I'm often criticized for worshipping everything Obama does (by people who literally cannot ever find a complimentary thing to say about him, even when he does exactly what they want him to do) so it's a weird pleasure for me to say this. I wish we weren't sending more troops to Afghanistan.
I like the idea that we're at least setting a goal for leaving that country, but the time we spend between now and 2011 (assuming we're not trapped then) will likely be wasted. It won't improve conditions, it won't prepare the Afghans to defend themselves. Nothing can. Nobody has ever whipped that place into a civilization and I can't imagine we will either. Most likely we're just going spend the next few years funneling surplus weapons to warlords, which they will use to kill each other with after we're gone.
And yes, they will blame the Americans for it.
If we pulled out now, the place would wind up in the exact same chaos only with less of our descendants' money wasted. On the plus side, like all wars, this one could stimulate the economy. It's government spending to create jobs! I'm for that; I just prefer the spending that gives me a bridge or a dam or something and doesn't kill a bunch of people. Call me irresponsible.
9 comments:
Ha, if you believe we actually will pull out when Obama says, then I have some land south of the Florida Keys ta sell ya! Come on. The guy is just saying what you want to hear with no intention to make good. His entire presidency proves that thus far.
Here we go! So you would agree with me that we shouldn't have sent troops, right?
No, I think we should send double what he sent. I'm just saying that Obama is lying that he'll get them out by 2011. The only way to win there is to send about 60,000 troops (minimum) clear and hold, then train the Afghan troops. The thing is, the only way to grow the Afghan army is to set up a situation where the Afghanis feel safe enough to actually JOIN the army. Like in Iraq, there will be no surge of support by the people until they feel safe that their efforts wont be retaliated against because WE weren't able to protect them as they build it.
I dunno Pub... we only got the incredible success story of Iraq (and you do feel it was an incredible success, a decisive victory over, uh, something) when we announced a firm intention to leave. Up until then, the Iraqis were content to let us fight their battles.
Uhhh, wasn't the success there attributed to the surge? By Bush giving his commanders what they asked for?
The surge JB was for, before he was against it? Oh, no, that was Kerry.
Who is JB?
I have a suspicion that you will be saying that Iraq is a total failure some time in the next year and a half.
As it stands right now, Iraq is succeeding. But it could still go the wrong way. Still, the ONLY reason we've gotten any headway at all there is because of the surge coupled with the local strategy of command and hold. It had nothing to do with us saying we were leaving and everything to do with making the locals feel safe enough to come out of hiding and join the new developing system and thereby standing up to insurgents and terrorists. This can also work in Afghanistan, but it will be even harder there because of the terrain as well as the fact that fewer Afghanis are as educated as the Iraqis are.
This short, six-month window that Obama gave is a joke. It will do nothing for the area at all. The Taliban will hunker down and try to wait it out claiming victory the whole time, the locals will stay too afraid to step up and nothing will get done. Then, in six months, Obama will extend the stay making himself out to be a liar.
On the other hand, if he does pull out he will be giving the Taliban a victory and defeating the USA once again (as Democrats love to do).
Hilarious... now Hillary is out there saying that the 2011 pull out will be "conditions based," so they administration is ALREADY backtracking from Obama's wild claim.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34246523#34246523
That's me, JB! V-POTUS, that's who JB is, dadgummit!
Post a Comment