War in Afghanistan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Archive] >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

wing2000 -> War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 3:32:10 PM)

What are your views on the war in Afghanistan?

What are our long term goals and how do we achieve it?

What are the risk with staying or, on the other hand, pulling out?



cow451 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 3:41:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

What are your views on the war in Afghanistan?

What are our long term goals and how do we achieve it?

What are the risk with staying or, on the other hand, pulling out?


Basically we are trying to catch up on the five years of neglect from the you-know-who years. Trouble is, many Americans are war-weary. Many conservatives won't support anything this commander-inchief attempts. The Russians are probably having a good chuckle.

The consensus seems to be that we have the right military leadership there but Congress may not give the required support. Hard-core liberals and hard-core conservatives may unwittingly collude to undermine the effort.

Then, too, the Karzai government isn't winning friends, either.



wing2000 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 3:45:28 PM)

I supported the war from it's inception post 9-11 but recently, events on the ground have caused to me to re-consider....

- by most accounts, the current Afghan government is completly corrupt.
- some question if the government is legitamate (pending election review which will last for months)
- the central government has little control or influence over the regional war lords (does Afthanistan want a central government?)
- After decades of war (going back to Soviet invasion), the Afghans don't trust outsiders..including American intentions


...and from military perspective:

- Taliban continue to operate from Pakistan...an area NATO forces cannot touch
- Endless supply of foreign fighters (again, coming through Pakistan)
- Taliban are becoming increasingly sofisticated in their tactics (learning from earlier mistakes)
- More troops are needed to effectively secure and fight the Taliban
- Americans are tired of war...(Iraq + Afghanistan)..and the President may have to fight a war with out majority support
- After years of participation with no measurable progress , some NATO allies will be pulling out their forces (...i.e. they don't have the support domestically to keep the troops there)



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 3:52:58 PM)

My view is the Afghanistan conflict is the most important conflict we have been involved with since WW 2. It was a solid base for AQ and it has/had a government and people that were/are quite friendly with it.

Our long term goals should be to make Afghanistan stable enough to prevent AQ from ever coming back in power and to win the people over to us to make this happen. We achieve this by doing the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the last 6 or 7 years - we support the people, keep the insurgents out, help build the infrastructure, help to educate them, help to make Afghanistan what it was in the '70s.

If we stay we have to have a plan that will work. One thing we have going for us is a military that knows this and an administration that isn't trying to silence it. Both know that the country is a mess. If we pull out then it goes right back to Usama and everything we have done there for the last 7 years was for naught.



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 4:03:46 PM)

quote:

- by most accounts, the current Afghan government is completly corrupt.


That seems to be a very common problem we have post Korea- putting power and supporting corrupt and incompetent governments.

quote:

- After decades of war (going back to Soviet invasion), the Afghans don't trust outsiders..including American intentions


I've been reading for a couple of years that part of the problem with the trust is we go in, we secure an area, we try to help build a school, fix water lines, etc., then we move off before it's done because we're stretched so thin and nothing gets done and the insurgents come back. They say this has been the story since the beginning and they don't trust us because we don't keep our word.

quote:

- Americans are tired of war...(Iraq + Afghanistan)..and the President may have to fight a war with out majority support
- After years of participation with no measurable progress , some NATO allies will be pulling out their forces (...i.e. they don't have the support domestically to keep the troops there)


At least they think Iraq was worth it. [sm=aside.gif]

It's a thorough shame isn't it that a nation such as ours can have two concurrently running wars that are so messy. I remember reading once years ago that the first signs of a great civilization in a sign of decay was that they made it a habit of failing to decisively win their wars. Deja-vu.



wing2000 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 4:15:51 PM)

quote:

quote:

- After decades of war (going back to Soviet invasion), the Afghans don't trust outsiders..including American intentions


I've been reading for a couple of years that part of the problem with the trust is we go in, we secure an area, we try to help build a school, fix water lines, etc., then we move off before it's done because we're stretched so thin and nothing gets done and the insurgents come back. They say this has been the story since the beginning and they don't trust us because we don't keep our word.


