New Afghanistan policy

[nikimcbee]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/01/barack-obama-speech-afghanistan-war

Well, what did you think of the speech?

If we're going to set a timeline, I say get rid of all these silly RoE and let the troops do their job. IMO. But now that I think about the RoE thingy, that didn't work out so well for the soviets.:dead: Nobody plays meaner than the Russians. I say we just build a big wall around the place and say nobody leaves. I think that would be cheaper. They get there islamic utopia and we keep them contained, away from everybody else. If they climb over the wall, kill them on the spot.:yeah: Kinda like hotel kali-fornia.

[Torplexed]

There was a speech? I slept thru it. :D

Just kiddin'

So far, the policy outlines look very much like what the Republican plan was.

Where there is a flaw is in the unfortunate fact that Afghanistan does not have a popular consciousness as a nation state. I expect us to have trouble there. Afghanistan is less a nation than it is a reservation for assorted hill tribes. Neighborhood security is not bestowed by any national institution, but only among familial and clan ties -- it's your valley against all the rest of the world, especially the immediate neighborhood, and it ain't pretty. Consequently Afghanistan is a very low-security, balkanized place, and we must be working on that close-in level, not on the level of a Kabul government that too many tribesmen give less than a damn about and trust very little.

[Torplexed]

BTW is Obama shipping his bad habits to Afghanistan?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/1/1259705403769/US-soldiers-in-Afghanista-002.jpg

[Skybird]

Why pulling oiutn then when you could pull out now. The effect is the same. The two years inbetween will not make chnages to Afghanistan.

It's all face-saving only, I think. And troops will pay with their blood for that. I hope they die happy.

[ETR3(SS)]

US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, My aren't we confident.:O:

Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor. Sounds like they're planning a Grover Cleveland. :haha:

[Snestorm]

Get out now.

And close the door behind you.
NO MORE INVASIONS BY ARMIES OF "REFUGEES"!

Maybe you can do something constructive like re-integrating them back into THEIR OWN SOCIETIES, and out of ours.

[GoldenRivet]

All HOPE is lost for any CHANGE.

Fail. :yeah:

just remember - YOU voted for him :har::har::har::har:

[Snestorm]

Ordinary time we observe the parody of democracy in USA. When candidate who declared alternative program, after ellections shows up to be strenghless marionette, continously obeying long time established shadow government plans.

They're what I refer to as Acting Presidents.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

All HOPE is lost for any CHANGE.

Fail. :yeah:

just remember - YOU voted for him :har::har::har::har:

Still better than McCain.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

This will be Vietnam 2: Electronic Boogaloo. I don't understand why this isn't blazingly obvious to Obama.

[Dowly]

This will be Vietnam 2: Electronic Boogaloo. I don't understand why this isn't blazingly obvious to Obama.

Yeh, true that. I only saw parts of the speech, but it's optimistic tone reminded me of the movie Downfall (you know, the part where Hitler is commanding imaginary troops and is still thinking germany wins the war).

[Jimbuna]

The bit I don't understand is the announcement of an additional 30,000 troops allied to a timescale for withdrawal.

What's the point?

[Skybird]

Not often a newspaper comment puts something so damn well:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html


Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664682,00.html) would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664708,00.html) It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,k-6948,00.html) -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.
Just in Time for the Campaign
For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.
The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
Obama's Magic No Longer Works
But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.
It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.
Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."
In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.
The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

[Onkel Neal]

The bit I don't understand is the announcement of an additional 30,000 troops allied to a timescale for withdrawal.

What's the point?

The pullout timetable is to appease the liberal ostriches, and give Hope to the Taliban that all they need to do is lay low 18 months and they can move back in. :nope:

[onelifecrisis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8gndbh4ZMo

[JU_88]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/01/barack-obama-speech-afghanistan-war

Well, what did you think of the speech?

If we're going to set a timeline, I say get rid of all these silly RoE and let the troops do their job. IMO. But now that I think about the RoE thingy, that didn't work out so well for the soviets.:dead: Nobody plays meaner than the Russians. I say we just build a big wall around the place and say nobody leaves. I think that would be cheaper. They get there islamic utopia and we keep them contained, away from everybody else. If they climb over the wall, kill them on the spot.:yeah: Kinda like hotel kali-fornia.

So much for freedom

[SteamWake]

The pullout timetable is to appease the liberal ostriches, and give Hope to the Taliban that all they need to do is lay low 18 months and they can move back in. :nope:

Precisley the reason no timeline has been set... .untill now.

[Skybird]

So much for freedom
Indeed. We have our freedom from them, and they have their freedom from us. Fair deal.

[JU_88]

The bit I don't understand is the announcement of an additional 30,000 troops allied to a timescale for withdrawal.

What's the point?


