|
What on earth does it matter if Obama lied told the truth? That has absolutely nothing to do with the matters at hand and you're blinding yourself if you're arguing over something so meaningless.
The reality is that we're sending even more troops into a country we've killed thousands of people in and are currently occupying by military force.
Seriously, let's be realistic here. You had a 0% chance a president was going to be elected that would immediately end our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I voted for Obama myself, but it was a clear 'lesser of evils' vote in many ways.
On December 02 2009 12:19 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 12:15 baal wrote:On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years. Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htmThere'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.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
At the least, I think you should reconsider your rhetoric in calling Iraq a 'wild success' or anything even close to that. It's extremely insulting to the many, many people who have died for no purpose whatsoever. And sadly, we don't even really know how many they number since we've either been undercounting or completely negligent toward civilian casualties since day 1.
On December 03 2009 03:41 On_Slaught wrote: I'm not going to take a stance one way or another on Obamas decision BUT keep one thing in mind...
As the President of the United States, Obama has access to information vastly beyond what we know, and what the public in general knows. Often we will see Presidents change their opinion on issues once they get into office. Perhaps they have new people whispering in their ears? Dunno. But one thing i'd bet on is the fact they have a wealth of new information to base their decisions on which will result on, sometimes, strange choices in our eyes.
Since every single person here is talking from at least partial, all the way up to complete, ignorance makes debating this pretty moot.
This is the kind of nonsense that caused the Iraq War in the first place. People believed Bush because he supposedly had some evidence and intelligence that none of us could have, being the president. Of course, it all turned out to be lies, but why try to learn something from the situation? Let's just call him a bad apple and continue believing the general public cannot make educated decisions on foreign policy.
|
On December 03 2009 05:40 QibingZero wrote: Let's just call him a bad apple and continue believing the general public cannot make educated decisions on foreign policy.
Mostly because of what I have seen produced by the initiative system in Ohio, I doubt the ability of the general public to make an educated decision on any matter of policy.
|
A foriegn policy of non-intervention is the only policy worth debating. It is my opinion that it should not be America's job to play peace keeper for the world. Our dollar is weakening(it's only worth 4 cents) with the burden being placed on the tax payer. Call me crazy but I hate knowing my tax money is being used to send American's to they're death's. Not to mention all of the innocent people that have been killed on the other side. And we wonder why Muslims dislike the West.
There is no clear objective any more in Afghanistan, maybe there never was one to begin with. If we did have an objective there would have been a declaration of war. "We're going to get the bad guy's and promote democracy!" isn't a good answer. What the U.S. gov. is doing is nation building(a.k.a. puppet gov), which is also just a nicer word for Imperialism. Anyone here who think's we need to finish the fight just to save face...you are so immature I don't even know if I should feel sorry for you. There is no end to justify the mean's for why we should send more troops to the Middle east. Bring our brother's and sister's home.
|
On December 02 2009 11:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Click here for change!
wow I really thought I would be rickrolled there, I guess that fad died out
|
i think Afghanistan has an extremely interesting war history which can be followed almost from the begining of civilization. It took Alexander roughly 3 years to defeat the largest empire till his time(Persia) then took him 4 years of brutal warfare and in the end genocide to reach some sort of ceasefire with the afghan tribes. Also its worth mentioning that in recent times the most powerful land army in the world in it's time (The Red Army had 64000 operational tanks in 1981, a numberthat to my knowledge has yet to be surpassed) broke it's teeth in afghanistan, which probably had to do alot with the American's "secretely" training afghans in all kinds of nasty guerilla warfare, which has come to bite them in the ass apparently since they're now sending 30000 more troops to fight the guys they trained 30 years ago. O a side note i think anybody who wants talk about American foreign policy should atleast read some of Chomsky's work even if he ends up disagreeing with him, Ifyou want to educate yourself on a subject it's a good idea to see what one of the world's leading intellectuals has to say about it first i think.
|
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
|
On December 04 2009 07:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote + I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run.
Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect.
|
Honestly, I am in favor of Obama's plan to send more troops, however, anyone who doesn't think that this is a blow to Obama's presidency is delusional.
The war overseas is expensive to run and America has been losing some of its foreign support. The plans that the Bush administration had doctored up detailed a scale back of the war effort by 2010, however, following the wake of the corruption in the Afghanistan elections earlier this year, the situation has taken a huge turn for the worse. Many of the private citizens in the more remote regions of Afghanistan have begun turning towards the Taliban for protection, the exact opposite of what we desired.
Now Obama is faced with the problem of running an escalating war effort in the face of Middle East tensions that have risen since the start of the Obama administration, particularly with regards to the Iran issue that took the spotlight a couple of months ago. This war effort will be costly and will surely detract from the public opinion of Obama.
Some people in this thread have commented that Obama is doing a good job because he has a planned date to start scaling back. But the truth is that our previous plans called for a military scale prior to the new planned date. And the worst part for Obama is that, while he had no control over the corruption in the Afghan elections, his inattentiveness to the situation is partially responsible for this crisis. Inattentiveness you say? As of September of 2009, Obama had only had exactly one meeting with his top military advisors to dictate the course of the war effort. (Source: Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran's appearance on Charlie Rose in September -- note: please do not post in reply to me without knowing who Charlie Rose is; that's like not knowing who McLaughlin is). Luckily for Obama, the media still views him favorably (had that been Bush, word of this failing would have created an enormous public relations disaster).
As I said, this is a huge setback to Obama's administration, but it's a necessary involvement. I would criticize that Obama's original objectives in Afghanistan were perhaps too broad reaching, but there's nothing he could have done about the Afghan elections, which served as the catalyst for the current situation and the true harbringer of the recent escalations in violence.
|
On December 04 2009 08:31 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 07:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely. You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
The real issue isn't what will end the war in the short term, but what is the best long term solution towards peace and stablity.
I agree that in retrospect that Iraq war was a huge mistake, but hindsight is twenty-twenty, and I supported it at the time based on what I knew.
But regardless of your beliefs of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, once we entered that country and toppled the government, we created a power vacuum, and the Middle East powers that stepped in to fill it were ones that I think quite clearly we would not want there. The decision to enter Iraq was a decision of choice, but the decision to stay and, at the very least, establish a capable force of Iraqi defenders (drawing from the local population) was one born of necessity. You're thinking in terms of just one country invading another, but in truth, once we invaded, and once there no longer was Saddam Hussein's regime in place, al Qaeda slipped in. (Yes, I am actually saying that Hussein had been doing something beneficial to us -- the exact opposite of what Bush had claimed -- and was keeping al Qaeda out of his country.) Leaving Iraq then would have caused yet more deaths and given al Qaeda more power. Are you saying that's okay because those deaths would not have been American soldiers?
I do not think we have a choice in our presence. What I do think is that our goals have been too broad reaching. The elimination of the al Qaeda threat is supposedly our main purpose over seas, but I see that issue as getting drowned out in the politics. Our main focus has been occupation when it should have been much more narrow. Al Qaeda is the threat that chose to take the fight to us; they are the threat we should be focusing on. Instead we practice the same strategies we did in Vietnam.
Regarding the point of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, I do want to say one more thing. It's easy for us to say we shouldn't be there, but we are. We cannot change the past, only make the best decisions to influence the future.
If we could change our past policies, September 11th would never have "had" to happen. Our one-sided Middle East policy and fundamental prejudice towards Arab people (particularly in light of Arab-Israeli tensions) is largely responsible for creating the beast known as al Qaeda to begin with.
|
Our Middle East policy has always been a joke. It's imperialistic nonsense and it should have stopped decades ago. Pols just rely on the general public's military warfever, prejudice and blind patriotism to get away with whatever they want. And the same people who stand behind spending a trillion bucks in Iraq stand against health care availability to all citizens. Go figure. Retards
|
On December 04 2009 08:31 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 07:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely. You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence. Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run. Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect.
I didn't make the case primarily because it was not an option that was on the table. I understand that your point is that it should be on the table, but the simple fact is that it wasn't. There are domestic political considerations as to why is wasn't, but I assume those are irrelevant to your position. There are global political considerations that are relevant that you should consider, plus the regional conflict could potentially cause security issues, if not for then for Pakistan.
Politically, we had complete support to go into Afghanistan. This is not a situation like Iraq where there was no real legitimacy to the invasion. We had international support and complete domestic support. The is not a situation where we were "meddling". Pakistan, one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban, was also one the the first to support our invasion and has been our strongest ally in the country (this is a debatable relationship, but I feel the fact remains). There has not been any significant outcry to our role there absent Islamic extremist damning our every move. Most of the criticism we have received has been for putting Afghanistan on the back burner while the Taliban gained strength. We got the same criticism for not investing in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Packing up and leaving Afghanistan is part of the reason why it is a mess now to begin with. This is not just an argument of responsibility, but one of perception. It is perceived that our interest in the Middle East are entirely self serving, and hence we are just "meddling". Backing out of Afghanistan with no regard to how we leave the country will only support that argument.
There are real security concerns with leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing a bare minimum level of stability. The taliban have regained strength and would quickly regain control over much of the country. This will give more training ground and operational breathing room for extremist groups, and will further destabilize Pakistan. The effective collapse of Pakistan is widely considered one of the biggest potential threats to our security. What would actually happen to the region if we just got up and left, as you propose, is mostly speculation, but the costs of leaving could potentially be as high or higher than staying. What if we left, Pakistan was on the verge of collapse and extremists were able to run an organization out of the region capable of attacking western countries? Would we have to re mobilize? How could we gain trust of the people after backing out on them? How could we gain the trust of Pakistan? Would it be easier to just finish the job while we are there?
The mistake we made wasn't Obama increasing our troop levels, it was going into Iraq rather than investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure and helping to create a stable government. Now its time to face the facts. My intention is not to create a gung-ho argument for war, but rather point out the fact that the situation is more complicated than you have it appear, and that the leaders making the decisions are much more informed and smarter than you give them credit for. As I said in my earlier post, I don't know exactly what the best strategy should be, but I trust the people making the decisions. You said the question should be about "how do we end it". Well, this is how we end it. Lets hope it works.
|
On December 04 2009 09:04 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 08:31 QibingZero wrote:On December 04 2009 07:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely. You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence. The real issue isn't what will end the war in the short term, but what is the best long term solution towards peace and stablity. I agree that in retrospect that Iraq war was a huge mistake, but hindsight is twenty-twenty, and I supported it at the time based on what I knew. But regardless of your beliefs of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, once we entered that country and toppled the government, we created a power vacuum, and the Middle East powers that stepped in to fill it were ones that I think quite clearly we would not want there. The decision to enter Iraq was a decision of choice, but the decision to stay and, at the very least, establish a capable force of Iraqi defenders (drawing from the local population) was one born of necessity. You're thinking in terms of just one country invading another, but in truth, once we invaded, and once there no longer was Saddam Hussein's regime in place, al Qaeda slipped in. (Yes, I am actually saying that Hussein had been doing something beneficial to us -- the exact opposite of what Bush had claimed -- and was keeping al Qaeda out of his country.) Leaving Iraq then would have caused yet more deaths and given al Qaeda more power. Are you saying that's okay because those deaths would not have been American soldiers?
The problem with this idea is that it assumes some kind of American exceptionalism. It assumes that we were the only ones that could help the poor Iraqis rebuild their country. As if we were somehow actually stabilizing Iraq, even though our presence is causing immense bloodshed years after we bombed the shit out of the place. There is a direct parallel to imperialism here - so much so that it's impossible not to mention it. "Here, savages, this is a gun. And see that over there? That's called democracy. I know you don't know what it is because we've only let dictators and monarchs rule your country for it's entire existence, but we'll show you since we're so nice."
If we actually wanted to help out, but feared even more problems would occur by leaving, we'd have allowed a UN peacekeeping force in (the same applies to Afghanistan). This way, it would be clear that there were no special interests involved and that America was not attempting any sort of power grab or installation of a puppet regime. The people of the countries themselves would be happier, and likely safer. You know, we might drown out the news reports by this time, but even in Iraq people are still dying every single day from violence. And we have the audacity to boast about the surge working because US lives were saved.
I do not think we have a choice in our presence. What I do think is that our goals have been too broad reaching. The elimination of the al Qaeda threat is supposedly our main purpose over seas, but I see that issue as getting drowned out in the politics. Our main focus has been occupation when it should have been much more narrow. Al Qaeda is the threat that chose to take the fight to us; they are the threat we should be focusing on. Instead we practice the same strategies we did in Vietnam.
Yes, in the sense that we were supposed to be after Al Qaeda, we've failed. However, that was clearly never the original goal (as shown by the failure to 'finish the job' on bin Laden). But the important thing here is that the idea of fighting a multinational terrorist group by force is flawed to begin with. Fighting it by actually invading Arab countries (the main qualm Islamic terrorists had with us in the first place) is pure insanity. We've done nothing but allow them new recruitment tools, and plenty of angry people who feel wronged when, you know, we drop a bomb on their families.
I'm sure you realize some of this, but the ideas are very much intertwined. We're not actually improving our image in the Muslim world by staying there. If anything, it solidifies their idea that we've come only to pillage their land and defile their religion.
On December 04 2009 11:25 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 08:31 QibingZero wrote:On December 04 2009 07:58 TeCh)PsylO wrote: I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely. You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence. Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run. Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect. I didn't make the case primarily because it was not an option that was on the table. I understand that your point is that it should be on the table, but the simple fact is that it wasn't. There are domestic political considerations as to why is wasn't, but I assume those are irrelevant to your position. There are global political considerations that are relevant that you should consider, plus the regional conflict could potentially cause security issues, if not for then for Pakistan. Politically, we had complete support to go into Afghanistan. This is not a situation like Iraq where there was no real legitimacy to the invasion. We had international support and complete domestic support. The is not a situation where we were "meddling". Pakistan, one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban, was also one the the first to support our invasion and has been our strongest ally in the country (this is a debatable relationship, but I feel the fact remains). There has not been any significant outcry to our role there absent Islamic extremist damning our every move. Most of the criticism we have received has been for putting Afghanistan on the back burner while the Taliban gained strength. We got the same criticism for not investing in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Packing up and leaving Afghanistan is part of the reason why it is a mess now to begin with. This is not just an argument of responsibility, but one of perception. It is perceived that our interest in the Middle East are entirely self serving, and hence we are just "meddling". Backing out of Afghanistan with no regard to how we leave the country will only support that argument.
Here's the problem with our 'coalition': we forced it. The US has a lot of leveraging power in the world, and generally if we throw our weight around we can get a decent amount of international support. It also helps that we could exploit the sympathy felt for 9/11, and that we're basically in command of NATO. And if you remember, not joining the US in any endeavor we ask has consequences. Remember the attacks on France and other countries when they didn't join us for our happy little Iraq outing? Remember the talking heads yelling about boycotts?
By the way, the populations of just about every coalition member state have been against their countries' involvement in Afghanistan for years now.
As for the Taliban gaining strength, you can look at it multiple ways. You choose to say we've been focused elsewhere, which in reality means we haven't been killing enough of them. I say that we are, as always, only focused on the end result and not how we got there. We've killed innumerable amounts of civilians in Afghanistan. What do the families and friends of these people think when we callously bomb wherever we think we see 'bad guys'? It's pretty clear that if the Taliban is gaining numbers, we're the ones causing them to do so. The cause is clear: not because we aren't killing enough, but because we're killing too many.