Yes. From what I have read, the "secure and hold" strategy is just getting underway...and a lot more forces, including critical civilian support personnel, have yet to arrive in country. I think we have learned a lot of lessons from both conflicts...hopefully it's not too late.



John_O -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 4:25:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

What are your views on the war in Afghanistan?

What are our long term goals and how do we achieve it?

What are the risk with staying or, on the other hand, pulling out?



The very first thing to remember is that the war on terrorism is a religious war. It is Christianity against islam. The only way it will ever end is with the death of the last moslem as they are commanded by their scriptures to fight us till the end.

The ONLY way to win is to follow Ann Coulter's advice. Conquer their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Unfortunately we cannot do this as we now have a moslem (kenyan) president so the will to win against islam is not there.

What we are doing now in afghanistan is just keeping the loonies fighting over there instead of over hear.


What are our long term goals? For the republicans it's to win and protect freedom. For the liberals its to surrender and destroy America (Just like it's been since Vietnam)

What are the risks in staying or pulling out? Risk in staying is we are going to lose a few more volunteer soldiers. We probably will not make any progress as we are not addressing the root of the probelm (islam).

The risk of pulling out is we'll have to go back in in 5 to 10 years anyway. This time we should just go in to win however. But with a moslem (kenyan) in the whitehouse that will never happen.

At least in Iraq we had hopes of reformingthe country



cow451 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 4:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John_O

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

What are your views on the war in Afghanistan?

What are our long term goals and how do we achieve it?

What are the risk with staying or, on the other hand, pulling out?



The very first thing to remember is that the war on terrorism is a religious war. It is Christianity against islam. The only way it will ever end is with the death of the last moslem as they are commanded by their scriptures to fight us till the end.

The ONLY way to win is to follow Ann Coulter's advice. Conquer their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Unfortunately we cannot do this as we now have a moslem (kenyan) president so the will to win against islam is not there.

What we are doing now in afghanistan is just keeping the loonies fighting over there instead of over hear.


What are our long term goals? For the republicans it's to win and protect freedom. For the liberals its to surrender and destroy America (Just like it's been since Vietnam)

What are the risks in staying or pulling out? Risk in staying is we are going to lose a few more volunteer soldiers. We probably will not make any progress as we are not addressing the root of the probelm (islam).

The risk of pulling out is we'll have to go back in in 5 to 10 years anyway. This time we should just go in to win however. But with a moslem (kenyan) in the whitehouse that will never happen.

At least in Iraq we had hopes of reformingthe country

I can't tell if you're being fasicious or whether you believe that Ann Coldheart baloney. It sells books, but makes for stupid foreign policy, like invading Iraq.



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 5:23:31 PM)

quote:

The ONLY way to win is to follow Ann Coulter's advice. Conquer their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Unfortunately we cannot do this as we now have a moslem (kenyan) president so the will to win against islam is not there.


The problem is there is no 1 leader. In Iraq there are different tribes with different leaders. It is the same thing in Afghanistan perhaps worse because of the mountainous terrain.

quote:

What we are doing now in afghanistan is just keeping the loonies fighting over there instead of over here.


Are you implying that we are using Afghani citizens as human shields?

quote:

The risk of pulling out is we'll have to go back in in 5 to 10 years anyway. This time we should just go in to win however. But with a moslem (kenyan) in the whitehouse that will never happen.


This is where I believe you are exactly right on. The problem with the "christianity vs. Islam" take on this is what do we do when they don't want converted? For the most part they don't.



stampinlady -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 5:45:06 PM)

quote:

The Russians are probably having a good chuckle.


Seriously. We have no business being there.

Rlj, I find your avatar very ofensive.



rcjames -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 7:20:29 PM)

I am conceren about how the rules have changed in the last 12 months. We should be there to kill and destroy Al Queda and those who support them.

