giving my opinion on the subject, as I dont want to cause any sort of conflict with somebody that I respect a lot. But my take on it, and many of my countrymen will disagree, is that Britain should have given Northern Ireland back to Ireland years ago. Its gone on so long now that doing so would cause a lot more trouble than not doing so. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, but it is Britains fault.
That said, I could never ever ever condone extremism or violence. That is to say, that extremists from both sides are scum. I have been fortunate enough to attend two old firm games in my life, which were unfortunately marred by violence and sick chants. Again, Im not pretending that I know anything about your experiences or situation - or even anything about the politics. Just saying what I have seen in my short life. I hate the situation in Ireland.
What do you think would 'fix' Northern Ireland?
Americans are in Afghanistan because of their own safety. they are afraid of Laden.
I will admit to somewhat ignoring what has gone on in Afghanistan. Things seems much more dramtic in attention getting in Iraq for a very long time. Still, I have always felt we were in some ways more justified being in Afghanistan than Iraq because of the direct connection this country had with 9/11. Also there was huge moral justification if you consider at one time the taliban was killing women for such sins as "wearing white socks" and driving cars. They were so extreme in their hatred of women it would have been justified to bring an end to this kind of religious nut behavior.
I think we need to finish what we started and really focus on improving the lives of the average people there. They tended to side with whoever they thought would bring them some economic hope. If we can not stay I hope we adopt a generous policy of immigration for these lovely people who do not want to live in a religously backward place.
Dear Wordscribe, I was on the Hubs for my own selfish fun and really didn't mean to hurt you or anyone else. For what I said that was offensive, I turely appologize and request your foregiveness. I have an odd sense of humor that is not for all and I will refrain from sharing it with you in the future. Sincerely Rick.
I am so proud of you, you have made my night Rick and restored my faith in people. Takes a big man to do what you just did and you have the cabin girls respect !
I am off to bed Rick but thanks for doing that, see you are a good guy which I knew when you named Call of the Wild as your fav book. That Jack London book is a classic but it is such a sad but loving book so I knew then you were not all bad. I go to sleep knowing that everyone has a heart Rick, even you, goodnight my friend !
Thanks, sneak. I've said things I regret, too. Apology accepted and I extend one to you as well.
The topic started with afghanistan...I have a very good friend who lives in Northern Ireland and has given me the indication that Bill Clinton was instrumental in calming the storm so to say and the real problem lies within The Brits
Well loyalists will say that the problem lies with Dublin, and Republicans will say that the problem lies with London. So thanks for you fantastic insight, Bill Clinton's opinion stopped the murders and car bombs? And calmed the storm which Badcompany says has not been calmed? Until Britain gives Ireland back their will still be an IRA (in its various sects and factions), and if Britain does give Ireland back, there will still be Loyalist Paramilitaries. Its a situation that cannot be fixed. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, a couple of meetings with Bill Clinton is never going to change that.
We dont want a bloody Ireland ok we are Ulster and part of the Uk and what you English forget is we the Ulster Prods were sent over to Ireland from both England and Scotland years ago and as for Clinton hes as welcome as a doze of crabs. Both America and England know shit about N Ireland but both have sold us out to terrorists. Tony Blair is a two faced hypocrite about terrorists !
Mate lets end this conversation. I am about as English as Paris Hilton, just so you know, and I dont know even 10% of the stuff that you know about the situation in Northern Ireland (/Ulster). Remember that I only left school in 2001. I would get found out within 10 minutes for not knowing much about this situation, so I agree with everything that you say and you know best, I really am completely out of my depth on this one
Anyway Im off to write buddy.
Nothing Ryan it will never change, funny thing is way back in 96 during the big riots in Drumcree we went on holiday to Majorca and went up to the bar to order a drink, now an English couple hearing we were Irish walked away and blanked us.
Because of the past history, Birmingham, Guildford, etc the Englisg got bored of it and decided that the Mainland wasn't going to be bombed again so what to do ?