Supposedly so they can go on the offensive for the last 18 months, and also train the afghan military and police to defend themselves. (hmmmm)

Same was done in Vietnam by Nixon in 1973, he anounced that the South Vietnamese army was strong enough to defend Saigon, and with drew the US military - but the south govenment collpased in 75. (two years was pretty good going though)

But in the case of Vietnam the majority of the population where behind Ho Chi Mihns communist govenment anyway, so there was never any hope for the South & the U.S. That is ultimatly why the U.S failed in Vietnam.
(And I am not going to argue about this fact either, that is what i have read, so if you dont belive it - I dont care)

I dont know how it will work in Afgahnistan. I guess it partly depends on how far the the Taliban have been pushed back, and partly how well the 'hearts & minds' thing has paid off on this occasion.....

Time will tell anyway. i just hope the loss of human life is minimal.

[SteamWake]

I dident really make this connection untill now.


Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

[JU_88]

I dident really make this connection untill now.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Yep, doesn't surprise me at all. Thats most politicians for ya, always looking out for Number 1 in the long term. :dead:

[Sea Demon]

I wonder what the leftwing anti-war protesters are going to do...now that Obama has gone "neocon". :DL

[nikimcbee]

Didn't obama campaign on invading Pakistan to chase the taliban?

I guess this sounds like Prez Johnson part II:shifty:. Well, you get what you vote for:shifty:.

the bottom line is we need to beat the taliban and make it crystal clear to all the other islamic nutjobs that are violent not to mess with the West. And if you do, we're gunna kick yer a$$, bomb your weapon caches, oops I mean mosques, kill you leadership, etc, etc.
We have got to stop coddeling (sp?) these guys and really beat the crap out of them, so they hopefully they'll stop causing trouble for the rest of the world.

Like I said before, PCness is going to be the death of us all.:shifty:

[Jimbuna]

The pullout timetable is to appease the liberal ostriches, and give Hope to the Taliban that all they need to do is lay low 18 months and they can move back in. :nope:

I was thinking similarly around the Taliban laying low.

Not being an American....Is this not also a political ploy by the White House to make it easier for Obama to gain a second term in office? :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

I was thinking similarly around the Taliban laying low.

Not being an American....Is this not also a political ploy by the White House to make it easier for Obama to gain a second term in office? :hmmm:

Yeah, it could be.

Me personally, I cannot see how the West can ignore this situation like Iran. This is nothing to play politics about. Oh well, as long as it ends up with Obama out of office in 2012, I'm good.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, it could be.

Me personally, I cannot see how the West can ignore this situation like Iran. This is nothing to play politics about. Oh well, as long as it ends up with Obama out of office in 2012, I'm good.


Jim makes a good point. A sitting president is not normally voted out of office when a war is being conducted. So yes, could be a clever ploy and a bad one at that. However, we are dealing with a Chicago politician. :shifty:

[SteamWake]

Yeah, it could be.

Me personally, I cannot see how the West can ignore this situation like Iran. This is nothing to play politics about. Oh well, as long as it ends up with Obama out of office in 2012, I'm good.

But playing politics is all he knows. It's what he grew up with, its what he does for a living, its 'in his blood'.

Change... pfffft.

[Jimbuna]

Another potential political voting angle/stunt could be "Look at me I've brought all our fine young boys and girls home safely"

There is something just not right about this POTUS....I can't put my finger on it but I can definitely feel the disturbance in my bladder :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Another potential political voting angle/stunt could be "Look at me I've brought all our fine young boys and girls home safely"

There is something just not right about this POTUS....I can't put my finger on it but I can definitely feel the disturbance in my bladder :hmmm:

He is all about himself Jim. He did not get the title "Rock Star President" for his looks.

[Thomen]

He is all about himself Jim. He did not get the title "Rock Star President" for his looks.

Indeed. The address left a bitter taste of "it is all about Me". After the obligatory and thinly veiled "blame Bush" came the announcement of 30,000 more troops and the following bug-out, followed by a big kthxbye. :shifty:

At least, the cadets didn't seem to be that impressed by it.

On a side note: Anyone willing to take a bet that some of the cadets are going to clean toilets with toothbrushes today for falling asleep during the speech? :D

[AVGWarhawk]

We all knew this would be Obama's war. He point blank said this during the campaign. Remember...eye on the ball mumbo jumbo. Well here we are. :nope:

[Jimbuna]

Is Barack Obama the first Black Man to beat a white woman and not serve time for it? :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

I was thinking similarly around the Taliban laying low.

Not being an American....Is this not also a political ploy by the White House to make it easier for Obama to gain a second term in office? :hmmm:

The politics invoved makes me sick:shifty:. This is an international problem and everybody needs to pitch in and beat radical islam down. How many more carbombs, train bombs, etc do we need to endure before we decide to truely take care of the problem?

I say we start bombing mosques that house so much as a bb gun in them! It's no longer a place of worship, but a weapons cache and a legit target.
We need to tell afghanistan, take care of the problem or we will and don't whine when we make a mess over there.

[MothBalls]

Is Barack Obama the first Black Man to beat a white woman and not serve time for it? :hmmm:No. That was OJ.