But it seems we are now on some mamby pamby mission to not upset anyone, not to iterrogate the enemies that we capture, etc. etc. etc.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the soon coming request for more troops and resources to do the mission that the troops are called to do.



Thanks
RC



wing2000 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 7:29:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John_O

The very first thing to remember is that the war on terrorism is a religious war. It is Christianity against islam..



...I don't think our discussion will go very far if that is truly your base premise.



wing2000 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 7:37:40 PM)

quote:

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the soon coming request for more troops and resources to do the mission that the troops are called to do.


...yes, hopefully we don't have to wait 6 years like we did with his predecessor.



Nate79 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 8:21:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
I can't tell if you're being fasicious or whether you believe that Ann Coldheart baloney. It sells books, but makes for stupid foreign policy, like invading Iraq.

So what would you suggest? Without mentioning Iraq, please.

Looking at war in a practical manner, doing some form of what Ann C. describes is the only way to win. Otherwise, we're in an endless conflict with a guerrilla force. If we're not willing to do what it realistically takes to win, why bother?



stampinlady -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 8:41:53 PM)

Rlj, thank you for changing you avatar.[:D]



John_O -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 9:25:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
I can't tell if you're being fasicious or whether you believe that Ann Coldheart baloney. It sells books, but makes for stupid foreign policy, like invading Iraq.


I've read the koran. They will fight us until the last one dies. They have no choice. Ann Coulter's advice is the only way for them to survive as a people (unless of course we roll over and turn our back on Christ). Islam cannot coexist with any other faith.



John_O -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 9:31:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj
The problem is there is no 1 leader. In Iraq there are different tribes with different leaders. It is the same thing in Afghanistan perhaps worse because of the mountainous terrain.


That's why she said "leaders"

quote:

quote:

What we are doing now in afghanistan is just keeping the loonies fighting over there instead of over here.


Are you implying that we are using Afghani citizens as human shields?


In a manner of speaking, yes. If we were not fighting over tehre on their soil they would be fighting over here on our soil. Our 'government' has not displayed teh guts to secure our borders so any of these loonies could waltz into our country and blow things up. I'd much rather they be over there than over here.

quote:

quote:

The risk of pulling out is we'll have to go back in in 5 to 10 years anyway. This time we should just go in to win however. But with a moslem (kenyan) in the whitehouse that will never happen.


This is where I believe you are exactly right on. The problem with the "christianity vs. Islam" take on this is what do we do when they don't want converted? For the most part they don't.


Is it more merciful to the greatest number of people to kill a terrorist before he can drag others into hell with him, or to do nothing about him and let him do what he wants?

The example we have from scripture is to kill any that would attack us. As israel entered teh promised land God had them cleanse that land of all negative influences. The times when they did not are the ones that continues to harm them and lead them into sin.



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/15/2009 9:43:58 PM)

quote:

In a manner of speaking, yes. If we were not fighting over tehre on their soil they would be fighting over here on our soil. Our 'government' has not displayed teh guts to secure our borders so any of these loonies could waltz into our country and blow things up. I'd much rather they be over there than over here.


It really isn't "their" soil. A majority of Iraq insurgents aren't Iraqi and a sizeable number of Afghani insurgents aren't Afghanis. Honestly, I consider it unjust to turn their country into a battleground for such a reason.

quote:

That's why she said "leaders"


We also didn't start to see success in Iraq until we worked with the tribal leaders.

quote:

The example we have from scripture is to kill any that would attack us.


There is no such scripture. The time for judgement against those living in the Promised Land was when the Israelites were ready to enter and the Israelites were to be the tools of that judgement. I'm sorry but I'm not aware of any prophet today or of God himself appearing and giving us such a mandate. The citizens of Afghanistan didn't attack us, I have no quarrel with them.



cow451 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/16/2009 10:20:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

I am conceren about how the rules have changed in the last 12 months. We should be there to kill and destroy Al Queda and those who support them.

