That said, I thought the speech was good.
Obama's Speech on Afghanistan - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
citi.zen
2509 Posts
That said, I thought the speech was good. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
| ||
baal
10486 Posts
On December 02 2009 12:19 motbob wrote: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to. WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!! now go invade Afghanistan, those evil evil Muslim crazy terrorist extremist suicide rag headed baddies hate our freedom!!! spread democracy around the world, look how you freed Iraq. | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 02 2009 14:32 motbob wrote: I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it. Correlation does not imply causation. The decreased troop deaths aren't necessarily a product of the surge. Remember that al-Sadr had already defeated the Sunnis by the time of the US Surge, so the surge hit a practically unified Baghdad. All the soldiers did was say "hey al-Sadr, tell your guys to lay down your arms kthx", and in March 2008, fighting stopped. No more sectarian violence all thanks to ethnic cleansing done before hand. | ||
gchan
United States654 Posts
On December 02 2009 13:13 Disregard wrote: I dont think we can compare this to Vietnam, that period was way different. Plus the fact that we were cleaning up France's mess. | ||
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On December 02 2009 13:22 synapse wrote: Yep, that's how it works. The traits that make a good politician - decisiveness, confidence, etc. - all make them terrible people. Apparently that's one of the reasons you find so many politicians cheating with le womens nowadays: cuz they have a mindset of "i am right." People who think and are open minded make bad politicians. I'd be willing to bet that politicians cheat no more than regular people. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 02 2009 11:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: Quoting Just because this needs to be seen Please stop yelling incoherently. This clip is blatantly out of context. Which war is he talking about? Probably the one he voted against. :\ | ||
Savio
United States1850 Posts
"The bad news is that if there are complications, and we are not done by 2:00pm, we are going to leave your chest wide open and leave the OR, cause this isn't an open-ended committment on our part" This is essentially what putting timelines for departures are. It puts a date as a higher priority than other possible goals such as success, or even just stability or anything else. Apparently the war in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" but winning or even achieving any other goal is not a necessity. Pretty weird to me. Essentially what I think this was was a compromise trying to please everyone but going to please no on and has little chance of success. To please the moderates and keep his campaign promise, "We will send more troops". To please the Left that threatens him daily, "but we will put a timeline on and withdraw no matter what by this date". It irks me that his focus is not on achieving anything. If you want to win then just plan for a win and don't bother with a "read the future" date. If you want to be out of Afghanistan, then just pull out. He seriously needs to grow some [add what you want here] and start acting like a man and take a stance and stick to it. | ||
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
Putting more resources into Afghanistan has been on the agenda from the get-go, the question has been about how much resources, where the money would go, and what the people would be doing. Since the election the situation has been constantly changing, making those decisions harder to make. Pakistan has put increased pressure on the AfPak border, which is what we wanted, but has also incited more violence from the Pakistani taliban, whos regular attacks in Pakistan are destabilizing the country. Afghanistan had a national election which has been widely accepted as a complete fraud. Iraqi law has given military control to the Iraqi government, taking immense amount of media exposure off of Iraq, which despite what some people think, is still struggling (a strong insurgency still exists, and there are ongoing political battles with the Kurds that could potentially divide the country). Those changes have been coupled with Obama having to navigate strong political debate about the conflict, while managing a battered economy and trying to push through a massive health care bill (slight side bar, sorry). Point being, the delay about the Afghan decision isn't because he has "flip flopped" on some non-existent anti war stance, or that he is indecisive, it is because he has had to deal with changing realities in deciding between multiple bad options. It is widely believed that the only 2 options for Afghanistan are to go all in or get the hell out. This logic assumes that the counter-terrorism strategy(having minimal presence in the country while chasing down terrorists with drones) will not work. Which seems to be reasonable because it is what we have done for 7 years, and we have gotten no where. Also, because our ability to chase down the terrorists relies on human information, which is hard to get when the local population does not trust you and that trust deteriorates with civilian casualties. The "all-in" strategy is a population centric counter-insurgency strategy that involves going into large populated areas and protecting the population so that they can begin functioning as a society without fear of the taliben, and they can begin trusting us. This was what we did with the "surge" in Iraq. The success of the surge has given a lot of credit to counter insurgency(COIN), and the people (advisers, military officers, politicians,etc...) that implemented the COIN strategy are the people pushing for