[Platapus]

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

I would have preferred objectives that were a little more measurable.

How does one know that al Qaeda has been defeated???? It is not like a traditional state that can either be occupied or surrender. What is the difference between al Qaeda being defeated and them just hiding until the next administration? al Qaeda is patient if nothing else.

D3 al Qaeda in Pakistan I find refreshing. It is about time we realize that Pakistan is not really our ally in this. :nope:.

When will the United States learn that the enemy of my enemy may or may not be my enemy?

President Obama was in a horrible situation. I doubt any decision he could have made would make every one happy. Well it sucks being POTUS but you asked for the job.

This is probably one of the less bad decisions he could have made.

I do like the time table though. If we have the collective balls to stick with it. The AF government has to realize that they MUST be able to take control of their own territory or they are not truly sovereign.:nope:

I hope this time table gives them the kick in the ass they need.....if we have the balls to follow through (wait and see on that).

What I think should happen is to relocate all US troops to the AF/PK border and secure it (if not several borders). Let al Qaeda have its secure base in PK, if they are isolated it won't do them much good. Really seal that border. Let the AF military and NATO deal with the internal threat. Without supplies and manpower coming in to AF, it might give the AF/NATO forces the chance to quell the internal threat.

[Skybird]

I doubt any decision he could have made would make every one happy.
I think that he tried right that was his great mistake. Sometimes you can't please just everybody, and you certainly can't dance on two parties at the same time. And the timetable i think is highly suspicious, regarding the US elections.

[FIREWALL]

To put it bluntly. :hmmm: That boy ain't dumb enough to bring home (how many ?) troops proficient with firearms.

WHEN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING THRU THE HIGHIEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN IT'S HISTORY. :roll:


Come on you guys... Use your heads for something besides " Hatracks " :haha:

[Platapus]

That does bring up an interesting point. Bringing back the national guards will take these people off the federal payroll and put them back into the state employment environment... an environment where there is high unemployment.

Perhaps this a stimulus program? Ship all national guard overseas so that the currently unemployed can move into the newly vacated jobs?

Before you laugh, consider what happened just after WWI and jobs. :nope:

[geetrue]

Men that serve in the military can't chose which President to serve ...

I couldn't ... I was 18 for JFK, 19 for LBJ, 24 for Nixon

I didn't even know those US Presidents had personel problems with controlling men and what to do with the power they possesed.

This move has shocked me to send 30,000 troops (which never travel light) to make a full force move on Afgahistan with the clear directive to be out by the year 2011 just in time to welcome the troops home in the middle of another run for the presidency.

When President Obama starts talking about how he is going to solve the problems that his admistration has caused will be the time to turn him off. :smug:

[CaptainHaplo]

I am suprised no one notice something else he stated. Here is the relevant portion - and I am adding emphasis to show what was missed.

"Let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaida and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."

Hmmm - isn't this the guy that said that al-Qaida was pretty much out of Iraq? When they try to move back in - is he going to redeploy the troops he removed to restabilize the region?

More importantly, he mentioned Somalia. The reality is that al-Qaida is known to recruit and finance alot of its efforts in Somalia from neighboring Kenya. *No - I am not tying this to any "truther" conspiracy*

Al Shabob (Al Shabaab?), an al-Qaida linked group, is known to operate and stage from Nairobi (in kenya) to act in Somalia. So when the middle east supposedly starts becoming "settled" (like that will truly ever occur) - will we be looking at sending troops to Africa - both Somalia and also Kenya?

What of the other areas in the world that have become centers of Islamic extremism and violence? Its not just the Middle East and Africa. What about Bolivia in South America? What about Bosnia, which has a erupted previously, and with its religious divisions could easily do so again. Heck, on that note, the entire Balkans area is a valid possibility. What of Bangladesh, a failed state by about any standard, with a substantial majority of Muslims. Turkey has been one nation that, while allied in name, must also be considered as a possible "safe haven" in some areas, due to its current political and social climate. What of Tatarstan, which has an overwhelming majority of its citizenry as Muslims, with a racial decendancy of Tatar? Definitely a possibility. An islamic flavored nationalism, or with the right people seeking haven, an actual islamic republic could easily be created there. Of course we can't forget others, such as Venuzuela or Nicaragua. The leadership of both countries are very chum chum with Iran, which is one of the major sources of real FUNDING of islamic extremism. The economic problems they face could easily have them willing to turn a blind eye to a few extremists trying to rebuild for a price, and before you know it, you have another area being violated by extremists.

While we are at it, add in Xinjiang. A province of China, it is predominantly fundamental islamic, and due to the persecution of all religion by the chinese government, there has already been some push back in that region by militants. Though I do have to say I think the chinese government would squash that ruthlessly on their own if push came to shove.

What the Potus said was he wants to have us out by a certain time, but have no doubt that our forces will be "redirected" to areas where he feels he can gain the most political show points.

Firewall has a valid point on the economic side as well. Obama mentioned that, yet what happens when all these troops come home, return to their jobs (which the employers are mandated to give them back by federal law), and then the numbers of unemployed increases by nearly the same numbers? To do so would exacerbate the economic situation here at home, and provide further facts for the opposition to show how his domestic agenda is a total failure for which the american people are stuck with the bill.

[geetrue]

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.


The US Ethan Allen SSBN 608 fired 7 polaris missiles 2,000 miles down range in just ten minutes all hit within 50 yards of the intended targets off the coast of the Windward Islands back in the spring of 68.

Is that presise enough for you Mr President?

As always the silent service is ready and willing to do it's job if called upon.


What of the other areas in the world that have become centers of Islamic extremism and violence? Its not just the Middle East and Africa. What about Bolivia in South America? What about Bosnia, which has a erupted previously, and with its religious divisions could easily do so again. Heck, on that note, the entire Balkans area is a valid possibility. What of Bangladesh, a failed state by about any standard, with a substantial majority of Muslims.

I thought you might be wrong on Bangladesh due to it's being near a Hindu state of India.

But your right ... only 16% is Hindu and 83% is Muslim.

http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/36.htm (http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/36.htm)


Nearly 83 percent of the population of Bangladesh claimed Islam as its religion in the 1980s, giving the country one of the largest concentrations of Muslims in the world.

[CaptainHaplo]

Geetrue, your correct when you post about the accuracy that our submariners can hit land targets. The ability of the Navy to affect sites on land has been critical in our warplans over the last few decades.

Its just unfortunate that hitting a target isn't enough to root out these guys, unless you kill all of them in a meeting. Our intel still lacks the ability to identify and distill this information as it stands.

I also appreciate the fact you went and verified facts. I have been wrong before, as we all have to some extent. Researching things for yourself gives you the most informed views. Wish others were as astute!

[AVGWarhawk]

Edit: Wrong thread.

[Tribesman]

What about Bolivia in South America? Indeed , what about Bolivia in South America, that notorious hotbed of islamic extremism.
While it is true that since February this year Catholicism is no longer the official state religion christianity in its various flavour remains the main flavour, overwhelmingly so.
There is religious problems though and some disagreements, apparently between the Vatican and indiginous religions, just like most of the political arguements are about indiginous issues and land/mineral rights.
Then again its not surprising Bolivia is becoming a hotbed of islamic extreemism as nearly 3% of the population isn't christian.
Then again if you take all the muslims add them to all the Jews Bhuddists Shinto and baha'i then you get the amazing figure of less than 0.2% of the population.

The leadership of both countries are very chum chum with Iran, which is one of the major sources of real FUNDING of islamic extremism.
Oh dear , it may have escaped your notice but according to the islamic extremists the people of Iran and the theocracy in Iran are dirty heretics who must be converted or slain in the name of fundamentalist goodness:rotfl2:

[August]

Oh dear , it may have escaped your notice but according to the islamic extremists the people of Iran and the theocracy in Iran are dirty heretics who must be converted or slain in the name of fundamentalist goodness:rotfl2:

Reminds me of an Emo Phillips joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of God, or are you reformed Baptist church of God?"
He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

[CaptainHaplo]

Argh August. I put someone on the ignore list so I don't see the "well I have to find SOME way of claiming anyone that disagrees with my view is wrong, even when my point lacks any basis in fact, because I am just contrary like that" :doh: - and then you go and quote the troll - which I do see ROFL!!!

The moral for me? If people feed trolls, you can't escape them! :rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

The moral for me?
The moral for Haplo is that the ignore function doesn't prevent people pointing out absolute nonsense he has written when he writes it.

I mean seriously, Haplo cannot tell the difference between shia and sunni and comes out with absolute crap about a center of islamic fundamentalism existing in a country that has practicly no muslim population at all.

Though it has been educational, very educational.
The lesson being that when Haplo uses CAPS LOCK it means he is making things up.... which as a good "christian" he shouldn't do:yeah:

[August]

Argh August. I put someone on the ignore list so I don't see the "well I have to find SOME way of claiming anyone that disagrees with my view is wrong, even when my point lacks any basis in fact, because I am just contrary like that" :doh: - and then you go and quote the troll - which I do see ROFL!!!

The moral for me? If people feed trolls, you can't escape them! :rotfl2:

Sorry! :DL I'll try not to do it again.

[onelifecrisis]

Yeah!
If you can't beat 'em, ignore 'em!
Shut out those voices of reason at all costs!
Long live ignorance and closed-mindedness!
Hurrah!

[CaptainHaplo]

OLC..... you disappoint me. While we disagree on a number of topics, you have usually proven to be rather reasonable. I went so far as to read what Tribesman had posted, and as usual it was an opinion formed at a glance, without any real research. My post differed from his fairy foo foo world, so he attempted to ridicule it without enough knowledge to be taken seriously.

When I debate a point, I am willing to post sources upon which my information is based. Why? Because - as Geetrue showed on his own - information is what allows you and I and everyone else to have INFORMED, EDUCATED views. If I am asked where my views come from on an issue, I can provide the foundations for those views. I have, over numerous "debates" with Tribesman, attempted to have him do the same. He has consistently refused to back his views with any modicum of reasonable data, instead resorting to name calling and emoticons instead. Thus, debating him is a waste of time and energy, because he refuses to present a cogent arguement that can be logically traced. Instead, he has personally, and on 2 occasions, stated that I "lie" or "make stuff up" because he cannot refute the arguement with real data. So call me closedminded for refusing to continue to feed his trollish actions if you wish.

Now you accuse me of "shutting out the voice of reason" and remaining in "ignorance".

The issues I raised are simple "what if" scenarios based on what is currently known of data around the world. On the issue of Bolivia, I do realize that less than one tenth of one percent of its citizenry is currently Muslim (that we know of). However, I brought them up not on some "reach" - but because of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) report released on May 12, 2009 - which specifically ties some of the Muslim religious leadership to people and areas in which extremism is known to be sourced. In addition, some of these leaders also have advocated or supported violence by Muslims in places like the Palestinian Territories, as well as reaching out to grow Islam in their areas. Are they rampant extremist hideouts? No - not today. But with the economic ties Bolivia and Iran have, as well as the religious leadership ties to those who foster such extremists, it is highly possible that Bolivia may become a hot spot in the future. So I asked a hypothetical question based upon a distinct outcome of reasonable plausability.

Realize this isn't some "BUSH" report - but a report put together by the DNI under President Obama. They felt it necessary to put forth effort to do the research, and it shows there is a concern. Its also worth noting I only see the publicly released document, just as you or anyone else can. If you know anything about intel work, there is ALOT more data that is not available to the general public, so the mere existence of the report indicates that those in the know are keeping an eye out.

If you want to see it yourself, just click: www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/bolivia.pdf (http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/bolivia.pdf)

I don't claim its an immediate danger. I simply ask the question - what if. Some folks at the DNI are looking at that same question. But I am, according to you, out to "ignore" a voice of knowledge. Well, I suspect that the DNI probably knows more about it than you, me or Tribesman - and they are asking questions.

You also assert that "if you can't beat em, ignore em". First of all, its not a contest. If folks want to choose not to do research, not to learn, and instead stay in their own little world thinking that what they are told is perfectly correct, then I won't waste my time. I don't need to "beat" Tribesman, nor do I care to. Facts beat Tribesman. They just happen to be on my side most of the time. Not my fault. But you can go his route and mock others, or you can return to the person I have so far seen - one willing to defend his views, as well as look at the views of others when well presented, and use that process to either rethink your view, or refine your own position.

But until Tribesman can present rational, sourced arguements of his own, instead of posturing, speaking without a willingness to provide his sources of data, and when failing to make headway - resorting to personal attacks instead of reponsible and respectful debate, he will remain ignored by me. Sorry if that bugs you, but I choose not to waste my energy on trying to help him grow.

[nikimcbee]

I'm more curious how to win there? Obama policy aside, what would it take to win there? There's no infastructure to attack, they're already in the stone age, I'm not paying them off not to attack anybody?

Totally isolate them? If that is there islamic utopia they want, let them have it. Maybe we could arm eveybody overthere and let all those petty warlords have at each other.:yawn:

I'm frankly sick of that whole region

[CaptainHaplo]

Before you can decide what it would take to win - you have to define what "win" means.

Is it a stable Afghani government that can maintain its own security?

Is it the total destruction of Islamic Extremism?

Is it the death of Osama Bin Laden?

Is it al-Qaeda and the Taliban weakened to the point that they must evacuate Afghanistan entirely?

Is it dismantling any associated terror groups?

The same issue was what was brought up with Bush, and to be frank, he never answered the question either. Alot of folks see this as a continuation of the Bush "direction" - or lack thereof - because there has been no real definition of what "victory" means.

I will say his speech made it clear that it goes beyond Afghanistan however.

[Skybird]

"Win" now means: getting out and saving as much of your face as possible. Achieving objectives that would last for longer than just a forseeable time is not seriously on the table anymore.

For Obama it also means: getting US troops out and have European troops to take over. He even campaigned with that argument - which earned him some first frowns in Paris and Berlin. I am sure he still feels surprised why his latest call for NATO troops has meet cold feelings in both capitals, therefore.

My own interest already has left Afghanistan behind. The place is doomed since 30 years, and it will not be any better off in another 30 years. What really worries me is what there will be done with Pakistan.

[onelifecrisis]

<deleted>

No comment.

[geetrue]

I think we should let the troops stay in Afgahistan come July 2011 and let Obama go home to Hawaii early ...

Plus we would save a lot of money with 30k troops costing 3 billion a year to over a trillion a year for Obama. :O:

[Tribesman]

I went so far as to read what Tribesman had posted, and as usual it was an opinion formed at a glance, without any real research.
Research? wow 1000 muslims, a Palestinian who thinks armed struggle in Palestine is legitimate, a bloke who knows someone who may be a terrorist suspect, a saudi magazine that said they should work with human rights groups and a article that says muslims may be converting.
Yeah you really hit a nail there with Bolivia.
You should have gone with Argentina if you wanted credibility , at least then you would be talking of a population that is a step above miniscule and you could actually find some real examples of extremism.
so he attempted to ridicule it without enough knowledge to be taken seriously.

Can you possibly contend that any of what I wrote in relation to your post is not based on fact and knowledge of the facts?
If you want I can further rip into your nonsense about the Balkans as your writing on that region in that post is also so full of holes its pretty ridiculous

Oh and.....
They felt it necessary to put forth effort to do the research, and it shows there is a concern. Its also worth noting I only see the publicly released document, just as you or anyone else can
:rotfl2:
wow the agency that covers everything in the public domain worldwide found some stuff in the public domain.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well - Afghanistan - and the rest of the middle east, must remain an "interest" to those of us who study geopolitics. It has been, is and probably will be for a long time - a powder keg waiting to go off.

[Tribesman]

Well - Afghanistan - and the rest of the middle east, must remain an "interest" to those of us who study geopolitics. It has been, is and probably will be for a long time - a powder keg waiting to go off.

Don't forget Equador, thats a real powder keg of Islamic extremism too.
It has even less Muslims than Bolivia so it must be a bigger problem, especially as the assemblies of god are on a big conversion drive which is a real threat to the tiny number of Muslims in the country. As such it will undoubtably radicalise one or two of them, or maybe even all three and they will take over the country and threaten the free world.
Remain focused on the geopolitical reality of Latin America and the upcoming caliphate.

[Onkel Neal]

Well - Afghanistan - and the rest of the middle east, must remain an "interest" to those of us who study geopolitics. It has been, is and probably will be for a long time - a powder keg waiting to go off.

Agreed. It will be many years before they evolve socially to the level where they don't take their religon so fanatically and can fit into modern society. But there is hope, such as these brave protesters in Iran. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120801388.html)

[Catfish]

Hello,

if i remember right, a long time ago one of the then officials in Afghanistan asked the US to stay, and help. The "answer" of the american ambassador was short "Do you have anything to trade in for - resources ? No ? Bye.."

Then the US left, and Russia overtook in a way, killing more people, also certainly lots of its own army. At that time the US supported Mr. Osama BinLaden heavily with all kinds of ammunition, against the bad russians.

Now i wonder why they did it then, other than for strategical reasons ?
What is the strategical role of Afghanistan (Against China? Russia?), if there isn't anything else ? Ah, Drugs .. :shifty:

But really, why did the US get involved again ? To chase one man and a few followers ? The real homestead has been somehow left out, like Saudi Arabia. But there's maybe a reason..

Greetings,
Catfish

[Onkel Neal]

We want their poppy fields!

[Snestorm]

We want their poppy fields!

Agreed.

Also. The article link you posted (Washington Times) was very interesting.
Maybe we'll all get lucky, and they can fix there problems, so their people will want to remain in their own country, and those that left will have an incentive to go home.

High unemployment + immigration = big longterm problems.

[goldorak]

Hello,

if i remember right, a long time ago one of the then officials in Afghanistan asked the US to stay, and help. The "answer" of the american ambassador was short "Do you have anything to trade in for - resources ? No ? Bye.."

Then the US left, and Russia overtook in a way, killing more people, also certainly lots of its own army. At that time the US supported Mr. Osama BinLaden heavily with all kinds of ammunition, against the bad russians.

Now i wonder why they did it then, other than for strategical reasons ?
What is the strategical role of Afghanistan (Against China? Russia?), if there isn't anything else ? Ah, Drugs .. :shifty:


You said it for geo-strategical reasons.
Fight those ugly commies if not directly as in Vietnam then through incentives to islamic fanatics that decades after would haunt the west. Isn't it ironic ?


But really, why did the US get involved again ? To chase one man and a few followers ? The real homestead has been somehow left out, like Saudi Arabia. But there's maybe a reason..
Greetings,
Catfish

Yeah, somehow everyone conveniently forgot just from which country all the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Hint it was not from Afghanistan. It was Saudi Arabia that financed unhindered large sections of the islamic fanatics not only in their own country but other islamic countries as well. Always follow the money and the trail was clear -> Saudi Arabia.
But the terrorist acts were so "mediatic" that somehow chasing a single man was not deemed enough and therefore lets blame the Talibans (easy target) and off the US went in central asia.
It would have been more productive to actually bring the full force of the US on Saudi Arabia but of course it was impossibile to do as long as the US depends on SA for its energetic needs.
Saudi Arabia and its wahabite islamic doctrine is the most radical view you will find in the islamic world.