But it seems we are now on some mamby pamby mission to not upset anyone, not to iterrogate the enemies that we capture, etc. etc. etc.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the soon coming request for more troops and resources to do the mission that the troops are called to do.



Thanks
RC



You seem not to understand that a counter-insurgency approach does not mean indiscriminately killing large numbers of civilians. In fact, an effective campaign minimizes "collateral damage". The Iraq War did not turn around until tactics changed to focus on working with locals instead of killing everything that moved. Until then, the US had been helping the enemy recruit by acting like a conquering nation instead of a liberating force.

The Taliban have strengthened and are more sophisticated. Obama is not going to be the problem on troop requests. Congress will be, though. Obama has consistently gone along with the military strategy suggested by the Pentagon, etc.



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/16/2009 3:22:52 PM)

quote:

Looking at war in a practical manner, doing some form of what Ann C. describes is the only way to win. Otherwise, we're in an endless conflict with a guerrilla force. If we're not willing to do what it realistically takes to win, why bother?


For starters our troops are not allowed to evangelize. This has been our policy for the entire duration of both conflicts if not even longer.



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/16/2009 3:33:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

I am conceren about how the rules have changed in the last 12 months. We should be there to kill and destroy Al Queda and those who support them.

But it seems we are now on some mamby pamby mission to not upset anyone, not to iterrogate the enemies that we capture, etc. etc. etc.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the soon coming request for more troops and resources to do the mission that the troops are called to do.



Thanks
RC


I tried to answer this yesterday but the internet ate my response. I'm not sure how the new engagement rules will apply or more precisely the rules for the men we capture.

I do believe that Obama is serious about wanting to have enough troops and to get the leaders what they want within some kind of reason.



Nate79 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/17/2009 9:10:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
Obama is not going to be the problem on troop requests. Congress will be, though. Obama has consistently gone along with the military strategy suggested by the Pentagon, etc.

At the moment, the President seems to be quite set in his indecision regarding what the military states they need in Afghanistan. In fact, Obama has also only held one meeting with his national security team regarding the assessment of the situation provided by Gen. McChrystal. The legislature is asking for more information to be released about McChrystal's recommendations, but the administration is dragging its feet. So in fact, yes, he is the problem at the moment.



manhattan42 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/17/2009 10:54:08 PM)

The war in Afghanistan is a lost cause....and has been from the day we went to war there.

The Brits could not tame the Afghans...
The Indians could not tame the Afghans...
The Russians could not tame the Afghans...
The Americans will also fail....

The Afghans did not want us there against the Russians in the 80s.

They still do not want us there.

Afghanistan for the Afghans...

My only hope is that the US does not bankrupt itself and disintegrate as the Soviet Union did as in our own continuing misadventures there...



wing2000 -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/18/2009 2:36:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: manhattan42

The war in Afghanistan is a lost cause....and has been from the day we went to war there.

The Brits could not tame the Afghans...
The Indians could not tame the Afghans...
The Russians could not tame the Afghans...
The Americans will also fail....

The Afghans did not want us there against the Russians in the 80s.

They still do not want us there.

Afghanistan for the Afghans...

My only hope is that the US does not bankrupt itself and disintegrate as the Soviet Union did as in our own continuing misadventures there...


...I appreciate the historical perspective. And I wish we had considered the parallel history in Iraq. However, with Afghanistan, I think we had to go after those who attacked us....and we did quickly disband the Taliban even if the CIA/Pentagon blew a chance to get Bin Laden in the early operations...

But if we were to withdrawl, do you think the US could effectively thwart terrorist activities inside Afghanistan/Western Pakistan without an in-country military presence?



rlj -> RE: War in Afghanistan (9/18/2009 3:18:02 PM)

quote:

But if we were to withdrawl, do you think the US could effectively thwart terrorist activities inside Afghanistan/Western Pakistan without an in-country military presence?


We would have to go to a re-active defense. Instead of stomping on them over there we'd have to be diligent over here and everywhere else in the world that we have interests.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI