Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

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Dems with the label of "Cut and Run" when they suggest a timetable, or movement on objectives, for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.Frankly, while I opposed the war (I told 'em this would happen), I am against leaving anytime soon.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)

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... 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. 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, : threwEdited by holmes, : uEdited 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)

You seem to have me all wrong...1) I didn't say the Taliban had anything to do with 911. What I said is that the Taliban were an organization that protected AQ and they are making a comeback. Even if they didn't protect AQ it is still important not to let them return to power in Afghanistan. They were a minority power which inflicted major damage on that nation.2) AQ had something to do with 911. It moves a bit beyond assumption when the leaders take credit for the attack. That said, I agree and have argued that US foreign policy has to a large degree motivated attacks like 911. In particular our support for Israel and propping up tyrants and other unpopular leaders in other nations, in support of US interests, breeds enemies. My only caveat on this is to say that you cannot claim that the US is solely to blame. There are movements within that region which have nothing to do with us, and would exist without us.3) I did not propose that the US remain a bully. I questioned how the reps could consider leaving Afghanistan to NATO as not CnR, if leaving Iraq to Iraqi forces is. I do happen to think we need to stay in those nations, but not as bullies. I think we need to support moderate gov'ts entering power and gaining stability until they no longer need our help. Otherwise militant organizations (like the Taliban) can emerge in the power vaccuum to harm the people of those nations.Perhaps you can explain how simply leaving will help those nations?

---

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

I'm sorry but that above statement appears completely ignorant of the facts. The Taliban emerged as a regional power because of a power vaccuum left by the US. It was not a response to the US, and was in large part empowered by the US.This empowerment came from military support of radicals during Soviet occupation and apathy with regard to the future of afghanistan by the US.It is not up to the US to choose exactly what the gov't of Afghanistan will be. But it is up to the US to determine the fate of Afghanistan as they are currently in a state of chaos. We will either leave it up to the group with the greatest military ability (force and skill) which can seize control, or to remain fractured and fighting, or to empower a moderate gov't by protecting it from attacks as well as eliminating aggressive military forces.Frankly I prefer the third choice. We tried the first two already and it was horrible for everyone there.Now we have placed Iraq in the same situation we had left Afghanistan after the Soviet failure. Thus I think it is in our and their best interest to help them pull away from the edge of chaos and not let thugs take control. That is what we allowed ith Hussein in the aftermath of their earlier gov'tal collapse and it didn't work well either. ??? What is the constitual difference between a peacekeeping force and our current military personnel? You seem to be trying to have your positional cake and eat it too. This is why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. In any case pulling out will only reduce our casualties. At this point I believe we have a responsibility to minimize their casualties. We broke it, we bought it.Only with security will they be able to choose their destiny in a way that has a hope of lasting more than one military dictator at a time.

---

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

BTW, I should have said... exactly.

---

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

You never answered my earlier point regarding the oil imperative. But let me break it down for you. If securing oil was our sole interest...1) Why didn't we just allow Saddam to stay in his box and improve the food for oil program? Its not like he ever hurt us regarding oil, so why was it necessary to rush in when we did? If we needed someone to supply us we certainly could have counted on him being greedy enough to give us what we wanted as long as we paid well. And that would have cost everyone less money and wasted lives.2) Assuming there was a threat from Saddam regarding oil, why didn't we just rush in to secure the fields and then declare them as international resources, or extend Kuwait/Saudi borders to those fields? No need to topple his gov't at all. At most some strikes to further degrade his already decrepit military. Cheap n easy and no massive loss of life. Less instability.Truly, to back up what nwr said, if oil stability was our goal then Bush n Co totally screwed up. Your rationalizing doesn't help them any. ??? What does that have to do with invading Iraq? I might add that the Taliban could have, and I suppose still could, obtain nuclear devices. If nuclear threats are a concern, why shouldn't we be in Afghanistan?

---

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

I'm sorry but I am reading your posts and they aren't making sense to me. You have asserted a concern about oil, which while possible you have not explained why it was imminent. More importantly you have not explained why invading the whole of Iraq was necessary to secure such aims. How do you know how much sophistication supporters of the Taliban have? And if they don't why am I to suppose any other group in the region does have the sophistication?