Hey Tony Blair, he of the Peoples Princess, yeah that slut Diana thought lets sell N Ireland out. We will open the prison doors and let all the I.R.A out and sod it lets make them ministers as well.
Pure Genius I call it, we now have the Chief of Staff of the I.R.A as our 2nd minister and do you wanna know why Ryan, because the British couldnt give a shit about the average Belfast decent citizen as long as the Mainland was left alone, you sold N Ireland down the river like a piece of shite !
I didnt sell Northern Ireland out mate, you must be confusing me with the British government
But yes your right, those IRA members should still be in prison, just like Johnny Adair and co should be in prison.
Anyway, nothing that us minions can do about it hey?
Interesting to read all the posts. I grew up in England but my father's family came from Ireland. We didn't talk about it because at that time in England it wasn't very popular to have anything to with the Irish.
Yes, Badcompany99 is correct with what he says.
Yes, I am an American citizen now - just for the record.
Ryan I agree. My friend told me there is a different IRA than the old IRA. The new has more interest in organized crime, thugery and basically a bastardized version or sect of new criminals and the whole scenario is not about religion anymore and yes the Brits need to GET THE FUCK OUT
Your probably best talking to BC about this, or maybe not at all, because its the one political debate that I a) have no place to talk about, and b) find it near on impossible to talk about anyway.
I dont really understand how the Brits can get out. Remember that hundreds of thousands of them consider themselves to be British, hundreds of thousands of them consider themselves to be Irish. That is the issue. Its one that cannot be fixed until the people of Northern Ireland learn to live with each other in peace. The violence comes from both sides; damned if you do and damned if you dont.
I guess that Northern Ireland can never truly be British, and can never truly be Irish, at least now. Maybe a completely independant state, giving all the option of dual nationality, or British nationality, or Irish nationality, would be an option.
You are telling half of Northern Ireland to just 'get out', they were born there, their parents were born there, their grandparents were born there, etc etc. It is home of the loyalists, it is home of the republicans, many of the people from both sides are very decent and loving people - who would quite enjoy peace.
BadCo...I'm interpreting what my friend has corresponded to me and I agree with regarding Blair....he reminds me of a typical American politician flipflop, selective morality, selective memory issues
I am logging off before I really let go about how the Brits sold us out, I laughed at how they couldnt release Ronnie Biggs but hey they easily released the Shankill Bombers, I am off before I say something I regret !
Ryan, I'm a newbie here and havn't even posted any writing yet...I should keep my mouth shut regarding the N.Ireland Condition. When I post it wil be about a story covering some of what Badco is stating
Well, there you go...years ago, The Brits didn't want to hear about the Irish or the problems that still exist according to Badco.....BJC WHY?
I don't have all the answers - I know that's shocking (that's in jest.....) I do know that part of Ireland wanted to remain British and the other half did not and as a kid living in England we didn't mention my dad's family coming from Ireland. Overall, the English really treated the Irish pretty crappy throughout history, and that's putting it mildly. Now it makes me want to research and find out a little more.
The American treated the Irish badly too. Must have heard of the signs "No blacks, no Irish"..... I guess that a lot of it goes back to the mass emmigration of the Irish, in the days of Cromwell. We have all seen Gangs of New York
Yeah they did. I learned a lot in an American History class I took several years ago. Some people are afraid of people coming in and taking the jobs etc away. It's happening now only with the illegal immigrants. In a perfect world people would embrace the differences and not spew hatred.
Please don't anyone get serious and say the real Americans are the Native Americans etc etc. We know this.
I wasn't even talking about Native Americans. But now that you have brought it up...............................
It's likely the first Americans came from Russia across the Bering Strait, so we'll blame the Russians
We come from German immigrants from around 1650. That aside everybody knows the Germans are better than the Irish anyway.(thats a bad attempt at a joke, sorry)
Again, who are "the immigrants"? My grandparents were immigrants. They did no harm to the Irish.
We all saw Star Wars, too. We saw what the Empire's Death Star did to the Alderaans.
Ya know, you're right, most people here in the U.S are immigrants and not all disliked other groups of people.
Lumping us all into "The Americans" makes me want to puke.
