Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6069 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 191 (355336)
10-09-2006 6:38 AM


Reps have been badgering Dems with the label of "Cut and Run" when they suggest a timetable, or movement on objectives, for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.
Frankly, while I opposed the war (I told 'em this would happen), I am against leaving anytime soon. We broke it, we bought it. In many respects I agree with the arguments for staying, which reps have argued... though I do not agree with the namecalling of those who wish to withdraw troops.
It is based on this agreement that I am stymied to explain what the f*** this administration is doing in Afghanistan. That is the nation from which the strikes on 9/11 were launched. That is the nation where the organization which launched those strikes still exists. That is the nation where the Taliban (the group which protects AQ) not only still exists but is making a come back.
So why is it that the US has just let NATO take over responsibility for Afghanistan? How will that not let the terrorists grow stronger, or at the very least embolden them and give them a chance to grow stronger?
Honestly I just don't get this at all. Why are we pulling ourselves out, as far as governing our military objectives as well as troop strength goes, from the very heart of the war against Islamic terrorism and militancy at a time when it is not only not over but the enemies are actually growing back in power?
Why are red-blooded patriotic reps not all over the administration for this "Cut and Run" from Afghanistan? And if it isn't such a move, then what is the criteria for such a label other than what the Dems say is CnR, what the Reps say is GooD?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by cavediver, posted 10-09-2006 10:22 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 11:24 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 1:01 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 16 by skepticfaith, posted 10-09-2006 4:02 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-14-2006 10:41 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 174 by Tal, posted 10-26-2006 9:36 PM Silent H has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 2 of 191 (355363)
10-09-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-09-2006 6:38 AM


Top brass here are going nuts about Afghanistan, wanting to pull troops out of Iraq to bolster the numbers, bemoaning the political decision-making of keeping them in Iraq. I must say I agree with your sentiments about clearing up our unholy mess, except for a perverted wish to see what would happen if we did just pull out - like my old idea of building a high wall around Shankhill and Falls Road and letting them get on with it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 6:38 AM Silent H has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2762 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 191 (355371)
10-09-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-09-2006 6:38 AM


Afghanistan wasn't important, and we thought we had won down there. So we hit up target number two--daddy's mistake.
We should have never started the Iraq War until we were finished in afghanistan. There are, I believe, less than 30,000 troops there (NATO). We alone have more than 100,000, and I'm thinking it's closer to 200,000 (though I don't have exact figures at this moment). Imagine--had we thrwon our full might into Afghanistan, the country would have been able to be rebuilt. We never threw our full might into that war. I think it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of winning wars with overwhelming forces, or something to that effect. Leave to Rumsfield to fuck it all up.
Oh, and they won't see it as a cut n' run. why? well, we won that war. (that's what they think, at anyrate)

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 6:38 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 11:38 AM kuresu has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 191 (355374)
10-09-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
10-09-2006 11:24 AM


Imagine--had we thrown our full might into Afghanistan, the country would have been able to be rebuilt. We never threw our full might into that war. I think it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of winning wars with overwhelming forces, or something to that effect. Leave to Rumsfield to fuck it all up.
Colin Powell was possibly right but that presumes the war is winnable in the first place. Afghanistan is nearly the size of France - with some advantages for those whose intention is to live and fight another day - not least their in depth knowledge of the US Military.
google maps writes:
The Soviets finally invaded in 1979, but they were forced to withdraw ten years later by anti-Communist guerrilla fighters (known as mujahidin) trained and supplied by the U.S. and other outside powers.
It’s Afghanistan’s legendary rugged terrain that makes warfare so difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 11:24 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM iano has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 191 (355385)
10-09-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
10-09-2006 11:38 AM


google maps writes:
... but they were forced to withdraw ten years later by anti-Communist guerrilla fighters (known as mujahidin) trained and supplied by the U.S. and other outside powers.
One of whom was Osama Bin Laden. Empowered by Reagan.
How Reagan made a terrorist kingpin of Osama.
Colin Powell was possibly right but that presumes the war is winnable in the first place.
The point is that you build on strength, and to do that you needed to succeed in Afghanistan before venturing into other mid-east countries.
They could have secured enough of the country to form a stable enough democracy with schools and education and general public freedom -- enough to keep the Taliban\AlQueda hiding in the hills reduced to making occasional terrorist attacks (the situation as it was before invading Iraq, but which is now crumbling due to lax attention).
They would have had the reserves AND the world opinion on their side to this day if that had been done, and that could have made the impression of the Taliban\AlQueda as criminal elements within Islam.
Military enforced stability is not enough to secure a nation.
So much was thrown away.
Edited by RAZD, : added line