---

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

Recent events have taught me not to engage in elaborate discussions regarding who said what. It is plain to me that you are ignoring what I have said and putting words into my posts. I will try this once more, very carefully. Read very carefully.I agree that the Taliban's rise to power was a result of US policy in Afghanistan. So was Hussein's in Iraq. Indeed one could even say so was Ayatollah Khomenei's in Iran. We've been screwing up in that region for decades.I agree that we should not be going in and dictating what sorts of govt's should be in that region. I also agree that Bush and Co have that sort of agenda.You keep trying to argue against me as if I hold those positions, I don't. Its a complete strawman. My position is based on what I think we should do given the facts on the ground now as well as the history of the region.AQ attacked us and so we needed to dismantle their operation in Afghanistan. In doing so we also needed to dismantle the Taliban. In my mind that was a worthwhile agenda anyway as the Taliban were not a legitimate gov't. They were a minority power who seized control by blasting their way into Kabul, and certainly did not control, much less speak for, the entire population of Afghanistan.We had, and hopefully still do have a chance, to protect moderate elements within Afghanistan from being disrupted by militants until they have the power to protect themselves. The current gov't wants our forces in, says it would enjoy more support, and many of the population do NOT want to see the Taliban return to power. That would mean decades more war and poverty.I find it unusual to suggest that stepping away from defending a moderate gov't, made up of the majority population who had been fighting the Taliban for years, is somehow empowering Afghanis to settle their own future. As far as I can tell that is simply repeating the same error we made last time. You can't leave a heavily armed and trained thug in a room with several relatively unarmed people and say, okay we're leaving, you guys decide who's boss.In Iraq I totally disagreed with our invasion. However I can't take it back now. The power vaccuum exists and if we are not careful it will result in many more bad things for the Iraqi people. It is much the same as Afghanistan was after the Soviets. In this case there are many different armed and trained thugs vying for power.I don't like how we have conducted ourselves in either nation, and I agree tactics and strategy need to be changed. But that does not change the fact that it will require boots staying on the ground in that region, most especially ones carrying weapons. I'm not sure how you expect food and medical delivery without protection, much less a gov't to remain stable without it.How we use are military can be polarizing. But our abandonment could equally be polarizing, and worse still for the people we leave totally unprotected.Personally I don't understand your argument that we don't have a responsibility to prevent casualties of Iraqis and Afghanis. The people are not our enemies. ??? That's a nice assertion. I totally disagree with most of the Demoracts at this point in time, and generally did throughout. I didn't agree with the Reps either. I am for a major shift in policy in the ME. That does not change the current security situation within Iraq and Afghanistan.What we must do now was in no way a justification for invading either nation. That Bush has tried to do so does not mean that I agree with his argument. My current position is based on the facts as they are.I was quite clear at the time I opposed the Iraq War, as it would likely lead to this kind of situation, and so mandate our further involvement. That means I did NOT think it was justified based on the need to topple Hussein and help change their gov't.Likewise I would not have argued for invading Afghanistan just to remove the Taliban. Toppling them was a bonus in a justified move to uproot AQ.

---

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

Your posts are increasingly evasive/non-responsive.I agree that oil is important in the modern world. While I might disagree that it is as fragile a situation as you suggest, I can easily agree on that for sake of argument.The Israel-Iran nuclear issue did not exist as it does now, back before we invaded Iraq. But let's say it did, that does not directly impact oil supply. If it did I suppose our answer would be to not allow Israel to attack Iran. In any case lets say that issue existed as it does now and Israel would attack, and so disrupt oil. I still do not see how invading Iraq did anything for that situation.We could have just as easily run in forces and taken the fields. We'd clearly have invaded a nation based on securing interests, as well as have forces in the area. Heck we could then have a huge reserve of forces in the area not pinned down in cities trying to maintain order, as well as having to try and survive urban warfare environments. That is on top of not costing as much in money or lives. Are you, or your friend, unaware that Iran is not adjacent to Israel? Damascus is in Syria, not Iran, and it is unlikely they'll be driving through any nation quite so quickly to invade Iran. I might add your friend seems to have been proven wrong on their abilities, given what just happened in Lebanon.I mean unless you are suggesting US troops, by taking over Iraq are going to allow Israeli troops to cross Iraq for an invasion of Iran? Or become an invading force for Israel in Iran?Yeah, that won't effect oil supplies. I should note I wouldn't ask "why would Israel attacking Iran result in threat to oilfields?". I think it would. You have supplied no reason to suggest our invasion of Iraq decreased this risk. Uh... our invasion of Iraq INCREASED the risk of terrorist attacks on oil supplies.