A Brit who gets his American history from a Martin Scorsese movie also provides me with a pukeable moment.
Nope, tksensei is right. I would say that most hubbers are Non American..... the largest ethnic group on hubpages is probably Indian. There are also tonnes of Chinese, Europeans, South Americans...... Some Africans. Hubpages is truly multi-cultural.
Just for curiosity sake I did a Google search for "the Afghanistan war can not be won". I think you'll be surprised at the amount of people that say it can not be won.
Is that how it works? How many people say it can't be won?
Well this search for "the Afghanistan war can not be won" brought up 47,100,000 results where I am. Yes those that are in denial are really something to roll our eyes about.
Moreover there is a question of the definition of winning. How will we know when we have won? This definition is a key variable in deciding what to do in Afghanistan. So far as I know this was not made clear by Bush nor by Obama.
So that IS how it works? You should lend this brilliance to the military.
It is military, planners and politicians that are saying "the Afghanistan war can not be won".
"War in Afghanistan cannot be won, British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith warns"
UN Agrees Afghan War Cannot Be Won Militarily
US planners say Afghan war cannot be won without more troops
OTTAWA -- The top British commander in Afghanistan said yesterday that Western forces could not defeat the Taliban, an assessment echoed by John Manley, who headed Canada's independent panel into the mission.
Ashdown asks whether Afghanistan war can be won
Guerrilla warfare cannot be won with conventional methods, true, interference from those who can't stomach realities of war, reporters who state *civilians* were killed (taliban mix in with civilians) and I would rather have Terrorists rounded up, killed or put away for life rather than have another 9/ll.
Carl Levin's judgment on Afghanistan may well be better than Obama's.
Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
American soldiers fired mortar shells at Taliban fighters on Thursday in Kandagal, Afghanistan.
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: September 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Thursday that he was against sending more American combat troops to Afghanistan until the United States speeded up the training and equipping of more Afghan security forces.
The comments by the senator, Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, illustrate the growing skepticism President Obama is facing in his own party as the White House decides whether to commit more deeply to a war that has begun losing public support, even as American commanders acknowledge that the situation on the ground has deteriorated.
Senator Levin’s comments, made in an interview and in the draft of a speech he will deliver Friday, are significant because his stature on military matters gives him the ability to sway fellow lawmakers, and his pivotal committee position provides a platform for vetting Mr. Obama’s major decisions on troops.
Underscoring the increasing unease, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said earlier on Thursday that the president would face opposition if he sought to fulfill an expected request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for more American combat troops.
“I don’t think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters, emphasizing that she was eager to see a report due from the White House in two weeks on benchmarks to measure the success of the administration’s six-month-old strategy.
The White House has begun to indicate that it could be weeks or perhaps much longer before Mr. Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Administration officials say they want to do a complete review of the effectiveness of the last troop increase, which will put the American presence at 68,000 troops by year’s end, an all-time high. They are also digesting a strategic assessment of the Afghan mission that General McChrystal has submitted.
A delay on deciding whether to increase American troop levels would also have the political advantage of pushing down the road a split within Mr. Obama’s party while he is trying to build coalitions for overhauling the health care system.
In the telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Levin said he was not ruling out sending more troops eventually, but rather insisted that the United States try again on a years-old project: finding a way to expand and accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces.
“I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion,” he said.
Mr. Levin, who returned from a trip to Afghanistan just last week, said that the Afghan national army should be increased to 240,000 troops by 2012 from a current goal of 134,000 by next year, and that Afghan national police forces should grow to 160,000 officers from 96,800 in the same period. These troop goals are consistent with General McChrystal’s planning but would be reached a year earlier, the senator said.
Mr. Levin acknowledged that more American trainers would be needed to meet that goal, but he said that he did not know how many. In the most recent deployment of 21,000 American troops, about 4,000 were trainers. The last of those forces will not be in place until November.
In counterinsurgency operations, there are sometimes few distinctions between trainers, support troops and combat forces, a fact that Mr. Levin said he recognized.
