President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.Assuming we can't win there, and the Afghans are too destroyed after 20 years of continuous bombing to be a threat, this makes plenty of sense. In addition to freeing up troops for more useful work, this would also plug up a considerable hole in that budget the Freepers and Tenthers and Teabaggers keep screaming about.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
And don't believe that nonsense about Afghanistan being the "central front in the war on terror". Even is Afghanistan is made into a smoking hole (wait, it already IS a smoking hole) there are terrorists everywhere. We ain't gonna stop 'em by destroying the countries they live in.
If this is a trial balloon sent up by Obama, tell him I approve.
Vietnam syndrome strikes again. Not losing a war... WANTING to lose a war. It's a Democrat disease. Since 1965 Democrats have hated a strong America.
ReplyDeleteStill, it is a horrible idea to leave Afghan. All that will do is open the door for jihadis from Pakistan to flood into Afghan., reestablish that Taliban, embolden al Qaeda, and lead to a reversal to the delicate anti-jihadi direction that the Pakistani gov't is now, at last, headed.
This all, in turn, will simply cause another 9/11 in due time.
Of course, if you don't mind any of that (like your Muslim president doesn't seem to mind it) then, yeah. Let's leave Afghanistan before we've built it to withstand al Qaeda and the Taliban. Good deal.
On the other hand, pulling out would prove (once again) that Obama is nothing but a bald-faced liar. After all, he spent the last 4 years telling us all how Afghanistan is the "good war" and that he'd "win" it for us as president. He pulls out and he proves himself to be a spineless, anti-American, pro-jihad, cretinous, liar... just like we all knew he was. Other than that he's a fine fella.
Nobody wants to lose a war, but considering how badly occupiers have done with Afghanistan in the past, we're far more likely to be the hugest failure there ever rather than the first success. And just like Iraq, I defy you to describe success in this conflict.
ReplyDeleteFirst you have to determine what our "success" means in the first place. You simply assume that we can't "win" because the Soviet Commies and other nations before them lost. But we aren't fighting the sort of war of domination they were fighting. We are attempting to build the Afghan nation WITH their help. We aren't trying to "win" the war for new territory of our own like the commie bastards and other nations have tried doing.
ReplyDeleteAside from defeating Pakistan, Iran and Islamofascism, we have no other interests in Afghanistan.
So, right off, my guess is that you don't even understand what the goals are to be able to SAY we can't "win" there.
But, success would mean a stable Afghan gov't that can fight off its neighbors and internal enemies. It would mean an Afghan govt that can keep the Pakis and Iranians at bay and it would mean a govt that can keep al Qaeda disorganized and weak (if not gone entirely).
The enemy here is not really Afghanistan. It is Pakistan, Iran, Saudi money, and al Qaeda.
From what I can see, neither you nor your Vietnam diseased pals have the slightest concept of what our goals there are or even should be. You are all caught up in the idea that we are in a normal, shooting war in Afghanistan instead of a nation building, insurgency conflict. Your very concept of "winning" in that case makes no logical sense about the theater!
Sure, if measured against a war of the type that the Soviets waged, it is likely we can't "win" that way. But we aren't there in that capacity in the first place, so saying we will lose "like the Soviets and others have" is a meaningless distinction.
If we're clarifying how to turn over operations to the Afghan government, that's your goal met.
ReplyDeleteYes, that would be the goal met with the caveat that Afghanistan is strong enough to stand on its own against these enemies that are our enemies, too. So, no, it would not be "success" if Obama just summarily declared the country is "turned over" and then ran home.
ReplyDelete