---

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

Then why was this arbitrary point chosen? Why didn't we do it earlier, and what would have been wrong with waiting till later? You seem to keep missing the point that, even accepting some of your contentious assertions as valid, what you need to explain is why we needed to do what we did when we did it. You are arguing with yourself again. I said I thought such an attack would effect oil supply. I then questioned how our invasion of Iraq would not do the same thing, and our helping attack Iran would not.Other than saying we now have forces in the region, you have not explained how those forces will change the results of any attack on Iran. Nor have you explained how simply taking the oilfields would not have resulted in the same goals you set out... forces in the area and oilfields secured. Why couldn't Iraqi oilfields, or Kuwait/Saudi Arabia been the base? I've never heard of a military strategy using the take over of an entire country, and assuming all the responsibility that entails, as a tactical move to establish a military base of operations.The result of an invasion is a scattering of forces that can be overwhelmed easier as well as being distracted with other duties. It simply makes no sense. Okay, but then I responded efficiently. Whatever they could theoretically do to Syria, is not able to be used to suggest anything regarding Iran. And as it stands it was just shown that Israel does not have the capability your friend suggested. We just increased terrorist capabilities within Iraq. We just gave them a firm base which they did not have before toppling Hussein. If this was about oil, we were better off letting him handle security at the plants. It meant money to him and he protected it against the exact same terrorists that are fighting us.And once again I will point out, that the forces we have now, concentrated on the oilfields would have been much greater protection than trying to take the whole country and defending that. I'm certain some very smart people did just that. I am questioning the wisdom of those that asked that same question and came up with an answer to attack Iraq.Anyone can ask the question. Its developing a credible, practical answer that separates the valuable thinkers from the dangerously inept.

---

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

The "we don't know what they know" garbage was used as an excuse for why we invaded Iraq when the issue was wmds and terrorists. I'm not about to accept that again now that it is oil and terrorists.Also, anyone who needed 9/11 to "wake up" to the fact there were people interested in attacking western interests, as well as having asymmetric warfare capabilities should not have been in charge of the US gov't.As far as your introducing Israel, terrorists, and Iran as reasons to invade Iraq, I am still confused. Iraq has been a mortal enemy of Iran. They don't want to see it with nuclear capabilities any more than Isreal would. Likewise they were enemies of the terrorist orgs we are up against.If Iran and terrorists messing with oil were the concern, then why didn't we just invade Iran? Why invade a nation that we had bottled up militarily and if anything would have helped us with the issues you named, just to scare Iran by letting them know we are capable of invading?By invading Iraq we have stregthened Iran's position in the region, as well as that of the terrorists. As opposed to taking over cities and toppling govt's of sovereign countries? Your arguments are getting more bizarre with time. I offered a less drastic solution to the problem than the one we have engaged in, given the same ends.Also, you did not adequately explain why we couldn't have used Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as bases for action. Are you seriously telling me that we have positioned our troops within cities, and exposed them to maiming and death, for no reason beyond positioning them in the worst place possible to rush to defend our actual objectives? Right, but a firm base helps. We have hurt our own interests by allowing a stronger presence within a nation they previously did not have such a presence in... one located with access to oilfields.Besides which your argument was that we needed the military positioned in Iraq. If it is lone terrorist threats within the entire region, why wouldn't troops in Afghanistan be adequate for the job? Or why not the same in Kuwait or SA? I already outlined some. I mean its not like invading Iraq was domestically or internationally acceptable. It has also proven to negatively effect oil production as well as aid terrorist power structures.If you have a serious address where there are people looking for reasonable alternatives please hand it out. ??? What on earth does that mean?