that strategy to be applied to Afghanistan. Critics rightly point out that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. Prior to our invasion, Iraq had advanced infrastructure in place, with effective national organization. Afghanistan is as "backwards" as countries come, and has had no real effective national government for over 30 years. Effectively applying a COIN strategy would technically (technically based on suggested troop to population ratios) require something like another 400,00-600,000 troops. Obviously, this number is no where in the national debate and isn't considered acceptable by anyone. So even our best shot at stabilizing Afghanistan (executing a COIN strategy effectively) is an option that is 1) not going to happen to its most effective degree,and 2) is still a fairly murky option. The get out of dodge option means giving up on 8 years of war without any real progress, without meeting any objectives, without accomplishing our original goals. I don't think the national debate has the stomach for that. But more importantly, getting out of Afghanistan means that the already destabilized Pakistan will be at greater risk. Pakistan was one of the few governments to recognize the Taliban as a government, but mostly because they didn't want an India friendly country on their other border. Since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pakistan relationship with the Afghan Taliban has become ambiguous. At the same time that the Paki intelligence service is apparently giving information to the Afghan Taliban, they are fighting the Pakistan Taliban. 2 groups with a different base of leaders, but who work closely together in the FATA of Pakistan. Is the U.S. backed out of Afghanistan, the Taliban would be able to regain control of most of the country fairly quickly (whether or not they can run the country is a different matter). What effect would that have on the stability of Pakistan, a country sitting on nuclear weapons? If we let that happen, how would that impact our relationship with other allies? How could we effectively execute a COIN strategy in the future, if the population feels like we are just going to back out on them? How would that impact the Islamic extremist movement? Would it build momentum? Would that create a threat to us? This was a very difficult decision for anyone to make. Personally, I don't know what decision I would have made, but I have enough respect for the people making the decisions to trust that it was the best decision given our options. Ultimately how successful this increase of troops is depends on what they do and how effectively they do it. Gaining and holding the Helmund and Kandahar province from the Taliban and effectively training the Afghan security force by 2011 seems like a tall task. I am not sure if another 30,000 troops is enough to make it happen. On the same token there was equal amounts of skepticism about the surge in Iraq. At this point we can only wait and hope for the best. | ||
baal
10486 Posts
On December 02 2009 14:32 motbob wrote: I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it. For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine. For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now. | ||
baal
10486 Posts
On December 02 2009 16:00 EatThePath wrote: Please stop yelling incoherently. This clip is blatantly out of context. Which war is he talking about? Probably the one he voted against. :\ the one he promised to end as soon as he took office... the one he hasnt ended after 1 year of presidency and the one that still looks like it wont be over any soon. | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On December 02 2009 16:36 baal wrote: For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine. For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now. Unfortunately the government, which the people elected democratically, don't want us to leave immediately. But I guess they're controlled by big oil, or something. | ||
underscore
252 Posts
| ||
Velr
Switzerland10406 Posts
Making a huge mess out of the whole country (not that it was any good before). Leaving because it costs to much? Is that what you guys want? Sorry, this War has to be finished, not abandoned because you don't feel it necessary anymore. You went in there now deal with it and stop the crying, you should have cried before the war started. | ||
Deviation
United States134 Posts
| ||
tinman
United States287 Posts
On December 02 2009 16:53 Deviation wrote: What do you think would happen if fundamentalist Christians gained power in the US and had the power to crush any opposition? The apocalypse, of course. They would rape every baby in the world and crucify all dissenters and reinstate slavery and fuck goats and puppies and the mentally infirm and plunge the universe into a second Dark Age. Duh. Personally I fear fundamentalism slightly more than the political clout of transnational corporations and slightly less than secret cabals of Jews and the New World Order. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