There are real security concerns with leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing a bare minimum level of stability. The taliban have regained strength and would quickly regain control over much of the country. This will give more training ground and operational breathing room for extremist groups, and will further destabilize Pakistan. The effective collapse of Pakistan is widely considered one of the biggest potential threats to our security. What would actually happen to the region if we just got up and left, as you propose, is mostly speculation, but the costs of leaving could potentially be as high or higher than staying. What if we left, Pakistan was on the verge of collapse and extremists were able to run an organization out of the region capable of attacking western countries? Would we have to re mobilize? How could we gain trust of the people after backing out on them? How could we gain the trust of Pakistan? Would it be easier to just finish the job while we are there?
You'll note my mention of American exceptionalism above in my response to Mortality. The same applies here.
An additional note is that we have far less to worry about if Pakistan becomes unstable than India, China, and other nearby countries do. Why is this about us and not them? And why is the rhetoric always 'finish the job', inferring the opposite of 'cut and run'? What job are we even finishing?
The mistake we made wasn't Obama increasing our troop levels, it was going into Iraq rather than investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure and helping to create a stable government. Now its time to face the facts. My intention is not to create a gung-ho argument for war, but rather point out the fact that the situation is more complicated than you have it appear, and that the leaders making the decisions are much more informed and smarter than you give them credit for. As I said in my earlier post, I don't know exactly what the best strategy should be, but I trust the people making the decisions. You said the question should be about "how do we end it". Well, this is how we end it. Lets hope it works.
I find no reason to trust the people involved here. If anything, the past 8 years have sent us the message that we should certainly not trust them. Hell, the entire history of Afghanistan warns us not to trust them when they suggest more troops will fix things. Why are we trusting people who fundamentally do not even attempt to understand the people whose countries we are currently occupying?
|
As for the Taliban gaining strength, you can look at it multiple ways. You choose to say we've been focused elsewhere, which in reality means we haven't been killing enough of them
It could mean that, or it could mean that we haven't gained enough trust of the population and provided enough security to make the Taliban ineffective. This is the exact objective of a COIN strategy.
I say that we are, as always, only focused on the end result and not how we got there. We've killed innumerable amounts of civilians in Afghanistan. What do the families and friends of these people think when we callously bomb wherever we think we see 'bad guys'? It's pretty clear that if the Taliban is gaining numbers, we're the ones causing them to do so. The cause is clear: not because we aren't killing enough, but because we're killing too many.
As mentioned the COIN strategy is focused on the population, not hunting down the insurgents. So I, as well as the political and military leaders involved, agree with you that we have killed to many civilians and that has negative repercussions. The strategy that you are arguing against is the strategy that most effectively deals with these points. A counter-terrorism focused strategy will continue to isolate the population from us, making it harder to marginalize the Taliban, and also make it harder for us to gain human intelligence on the ground. Leaving Afghanistan now will leave behind the resentment of smashing the country and then leave the population back in the hands of the Taliban.
An additional note is that we have far less to worry about if Pakistan becomes unstable than India, China, and other nearby countries do. Why is this about us and not them? And why is the rhetoric always 'finish the job', inferring the opposite of 'cut and run'? What job are we even finishing?
You did not address the security issues. Do you think they do not exist? You can't just ignore the issues or say that it is India or China's problem. Whether it is their problem or not, it is also our problem. What do you think would happen to the region if we left? I don't advocate "finishing the job" because it is not "cut and running", I advocate it because like you said, we need to end it and I think that would be the best way to end it.
I find no reason to trust the people involved here.
I trust the people involved because I have closely watched the debate. Obama, Gates, Petraeus, McCrystal, Kilkullen, Kagan, etc... are all people that I find to be very intelligent, informed, and have a track record of making good decisions.
I never intended to get into a tit for tat with you. Such things just derail threads and make them less interesting for everyone else. I have responded to you because I agree with your sentiment but find that you are either not informed on the details of the issues, or are just choosing to ignore them. I could make a strong argument for reasons to not get further involved Afghanistan, because a lot of good arguments have been proposed. But you have mentioned none of them, which leads me to believe you have not followed the issue and are just arguing against war itself. I am fine with that, but don't pretend that that proposes our best strategic options given the reality of the position we are in.
|
|
|
|