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 11:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 1:52 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 8 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 191 (355386)
10-09-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-09-2006 6:38 AM


Hello Nancy, ...
Dear Ms Minority Leader Pelosi,
Please advise on GOP policy of cutting and running from the unfinished job in Afghanistan, where the US is withdrawing troops before the Afghan government is ready to stand on it's own.
Yours,
November Voter.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 6:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 10-10-2006 6:34 AM RAZD has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 7 of 191 (355398)
10-09-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-09-2006 12:59 PM


The point is that you build on strength, and to do that you needed to succeed in Afghanistan before venturing into other mid-east countries.
It makes sense to do so but that presumes everybody is playing to the tune of the piper. Would not maintaining democracy in Afghanistan demand continous large scale military presence until such time as it was certain that there could be no reemergance. How does one determine that - you don't destroy guerillas who chose to retreat until a suitable time?
In the meantime there are other demands placed on the military. Lets face it: the US did not go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. The chief concern was oil and the threat to the worlds supply of oil has long been an issue of concern there. Instabilitily is the nature of the Middle East and whether it comes from Saddam WMD or Israel taking out Irans nuclear power stations or some attack or other on Israel or destabilising action in Saudi Arabia. Going in after someone has thrown a stick of dynamite into this cauldron is far less advisable and far more costly than doing it before such a thing happens. A major disruption in Middle East oil supply would bring Western economies to their knees.
Someone had to go in an take control of the region (in terms of worlds oil supply not demoncracy in Iraq. You don't always get to chose the ideal time
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:18 PM iano has replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 2:19 PM iano has replied
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:25 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 191 (355400)
10-09-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-09-2006 12:59 PM


Let me make another point.
9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks around the world was, I think a declaration of war. What 9/11 showed, in symbol form, was just how vunerable the west is to attack. The bombers used the very resources of their enemies against their enemies. Their aircraft training, their aircraft, their people, their buildings. Then in England we find the attackers are English themselves born and bred.
But it was symbolic in the sense that it wasn't in itself going to actually rock the wests delicate structure.
The attempt to explode 10 planes over the Atlantic ocean took things to a new level. If 10 planes dissappeared off the radar and no one had a clue how it was done (other than it was a terroritst attack) then what could the response be? Tighter security? Against which threat - soft drinks bottles? 10 planes down and air travel takes a serious knock. But increased security is let run a while and all seems well. Confidence resumes. Then 10 more - this time elsewhere in the world - again over the ocean so little chance of evidence. And then another 10?
Air travel as we know it: cheap and for the masses comes to a grinding halt. The airline industry (which is very low margin and must fly full-to-the-brim planes) starts going bust. You can't run a low margin business requiring packed planes for long if the planes aren't packed. Every month you have to pay the bank for the planes you've leased. Boeing goes bust. The banks who have all this money tied up in leased and worthless aircraft go bust- who are they going to sell these aircraft to and where are they going to get the money to pay what THEY need to pay every month if it isn't coming in? Your talking major ramifications for a cost of some people willing to die for a cause and some very simple explosives.
The West is a complex and delicate structure. You don't need to take it on head to head. No brute force required. Don't take on their B-52's and their guided missiles. Guerilla war taken to the enemy is the way to go. And once you decide that, you only have to kick out some of the spindly legs the delicate structure stands on to knock it all down. Its like wrestling (not that farce on the tv). You use the power and weight of the opponant against him. Adroitness and skill - not brute power. Now apply the same ingenuity to another of the spindly legs the West stands on. A big one this time: oil supply for example.
Now if Bush and Co. see things my way and took the evidence that was coming at them from various terrorist attacks around the world then to those same conclusions they might well have come. Immediate and most urgent action? Secure the very spindly leg of oil - immediately!
I wouldn't bet against dreaming up some simple yet very effective way to set off the tinderbox of the Middle East. Look what it took to ignite WW1
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 10:12 PM iano has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2762 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 191 (355402)
10-09-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by iano
10-09-2006 1:52 PM