edit: or just read TeCh)PsylO a few posts up, especially the last paragraph. 1. As you grow older, you will more and more be at peace with the cynical regard required to keep emotional sanity in the contemporary world. This is to say, through historical experience one develops a complacent attitude towards the obvious viewpoint: "everything is fucked up", because it's really hard to be a genuine cheerleader in a world of recessions, global warming, sweatshops, nuclear proliferation, etc. At the same time, hopefully one comes to the realization that maintaining a pointed edge on that attitude is naive, and often counterproductive. Ragging on politicians is something everyone goes through, I guess, but you're really missing the forest for the trees if you think the class of people, "politician", has an inherent moral or spiritual shortcoming or whathaveyou. Certainly the world is full of assholes, and the job description and game rules do tend to select for the ripest of the bunch. But unless you are crazy you will admit that many people elected to office started because they wanted to effect a positive change in their world, and they made the effort to get into office. Usually you have to kill picture perfect ideals in order to actually get anything done, and so it goes. Asking for anything else is wishful (perhaps not impossible) thinking. Condemning the personal compromise and sacrifice of direction that many "decent" polticians exhibit is unrealistic, and it's a sort of hypocrisy. Like it or not, politicians perform a service, which is to carry out the administration of a government. If you live in a democracy, you may actually have some opportunities to change the things you don't like, either through voting, or politicking yourself! A friend of mine has a saying. The people in charge are the ones who show up. If you could do a better job, and you really care about it that much, YOU SHOULD. The world has never been a pretty place, but I hope the reader agrees the overall trajectory of civilization has been progress. And, in fact, at no point previously has their been more traction for any given citizen wanting to change the course of history, given the class mobility, educational opportunity, potential to acquire capital, information prevalence, political freedom and regularly tilled institutional authority we may bask in, relative to 100 years, 200 years, 1000 years ago. I guess to sum up, words are cheap; complaining about "those people" is easy and skirts the issue. It's hard to paint precise lines around selfishness and selflessness, to put a rubric around what it means to live decently, to live a decent life. What do YOU want out of all this? And are you going about getting it done as best you can? Personally I lean towards less howling and more analysis. 2. You are the president. You are the president! Right now you are taking the opportunity to end your country's involvement in a war you never supported, and which is publicly all but condemned, but was nevertheless ongoing when you took office. So we're leaving Iraq. Now, you have this other war in Afghanistan... Your general, the guy who is actually running the show there, says he can win if he gets more troops. Let's assume you can trust what your general says. A lot of people at home want there to be no more troops there, though. And every other option in between being advised from all manner of astute observers who may or may not have vested interests™. Despite all that, there are some things to keep in mind, bigger picture: there are two up and coming powers in the region, India and China. We would like them to succeed in entering the first world smoothly and in our image, yes? (Peaceable (ha, i know), prosperous, free, democratic, socially progressive). One of them sort of has our financial balls, btw, though it's a bit of a two way street. Iran wants to have nukes. They are not loudmouthed, they have elements who genuinely would pull the trigger or hold that contingency ransom. Iran is kind of in the neighborhood of the up and comers. That whole neighborhood has been pretty dicey for a while now. What are we doing? Drowning in rising oceans? Running out of gasoline and plastic? Or unifying, going to Mars, raising the global standard of living, cool stuff like that? So what happens if we just split in Afghanistan. Pakistan has real troubles in that case, and they do have some nukes already, and they have been barely holding onto legitimate non-fascist government for a while. Next to Iran, who wants nukes, and is some weird fascist democratic hybrid. Who is next to Iraq, which is kind of in tatters and might go anarchy if you lean on the wall incorrectly, despite our best efforts and their recent measure of improvement. Who is next to some palestinians still angry with Israel and vice versa. Which is near Georgia where Russia is, among other places, having flashbacks of empire. There are lots of ways things get ugly if instability in Afghanistan spreads, or worse they have an outright enemy or outlaw government. Is some clusterfuck scenario guaranteed to happen? No, of course not. Would you like to gamble against any number of plausible bad scenarios? What's the price? You're the president. Your job, sort of first and foremost, is direct foreign policy, protect the U.S. How many troops will die. How much deficit will be incurred. Will you lose the support of the international community, in various arenas? Environmental pacts. Will you lose the support of factions at home? Health care. Economic reconstitution. Another term in office? How many troops will die. This is to say, put yourself in those shoes. The president is not an idiot, I assume you aren't either. At meetings in the oval office, concerns about dwindling clout in the senate are omnipresent, but when you're deciding to recommit to a war, they are not as prominent as trying to grasp the long range implications of how the outcomes, and their chances of occurence, will affect the world and its future. There are enormous things at play. The points our asinine excuse for journalistic media keep reiterating, like what joe or jane house member thinks should happen, are not what's in the oval office. The veritable landscape of the global future, and our place in it, is in the oval office. Obama has selected the option that he believes is most profitable (I don't mean $), and I don't think more than 10% of that calculus had anything to do with day to day domestic politics. The presentation of that decision had everything to do with day to day politics, and I mean in an ongoing sense, not just this one speech. Don't confuse deep intentions with apparent actions. | ||
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
| ||
| ||