[Skybird]

Tja, Saudi Arabia... America...

the biggest oil producer in the world... and the biggest oil consumer in the world...

"Wa-has soll das be-hedeuten, ehes taget ja-ha schon..." :woot:

[ETR3(SS)]

You said it for geo-strategical reasons.
Fight those ugly commies if not directly as in Vietnam then through incentives to islamic fanatics that decades after would haunt the west. Isn't it ironic ?



Yeah, somehow everyone conveniently forgot just from which country all the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Hint it was not from Afghanistan. It was Saudi Arabia that financed unhindered large sections of the islamic fanatics not only in their own country but other islamic countries as well. Always follow the money and the trail was clear -> Saudi Arabia.
But the terrorist acts were so "mediatic" that somehow chasing a single man was not deemed enough and therefore lets blame the Talibans (easy target) and off the US went in central asia.
It would have been more productive to actually bring the full force of the US on Saudi Arabia but of course it was impossibile to do as long as the US depends on SA for its energetic needs.
Saudi Arabia and its wahabite islamic doctrine is the most radical view you will find in the islamic world.You've got the story pretty much right, except for the blaming the Taliban part. We knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan, he claimed the credit and we wanted his ass. Determined not to let him slip through our grasp again, we told the Taliban that we knew bin Laden was there and to hand him over. Of course they refused, being somewhat of the local hero he is there. So again came the call to turn him over "or else." The rest of the story we all know. Our motivation for taking out the Taliban was that they were aiding bin Laden and in doing so condemned themselves to the wrath of a freshly pissed off USA.

[goldorak]

You've got the story pretty much right, except for the blaming the Taliban part. We knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan, he claimed the credit and we wanted his ass. Determined not to let him slip through our grasp again, we told the Taliban that we knew bin Laden was there and to hand him over. Of course they refused, being somewhat of the local hero he is there. So again came the call to turn him over "or else." The rest of the story we all know. Our motivation for taking out the Taliban was that they were aiding bin Laden and in doing so condemned themselves to the wrath of a freshly pissed off USA.

Yes you are correct.
Bin Laden as head of Al-Quaeda is if not the material responsabile than the moral responsabile for the terrorists attacks and he was supported by the Taliban regime. So aprehending him and eliminating the Taliban was important on a symbolic plane. Because we can be sure that wether Bin Laden is alive or dead it will have absolutely no consequence on the islamic terrorists if they are still being founded/greased by saudi arabian money.
What I question is wether the deployment of a whole army was the right thing to do. Its like trying to kill a fly with a 10 ton bulldozer (and Bin Laden is still at large so the goal of aprehending and bringing him to justice is not yet fullfilled).

[CaptainHaplo]

The situation in "pre-russian" afghanistan - and the region - was much different than it is today.

The Russian invasion of 1979 - and our arming of the resistance - predates Pakistan having nuclear weapons. It was not until 1983 that Pakistan had a functional nuclear weapon.

Thus, an "extremist" muslim power in Afghanistan (as was there with the Taliban), and its cross border ties into (and violence within) Pakistan - represent a substantially different set of equations and risks than it used to.

The reality is that this policy is going to do one thing - it will show us whether Pakistan is truly a "moderate" islamic country, or whether they are in fact tacitly aiding as much as they can the "extremists". I won't tell you where my money is on that bet.

[Skybird]

it will show us whether Pakistan is truly a "moderate" islamic country,
Have I missed something? It never was!

[CaptainHaplo]

I said it sarcastically - however there are many in political leadership roles in the US and in Europe that want to convince everyone (likely including themselves) that Pakistan is indeed "moderate" in its faith. They fail to see that just because it is not a theocracy doesn't mean it is not supportive (though it keeps such support as hidden as possible) of extremism.

[gutted]

Well, what did you think of the speech?

i quit listening to them many months ago

[gutted]

Before you can decide what it would take to win - you have to define what "win" means.

Is it a stable Afghani government that can maintain its own security?

Is it the total destruction of Islamic Extremism?

Is it the death of Osama Bin Laden?

Is it al-Qaeda and the Taliban weakened to the point that they must evacuate Afghanistan entirely?

Is it dismantling any associated terror groups?

The same issue was what was brought up with Bush, and to be frank, he never answered the question either. Alot of folks see this as a continuation of the Bush "direction" - or lack thereof - because there has been no real definition of what "victory" means.

I will say his speech made it clear that it goes beyond Afghanistan however.


IMO, as long as we're killing the would be terrorists "over there" it's a win.

But, yes.. there needs to be a clear definition, with a direction towards it.

Sending in less troops than was ordered however... and giving a date of withdrawal is not the way to win anything. You only encourage the enemy to wait you out.

Why even send 30,000 more if you are going to tell the enemy when you are leaving? Why put them in harms way? What kind of slap in the face is it to one of those 30,000 to have to go risk his life needlessly, if we're going to be pulling out whether the job is complete or not anyway?