Pray tell me, what work has been done on getting the Iaqi oil up and running?
If we went in their for oil, do you really think we would let the amount of oil being produced fall?
Wasn't that oil supposed to be used to help pay for the war?
We didn't go there to liberate the people, I'll buy that. If anything, we went there to fix daddy's mistake.
The only thing I can say--bring on the hydrogen economy, and now.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 1:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 8:38 AM kuresu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 191 (355403)
10-09-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by iano
10-09-2006 1:52 PM


... demand continous large scale military presence until such time as it was certain that there could be no reemergance. How does one determine that - you don't destroy guerillas who chose to retreat until a suitable time?
What maintains governments here and in other established nations? The willing participation of the people -- that whole basis of the Dec of Ind and the USConst: we the people in order to form a more perfect union etc.
How do you build willing participation? With public institutions that benefit the people: hospitals that treat all sick and injured, schools that teach all kinds on knowledge to those who want to learn, courts that dispense justice, police that deal with problems with restraint and respect for human dignity, a stable economy that allows one to plan a future.
You build a society people want to live in rather than destroy. And one they will defend from destruction.
... you don't destroy guerillas who chose to retreat until a suitable time?
The question is not where they go, but where the next generation comes from. Eliminate that pool of recruits and the problem will be reduced with each generation. Treat those that are caught as criminals, with the same rights and recourses as other criminal, as human beings. Treat the actions as criminal actions.
... take control of the region (in terms of worlds oil supply ...
No. The same resources devoted to developing alternate energy will be much more productive. Pull the energy rug out from under the middle east and see what happens eh? Push comes to shove we can walk or bus or commute electronically.
We've done with less before, should one sacrifice ideals for expediency?
This is also one of the reasons to have stayed with Afghanistan, as it would NOT be seen as a war of conquest to control world oil.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : hit button too soon

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 1:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2762 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 191 (355404)
10-09-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by iano
10-09-2006 1:52 PM


Would not maintaining democracy in Afghanistan demand continous large scale military presence until such time as it was certain that there could be no reemergance. How does one determine that - you don't destroy guerillas who chose to retreat until a suitable time?
bull. The Afghani war that the soviets fought was our Vietnam. We went into vietnam to stem the itde of communism, no matter who was running that country--in this case, a dictator.
Why did the soviet union lose their war in afghanistan? They were attempting to break it's back and make it their own. THe afghanis didn't stand for that. When we threw out the Taliban, we had a golden oppurtunity to build up that country--we had the support of the populace. Instead, we moved our military to Iraq, and kep a token force in afghanistan. Where was the rebuilding?
We forgot what the Marshall Plan can do. Marshall devised it as a strategy for getting western europe, and those in the east that wanted (or were allowed) to take up the deal, to prevent soviet hegemony in europe. we rebuilt the economy and infrastructure of that place. Why the hell didn't we do this in afhganistan when we had our chance? IF we had rebuilt, well, actually, built, their infrastructure and got them into a stable economy and government, we would have won. Instead, it was, okay, Taliban out, now time for Saddam Hussein. That's not how you fight a war against terrorism when the terrorist leaders can promise you stability--which is why the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence of power and influence.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 1:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:46 PM kuresu has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 191 (355405)
10-09-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
10-09-2006 2:19 PM