He said the United States should send Afghan forces more equipment — including rifles, bullets and trucks — and shift more equipment to Afghanistan from stocks now in Iraq.
Finally, Mr. Levin said the administration needed to adopt a plan to separate low- and midlevel insurgents from hard-core Taliban fighters and commanders. He said the current American efforts to do this had been tentative and halfhearted.
Mr. Levin, who said he intended to outline his proposal in a speech on the Senate floor on Friday, said he explained his concerns in meetings on Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Gates has indicated that he is willing to consider a request for more forces. Separate from any troop request forwarded by the commanders in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates has said he will press for more troops and equipment to protect American, allied and Afghan forces from improvised explosive devices, which are the roadside bombs that have been the leading cause of death and injuries in Afghanistan.
Troops for the mission to counter roadside bombs, which potentially could number in the thousands, would include route- clearance teams and ordnance-disposal units — some of the most dangerous jobs in the military — as well as intelligence analysts and medical personnel. They would be in addition to a substantial increase in the number of armored troop transport vehicles sent to Afghanistan.
While Mr. Levin traveled to Afghanistan last week with two other colleagues, the lawmakers did not agree on all positions.
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview that he agreed with the need to speed the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces and to reintegrate any Taliban fighters willing to recognize the Afghan government.
Mr. Reed said he was waiting for the analysis by General McChrystal on possible troop increases before making up his mind. “What the president has to do is continually point to the fact that Al Qaeda is operating in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said. “Given the chance to reconstitute themselves and operate in those border spaces, they’ll pose a threat to the United States.”
Representative Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the past week, said he also wanted more information before deciding. “But my general position is we have to give General McChrystal what he needs to get the job done,” he said.
Other Democrats said Mr. Obama and his military commanders needed to make a more persuasive case to sell the administration’s Afghanistan strategy.
“They have a relatively short period of time to show that we’re on a path that’s going to demonstrate positive results,” said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who visited Afghanistan last week. “This is our last best chance to change things around.”
Thom Shanker contributed reporting.
I forgot if I posted this but we went into Afghanistan to build a pipeline to the caspian sea. Haliburton and daddy Bush have investments there. The Taliban went to Texas in 1997 and refused Unocal's offer to build the pipeline. Unocal armed the Taliban and got rebuffed.
9/11 was a set up.
Bzzzt! Recieving new signals from the mothership. Bzzzt! Adjust tinfoil hats for optimum reception. Bzzzt!
It is proven fact that the Taliban was in Texas. But only British media reported it. This is what you need to know goof ball, Bush allowed 9/11. Buildings don't fall at the rate of gravity by fire, and squibs were observed coming out of the towers. That CANNOT happen without explosives. You know it and I know it. You can't bear to face it.
The British media covers Texas quite well. It's BBC channel 42, I believe. When I want to know what's going on in Texas, I tap into my British media outlets.
Pot, meet kettle.
Yawn. Laura Bush's college roommate's went to a dentist who sold something on eBay to a guy who walked past the World Trade Center 3 weeks before it was attacked.
Crack a physics book. Acceleration is not related to combustion.
Nothing else was burning, I guess. Couldn't have been an electrical transformer, an HVAC unit, a refrigerator, jet fuel, office supplies, cleaning supplies, etc. I guess the phantom squibs brought down the towers too.
Jet fuel is pretty explosive. The airline industry counts on it. See, when it's converted from a liquid to an aerosol, it *explodes* in the engine, causing what's referred to as internal combustion.
Did you know that Cheney invented internal combustion so he could build a jewish pipeline in Afghanistan and use it to fly the Area 51 spaceship to the moon to fake another moon landing? I totally read it on a website.
TK, don't forget that Freemasons, Zionists, and the Vatican are all in on the plot, too. All the best nutty conspiracy theories involve them!
NComp you make my point. Accelleration has nothing to do with combustion. Never has a skyscraper fallen at the rate of gravity because of fire, ever. Yet we are to believe that three did on the same day including the one, WTC7, not hit by a plane. You must have majored in bonehead physics.