---

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

I'm going to repeat what I said in my previous post because the points still stand up as well against this latest "summary" as any of your previous posts.Assuming that stability of oil is our main concern, that terrorists present a challenge to it, as well as a potential war between Israel and Iran...1) Why do we need a military base? Simple terrorist actions would not be stopped by military forces, and a war between Israel and Iran could be aided from carriers.2) Assuming we need a base, why not Afghanistan? That is where the largest organization of terrorists we are fighting are at, and provides the same position against Iran. Indeed it would be smarter in that in any Israel-Iran conflict we could open up a second front.3) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, why not the oilfields of Iraq? It would secure an oil source and provide the same jumping off point you require. The idea that this would be difficult politically is bogus as one could have used the same excuse we gave for invading Iraq in the first place, and then just not take the whole country. Besides if everyone needs oil, why wouldn't they accept internationalizing those fields by removing it from Hussein's hands, and increasing protection against terrorist attacks?4) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, and not the oilfields of Iraq, why not use Kuwait or SA? You appeared to dismiss this as sabre-rattling, but that makes no sense. If we have troops there for protection then they will provide protection, right?5) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, and not the oilfields of Iraq, and not Kuwait or SA, why not Iran? That would solve the Iran-Israel issue permanently as well as secure oil fields, and on top of it all we could have used the exact same pretext we used for Iraq with one exception... it would have been closer to reality. People questioned at the time why we were invading Iraq on the criteria listed, given Iran fulfilled them as well and with less question.Your position is a series of assertions which make little sense when placed against the facts on the ground, and against plausible alternatives.On more thing, you argue that we need a base. A base is not having units scattered all over a nation, exposed to urban warfare, and having to fulfill many other duties. That pins them down and prevents them from quick response to any of the threats you listed.

---

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

I have replied to your post to Kuresu in my previous post. I will deal with outlying problems here. What difference does that make regarding solutions? Besides this is definitely changing your position. Earlier you were suggesting that it woke up intelligent people who began to ask questions. When I began pointing out it shouldn't have you now move it to the public as a whole. This is purely assertion on your part. If development and use of WMDs was imminent then why wouldn't we have been able to make a case? Who would have tried to stop us? How?As it stands most of the world was against invading Iraq, and they did nothing. Why would Iran be any different? And that saves us the problem of having to invade Iran, if the Iraq gambit failed. ??? Uh, Iraq was the check on Iran's power. That's why we supported Hussein? They no longer have an enemy with any military capability, and in fact are able to infiltrate and effect Iraq. They don't have to invade Israel, all they have to do is disrupt oil right? That was YOUR POINT and you seem to have already forgotten it.They are in the same position to disrupt oil in their own nation and NOW act to disrupt oil in Iraq like they never were before. Assertions, nothing but pure assertions. Why couldn't we set up a base there? If you don't remember, WE DID! We did it twice. Reality undercuts your assertions. Really? You see no problem with a "base" with a perimeter the size of a nation, and just as porous, with hostile civilian elements scattered throughout exposing your units to constant fire, as well as having to expend manpower on caring for nonhostile civilians within the same area? Yes, I read how easy it is to sabotage. That only supports my point and you refuse to deal with it. If it is that easy, then what difference does it make if our military has a base in the region? That is irrelevant when discussing why Iraq was invaded. What purpose. I am more concerned with consequences which is why I am for keeping troops in there. That's why I'm concerned about Afghanistan as well. Remember the topic? So in other words, contrary to your original claim, disruptions in oil production really don't mean much. Terrorist attacks would not reduce production to the levels we've already seen in Iraq. Tomato tomahto, genius moron. The above makes no sense other than apparently you feel that whoever came up with the plan you think is being enacted is a genius. I was focused on the fight without Hussein. Your suggested plan is ridiculous.