It just highlights the arrogance, naivete, and amatuerishness of this administration.

Just like "We're going to close Gitmo in one year. I don't know how we're going to do it, or what we're going to do with them.. but we're going to do it."

Ok.. umm ... why?

[Platapus]

Sending in less troops than was ordered however... and giving a date of withdrawal is not the way to win anything. You only encourage the enemy to wait you out.



That would actually be a good thing. If the Taliban decides to do nothing but wait us out, it will give the AF government time to get their forces up.

We should use any trick we can to convince the Taliban not to attack now. It will not be time wasted and it will be easier to train up the AF forces if they are not being constantly attacked.

So yes, I hope the Taliban think the way you do. That is just what we want them to do.

[Fincuan]

That would actually be a good thing. If the Taliban decides to do nothing but wait us out, it will give the AF government time to get their forces up.

We should use any trick we can to convince the Taliban not to attack now. It will not be time wasted and it will be easier to train up the AF forces if they are not being constantly attacked.

So yes, I hope the Taliban think the way you do. That is just what we want them to do.

Or it goes like the British withrawal from Aden in the 1960's: The local population doesn't really thinkg the government's forces up to the job, and correctly deduce that supporting the Brits now means a bullet in the head later-on when they've pulled out. As a result the support for the Brits plunged and outbursts and violence against them increased. They managed to hold the country together almost until the pre-designated date, but when they finally pulled out, a bit early, the People's Republic of South Yemen was declared the next day.

That's why I always think setting a fixed withrawal date is a bad idea if the local forces aren't in tip-top shap to handle the situation and the local government isn't in much better shape either.

[Tribesman]

That would actually be a good thing.
You mean like in Iraq where they paid the Sunni militia to be quiet so they could get the Iraqi forces out working and then get on with pulling out themselves.
It was quite tight though as Bush stuck with that deadline and wouldn't take the option that could have given him a better deal

[Skybird]

I said it sarcastically - however there are many in political leadership roles in the US and in Europe that want to convince everyone (likely including themselves) that Pakistan is indeed "moderate" in its faith.
What do you think, how are their chances to convince me? :D

[Skybird]

Or it goes like the British withrawal from Aden in the 1960's: The local population doesn't really thinkg the government's forces up to the job, and correctly deduce that supporting the Brits now means a bullet in the head later-on when they've pulled out. As a result the support for the Brits plunged and outbursts and violence against them increased. They managed to hold the country together almost until the pre-designated date, but when they finally pulled out, a bit early, the People's Republic of South Yemen was declared the next day.

That's why I always think setting a fixed withrawal date is a bad idea if the local forces aren't in tip-top shap to handle the situation and the local government isn't in much better shape either.

Karsai has arranged himself comfortably with being suported and protected by wetsern soldiers. His own family is in the drug trade, and the leadership and poltical class in general is corrupt, with many warlords additonally cooking their own soup. So, setting up a date until they must have gotten their homework fixed sounds liike a good idea.

Unfortunately I think that the options and capacities of any central government in Kabul always will be overestimated. Sooner or later any government in the coming years probably will end like Nadjibullah after the Soviet era. Holding out a little time while his alliances get bought off (alliances never lasts long in Afghanistan), then getting overrun.

[Onkel Neal]

Did anyone catch Obama's Nobel acceptance speech? I found it very intruiging, and this piece covers some of the points. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588320513095910.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)


Thursday, at his Nobel laureate speech in Oslo, the president used an audience of European leftists to place himself smack-dab in the American center. He said, essentially: War is bad but sometimes justified, America is good, and I am an American. He spoke of Afghanistan as "a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries—including Norway—in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks." Adroit, that "including Norway." He said he had "an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict" and suggested America's efforts in Afghanistan fit the criterion of the concept of a "just war." It continues to be of great value that a modern, left-leaning American president speaks in this way to the world. "The world" didn't seem to enjoy it, and burst into applause a resounding once.

He quoted Martin Luther King, when he received the Peace Prize: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." But Mr. Obama added that "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation," he could not be guided only by Dr. King's example. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people." Evil exists: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."

He acknowledged Europe's "ambivalence" about military action, and "a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower." But the world should remember what America did during and after World War II. "It is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers," he said—and he pointedly noted America's creation of the Marshall Plan and contribution to the United Nations, "a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud. . . . Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

"Evil does exist in the world," he says. Yep, I think Mr. Bush made that case too. So, in this conservative's eyes, I have to say that his speech does add some merit to his winning the Peace Prize--essentially, he "discovered his inner Bush" and schools the world community on a muscular defence of just wars. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6795571/Barack-Obama-becomes-an-American-president.html):salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

I agree in part with you Neal. In those times when I see him act this way, as a realist, I am reassured. At the least the guy isn't totally blind, and when he gets something right, I will say so.

In those comments - he was right. Well Done, Mr. President.

Just out of curiosity - anyone notice that after these coments - his approval rating had a slight rise?