Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joegrundman
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GoldenRivet
Lets look at it this way.
If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.
But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.
Same thing with the Taliban.
Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.
It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.
I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.
|
boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.
I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion. |
you misunderstand my argument i think.
Obviously the strategy applies to both theaters of conflict... however, this is not forming a strong, lasting, firm alliance with any one party which is what i think - if we are going to "reach out to them" is exactly what needs to be done - but i think one would have a hard time forming such an alliance with such people as the Taliban
the most radical reversal of policy IMHO - is taking 30+ years of "we dont negoatiate with terrorists" and spinning it around to "ok we will talk"
the slap in the face of it the way i see it is - i think in the article Obama should have been less quick to jump on the "we are losing the fight" band waggon.
look back to prior wars, i cant think of many leaders who have put forth such a defeatist attitude.
policies change and adapt... but what im referring to as a slap in the face is the defeatist attitude we have seen from the white house the past couple of months. not only defeatist on the economy but the war as well.
EDIT:
about leadership, an airline captain i am good friends with who also happens to be a former Air Force LC and Marine - his words are spot on about Obama and they include:
"Never dilute the hopes of your followers no matter how dire the situation."
"As a leader, people look to you whether
you realize it or not, and whether
they realize it or not... the attitude of a
single man or a
group of men can be radically changed by the characteristics he sees in his leader."