---

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

My OP was asking how CnR is not appled to Afghanistan when the same behavior in Iraq is labelled such. Your reply appears to be that it is because Afghanistan is unimportant compared to Iraq.When pressed on this point you explain Iraq is truly important because despite whatever our public statements have been, our true intent from the beginning has been to secure a base in Iraq to protect oil reserves.When pressed on this point you argue that it is some super genius plot unknown to anyone and successfully executed under the elaborate smoke screen of invading Iraq for wmds, and then freeing the Iraqi people.Now we can forget the fact that you are not privy to secrets of the whitehouse and so are merely asserting this as a possibility. We can even forget the fact that this undercuts the ability of reps to defend themselves regarding CnR in Afghanistan... unless they are going public with the sham nature of Iraq at this point?What I am not going to forget is that this alleged plot is ludicrous.Both reasons for needing troops in the region (potential threats from terrorists and an Iran-Israel conflict) don't seem to require our forces at all. At least not on the level of a base the size of Iraq.Heck you just shifted position again to say that Israel won't need our help (because they have nukes) and our troops will JUST be used to secure oilfields. I could have sworn that earlier our troops were to be a pressure on Iran. In any case let me point out that if Israel would not be able to "defeat" Iran. Knock out its air/nuclear military capabilities yes, invade Iran, no. And if they did use nukes there'd be no oilfields for us to defend.But assuming there is a need for troops, you have not explained why we cannot use carriers in the region, as well as airlifts fo further support, to accomplish the task and act as bases. You didn't address that at all.Neither did you adequately address why Afghanistan could not have been used as the nation size "base" we need. You start by claiming... Uh, that's where one of the largest global terrorist networks exist and if you remember right succeeded in hitting mainland US by reaching out from that nation. We are there because we are responding to a major terrorist incident. They still exist there, and if we go away now they can reconstitute themselves. On the flipside there were no major terror orgs of sufficient danger to US interests within Iraq... especially to oil, as that was Hussein's lifeblood and he was interested in protecting it against the same attacks as you.On your other points. No matter all of your reasons for Aghanistan being suitable, the fact is we did invade that nation and have troops there. There are lots of troops there and will be for some time. If we are faking it in Iraq we certainly could have faked it easier in Afghanistan.The idea that it is landlocked means nothing as so is Iraq. It is doubtful that Kuwait is going to join some alliance with Israel to attack Iran. That is no more so than Pakistan.As far as being centrally located all I can say is ??? What type of timeframe are we looking at? We have global reach, and we certainly would have regional reach from Afghanistan.The idea that China could invade through the minor corridor/border of Afghanistan is a bit stretched. And as far as Russia goes, it borders Iran anyway, so if that is where we fight and they ally with Russia, we still get attacked. And I might add that if we are not holding Afghanistan and China/Russia decide to side with Iran then they can both use Afghanistan as a base of operations. Our being closer to Israel is not going to help.Leaving those points aside, you have still not addressed why we could not have simply secured Iraqi oilfields as the base. Other than that it would be less geopolitically acceptable than the invasion of Iraq, which of course was NOT acceptable, and we did it anyway.And what about simply using Kuwait or SA. Centrally located, not landlocked, low cost in money and lives. You have given no reason they could not be used, except to mention the term "sabre-rattling", and when I questioned that claim you said that they are there to free Iraqis (meaning that is their cover story) which does not answer my question. Why would positioning troops in Kuwait or SA be unfeasible? What is the geopolitical issue that would have prevented us from doing that, especially as that is exactly what we did? I could say the exact same thing. Your position is not proven by us going to defend oilfields if a threat pops up against them. That is what we'd be doing no matter what our original intention.All you have done is create a new "you don't know what they know and have planned" ad hoc justification for Iraq. I have no more reason to believe it is true than any of the others, and if true only indicates to me that these people are absolutely clueless.As it is you can't even seem to keep straight what would destabilize oil and so world economies. You mention small terrorist capabilities to hit specific wells. But when shown actual decreases on a large scale within one nation you say national output is of no concern. Well what is it? Israel would only effect Iran's output and it is rather unreasonable to believe terrorists could in one coordinated attack hit the equivalent of several nation's oil supplies.

---

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