What maintains governments here and in other established nations? The willing participation of the people -- that whole basis of the Dec of Ind and the USConst: we the people in order to form a more perfect union etc.
You don't achieve this quickly nor without a lot of grief as your own countries establishment and mine demonstrates. And it is the people themselves that come to this conclusion - you cannot have a third party come in an do it in 2, 3, 4 years.
The question is not where they go, but where the next generation comes from. Eliminate that pool of recruits and the problem will be reduced with each generation. Treat those that are caught as criminals, with the same rights and recourses as other criminal, as human beings. Treat the actions as criminal actions.
My comment were aimed at the idea of some short term solution. America was never going to in the business of going to the other side of the world and settle in with massive force to ensure this could happen. Never. A reaction to 9/11 needed to be made but the problem is far more complex than that. This is global.
No. The same resources devoted to developing alternate energy will be much more productive. Pull the energy rug out from under the middle east and see what happens eh? Push comes to shove we can walk or bus or commute electronically.
A serious interruption in the Middle East oil supply would result in the immediate meltdown of the worlds economic system. You wouldn't have time to find "alternative reasources and methodologies". No oil tomorrow and the world is out of work. We'd be knocked back to the stone ages.
Or you could go in a nuke the hell out of the place in order to get that supply going again. No waiting for UN resolutions. Compare the costs with the current cost and see (relatively) wise (if horrific) investment. Needs must RAZD - even if it ain't pretty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 2:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 4:21 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 191 (355411)
10-09-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kuresu
10-09-2006 2:25 PM


Why did the soviet union lose their war in afghanistan? They were attempting to break it's back and make it their own. THe afghanis didn't stand for that. When we threw out the Taliban, we had a golden oppurtunity to build up that country--we had the support of the populace. Instead, we moved our military to Iraq, and kep a token force in afghanistan. Where was the rebuilding?
America found out how hard it is to win wars like Vietnam. Everyone has their theories about it but thats not enough to risk another one. They were never going to try that in afghanistan. What tide would they be stemming in Afghanistan. A global terrorist one? And American public opinion would is not going to even come close to seeing Afghanistan as Vietnam. Rebuilding Afghanistan. Who give a rats ass about Afghanistan? It has no oil and the terrorist can move elsewhere.
Instead, it was, okay, Taliban out, now time for Saddam Hussein. That's not how you fight a war against terrorism when the terrorist leaders can promise you stability--which is why the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence of power and influence.
I don't think anyone has formulated a way to fight a war against terror. Certainly brute force and invading countries will not work. Afghanistan was retaliation and being seen to take action - but for goodness sake don't get bogged down there. Iraq is about protecting one of the most crucial elements that makes the world currently go round (even if it must heat up in the process). America is never leaving the middle east. Not until the oil is gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:25 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 3:23 PM iano has not replied
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 10-09-2006 3:25 PM iano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6069 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 191 (355415)
10-09-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
10-09-2006 2:46 PM


This is all getting wayyyyyy OT. My interest was in understanding how what reps have just done is not CnR, given all that kind of talk they just threw at dems.
Indeed reps have been giving dems hell for years for allowing troops, as well as missions which are important for the US, to be managed by foreign militaries.
If you have an answer specifically to that, I'd like to know. Even your commentary about oil being important to the US does not change the fact that leaving Afghanistan would be CnR... unless you are suggesting we are now forced into a position where we must choose between two wars we started?
Regarding your arguments...
Rebuilding Afghanistan. Who give a rats ass about Afghanistan? It has no oil and the terrorist can move elsewhere.
That's funny. That's what we said after we empowered the radicals to defeat the Soviets, guess what happened? Really, we can't afford to let Afghanistan slide... again. That should have been one of the lessons of 9/11. Even cave dwelling people in nations at about the stone age level can reach out and screw us up.
That nation needs to be helped to a position where moderates have control over the destiny of the nation. Just the same as Iraq now.
Iraq is about protecting one of the most crucial elements that makes the world currently go round
Really? Then here's an idea. Since the oil sites aren't near the cities of Iraq, why don't we just station our military around them, or even better, give the oil sites to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, extending their borders to encompass them?
Then we can have our troops leave Iraq as well. I mean if that IS the rationale, that's all we'd really have to do.
Edited by holmes, : threw
Edited by holmes, : u
Edited by holmes, : sites

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:46 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-09-2006 7:44 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 15 of 191 (355416)
10-09-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
10-09-2006 2:46 PM


America found out how hard it is to win wars like Vietnam.
Quite evidently, they did not learn. They flunked that lesson. Otherwise they would not have started the utterly stupid Iraq war.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:46 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 4:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024