NComp you make my point. Accelleration has nothing to do with combustion. Never has a skyscraper fallen at the rate of gravity because of fire, ever. Yet we are to believe that three did on the same day including the one, WTC7, not hit by a plane. You must have majored in bonehead physics.
And all the incriminating evidence is being held at Area 51 (except for Cheney's magic Buildingdownfaller device - that's in the Bermuda Triangle).
This kind of crap is amusing most of the time, but downright offensive today. You could at least take your meds for ONE DAY out of respect.
But I don't expect it. Your kind of loon is too convinced of how 'important' your stupid conspiracy crap - and of course yourself - is. Disgraceful.
For those that are still in denial.
BBC News Friday, 27 December, 2002
Central Asia pipeline deal signed
The Star Aug 12, 2009
Afghanistan and the new great game
Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land
The Chronicle Herald Wed. Aug 26, 2009
Pipeline key to West’s interest in Afghanistan?
What Really Happened
It's All About Oil
For those that are still in denial do a Google search for "planned pipeline through Afghanistan" and "Taliban refused Texas deal in 1997".
I rest my case. And one more point about 9/11, squibs were observed on film. They do not occur without specific explosives in that very area. Fema said the jet fuel BURNED OFF WITHIN MINUTES. SO NICOMP you don't comprehend all the facts.
It is dumb to say we can't win the war in Afghanistan.
We could do the same thing we did to Iraq.(Destroy The place).
The situation requires a political solution not a military one. The current Kaisai government gains most of its revenue from the drug poppy crops. There are strong and compelling suggestions that the ballot was rigged. There have been many failed attempts in the past going back a hundred years to conquer Afghanistan including attempts by the British. Remember the recent one by Russia which lasted 10 years 1979 to 1989. Right now the air strikes etc seem to be killing in ordinate amount of children given there now large percentage of the population...
A political solution using the best experts in the world need to come up with a strategy to engineer a ceasefire a truce the elimination of poppies as a crop puts other crops in so Afghanis can again feed themselves. This is where the resources in my view should be going...
"US planners say Afghan war cannot be won without more troops"
That's not exactly a surrender is it?
Neither are most of the others a surrender.
"Kabul - The war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and success is only possible through political means including dialogue among all relevant parties, the United Nation's top official in the country said ..."
Pulling our would not be "exactly a surrender," either.
Hm, I wonder what W. would do. Oh never mind he's the reason we are in the mess. What a mess he and his Republican cohorts created. I'm sick of my tax dollars being used to clean up another Republican screw up.
Start making W. and Dick pay for their f'ups, and watch how their attentions and demeanors would soon turn.
Afganistan mistakes = Viet Nam Mistakes; same stupid plan, different time. and Yes, I am worried. We are getting so bogged down with protocol and foolishness. Either fight it, and be prepaired to fight it all the way, Or just come home and forget it.
Jon in Nashville
Pulling out will leave Afghanistan in the hands of dangerous and capable people who are enemies of the United States.
Sending in limited force will do nothing; for every Taliban leader we kill, 2 more will pop up, every civilian we kill will turn 100 others against us.
If we really want to "win" this (although I hate using that term), we need to protect and build the Afghan society. If the Afghanis realize that we are there to do this and that we are not christian crusaders trying to take them over, terrorist networks like al-qaeda will be isolated and cut off from the bottom up. They use popular opinion against us and pay average people to plant bombs and other small tasks; without this, they are severely handicapped. This worked in Iraq under the surge.
If we are not willing to do this, we should just get the hell out and pray that they don't cook up another 9/11.
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
by Deforest2 years ago
John Paul Leonard stated :"At the end of August 2007, with Bush beating the drums for war on Iran, a highly unusual thing occurred: a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North...
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on...
by pisean2823117 years ago
The United States has spent more than $ 1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001, says a recently released Congressional report.Adjusting for inflation, the outlays for conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and...
by sabrebIade7 years ago
I have been trying to research just how many people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, and I cannot find any figures that confirm each other. I have seen anywhere from 5,000 plus to over 100,000. Pretty wide...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.