Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

Whew, at least this is interesting to discuss. If the goal of invading Afghanistan was to eliminate the AQ threat, then I totally agree it was a fiasco. To start with it will never be eliminated by military action. Quetzal and I had a thread devoted to a debate regarding that very thing (stayed pretty high level too).However I do not feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was to eliminate AQ, much less the threat from AQ.Afghanistan was in a state of chaos because we had let it drift after it served our purpose against the soviets. The Taliban were a de facto ruling gov't for the nation, but the reality is that they were the latest group at the top of an ongoing civil war. Their activities were empoverishing their nation as well as pushing for radicalization.AQ had high level assets (leadership) in Afghanistan and they were protected by the Taliban. We had a right to pursue those assets and had cause to remove the Taliban from power while we were at it. While that is true, that's largely due to poor investment in pursuing that goal. I'm not sure if you've kept up with what went on there, but intelligence is that we really missed them by not having enough forces in there, and especially allocated to Tora Bora.Some journalists claim there seemed to be more journalists there than military.That we failed to do something does not mean that it was an impossible or unworthy task. I absolutely agree with this assessment.

---

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 not sure we are all that far apart.AbE: The stated goal and reason though for invading Afghanistan was the capture on Bin Ladin and the other AQ members.
End of insertI question, and questioned at the time whether conventional military responses were reasonable or even feasable as a way of getting to those AQ assets in Afghanistan.Fighting terrorism is a new paradigm. It is not the same old Nation State scenario, and closer to crime fighting in requirements. It is far more like fighting the Mafia in the US or Italy than classic military operations.Unfortunately, in Afghanistan many of the advantages technology might provide were negated by the insular character of the countryside. We were the proverbial bull in the china shop, and could do little that was not immediately communicated to the terrorists. Agreed. But not sure how invading the country again can be seen as constructive. Sure. I agree. Piss poor planning and execution.BUT...to really be effective the terrorists needed to be in the developed countries. As long as they were sitting in camps in Afghanistan they were little threat. What was or could be accomplished by pursuing them incountry?Edited by jar, : add part on stated goal

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think I'm done with this.You seem intent on not answering pertinent points I raise, and even where you do mention them, do not give me solid explanations. For example you did not address why an administration trying to keep this under wraps would reveal this by holding different standards regarding CnR between Iraq and Afghanistan.I wholly admit I am not in a position to know if what you claim is what's really being done. All I can say is that I seriously doubt it, and if it is true is just one more reason to consider this administration idiots.If you want to start addressing my points you can start with these: Why do we need that many? What would we really need to deal with the issues you brought up? We only need 130K+ to actually hold a nation.If it is too much for shipboard capabilities (marine strike forces and air assets), then we could easily have temp or permanent bases in Kuwait and SA... like we had for years without and excuse before.And if we needed a new excuse there is no reason we couldn't have used the exact same excuse we used to put our forces in the area in the first place before the Iraq invasion. No one stopped us then, why would it be any different? Why would you then have to conquer Iraq? While Iraq does not like Israel, they are at military loggerheads with Iran. They would not want to see Iran with nuclear weapons.Not to mention you already have a base, all that would change is that you'd have to protect it. That would be relatively easy to do, and indeed pre-emptive strikes against military forces would have been plausible without having to hunt down leadership with consequential civilian damage.And your analysis skips the obvious counterpoint. If this happens, and our base is the entirety of Iraq, it is likely the population itself will cause problems. They don't need Hussein to do that, and many elements are allied with Iran. Thus we'd be in the exact same position as the one you posited, only worse because our forces are more scattered, surrounded, and having to fight civilians.I could add to this that I don't see the new Iraqi gov't necessarily staying together or fully supporting us if Israel turned on Iran. How about an outraged population on the verge of civil war? Just because Hussein is gone does not mean the entire population of Iraq has vanished. They can certainly cause problems. This is more likely, if as you claim we suddenly try and skip town to defend oilfields here and there.

---

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

Agreed. Did you catch the thread Q and I had? Sounds like you would have been on my side. I described it as counterespionage with our fighting independently functioning equivalents of the CIA. Perhaps a better analogy is that we are fighting SPECTRE from James Bond. Invading to take over would not be constructive. Invading to displace the ruling warlords who are impoverishing and radicalizing the nation would be. That would not only act to return a more stable and moderate gov't (benefit for Afghans), it would provide backup resources for intel-mil operations against AQ targets.Part of this may be a chip I've had on my shoulder for a long time. I was upset with our support for the mujhadeen against the soviets, which encouraged radicalization. Then I was upset when we left Afghanistan to whither and descend into civil war with the radicals (on all sides) holding the ability to rule. When we allowed the Taliban to take over as if it was nothing, I was pretty shocked.What they managed to do to that nation was horrific (including attacks on historical sites to blackmail other nations to fund them).More than Darfur or Rhwanda, which many feel there was an obligation for powerful nations to deal with, I think we had a reason to deal with the Taliban. Justice, symbolism, as well as practical matters of disrupting the organization and possibly capturing intel on operations outside 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)

And how is a conventional military operations with all of the incumbent baggage such as newsmen the only option for that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To do that would involve nation building. Bush had already made clear (in his 2000 election campaign), that he was against nation building. The conduct of both Afghanistan and Iraq policy has been entirely consistent with that attitude toward nation building.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I should have been more clear. The quote you are responding to was limited specifically to your question of why we should go after AQ assets "in country". That could have been pursued without a full military operation.The reason I supported conventional military operations was to oust the Taliban, in order to break the longterm civil war in favor of moderates, as well as provide useful tools for any intel-mil ops against AQ assets.I do not think full conventional military ops hurt our pursuit of AQ assets, and has succeeded to some degree in restabilizing that nation. Of course how it has been managed has not helped as much as it could have. Our diversion into Iraq seriously undercut its effectiveness.

---

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 think you have a typo there (serious not sarcastic). You did mean inconsistent, right?I agree it was against Bush's stated policy. And I am normally against nation building efforts as well. I think it is unjust and impractical for nations to try to improve other nations, particularly under force of arms.Afghanistan is a bit of an exception. It was not a full sovereign power, but rather a region of feuding warlords with one group having gained primary lead of an important subregion. That group would not be in lead position, and indeed the nation would not have been in civil war except that we abandoned them after engaging in a nationbuilding effort. Finally, an attack on the US emerged from an organization within Aghanistan and protected by that lead group.

---

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

Sorry, I don't buy that either. All the elements of 9/11 were in previous terrorist attacks. They also did not expect to topple the towers, so their intent was significantly less than what happened. So? That is still an insignificant dent in the human population that are killed by other means, from car accidents to vice presidential hunting sprees.What you are missing is the perspective of the whole world -- what is the trade towers against Darfur etc etc etc.Insignificant.So you go after the criminals as criminals and stand tall for freedom and liberty and respect for human dignity. You lead instead of chase.You certainly do NOT invade a country of convenience on a trumped up excuse for personal aggrandizement. Like stuffing tissue in your jodpurs eh?The world is worse because of Iraq, worse because of the Schwubbia administration string of blunders, worse because the real problem has not even been addressed, and without that there will be no end.Enjoy.

---

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.

Actually, I meant what I wrote. But perhaps that was confusing.Bush sent the troops to Afghanistan to clear out the Taliban. But he did little for nation building. He essentially told the Afghans to build their own nation. And that's why things have been steadily deteriorating.Likewise, in Iraq, he basically expected the Iraqis to do their own nation building, but they seem to be building a civil war instead.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Well, looks like I am once again making a fool of myself.Edited by jar, : retract really dumb statement.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

the only reason schwubbia invaded Iraq was because it was in the plans before 9/11 and they were just waiting for an excuse.yeah they thought they could get oil bonus too, after all, what was "protected" during the invasion and what was not?but 9/11 is a smoke screen. not a changed reality.

One possible reason it was "in the plans" might be the following:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ahhhh... stealth humor technology. Got it this time. An interesting point. I'd love to see a journalist skewer Bush by approaching him with that perspective.

---

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 didn't read what would come with it. What do you think the effect of 10 planes falling out of the sky into the sea would be on the airline business/the aircraft manufacturing (and associated) industrie(s)/tourist industry/international business/banking industry? Do you suppose that a low margin industry which relies on flying people filled planes would continue to fly people filled planes?Or would people vote with their feet? Note that had the first attack involving soft drinks bottle explosives succeeded and the evidence for what caused the downings lay at the bottom of the ocean you would have difficulty figuring where to target your increased security before the next attack. And I'm assuming 3 attacks over say the space of a year in considering the damage to the aforementionedThats creative...Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.