Chris_Balsz on November 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Agreed:
Is Obama assuming that Pakistan or Afghanistan intends to provide security for the United States?

Doesn’t matter what his intention is. Hurting you might not be my intention by punching you in the arm, but that doesn’t mean you hurt any less.

amerpundit on November 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Check this out:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215111307.htm

Can any right winger consider themselves both a fiscal con and a nation builder? Why is spending a trillion over 10 years on health care a bad idea, if spending the same in Afghanistan is good? Please? Anyone? And please answer me docdave haw many extra tax dollars are you willing to pay to bring Afghanistan into modernity?

snoopicus on November 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM

They attacked the United States, they will do so again if left alone. Your strategy is to rely on Afghans to step forward and finger their native strongmen–AFTER you stand down to a point that the Taliban could hang “collaborators” in daylight and nothing would be done about it; so your strategy is to fail. If there’s something prudent about allowing US cities to burn at the whim of our enemies, I don’t see it.

I have no limit on defense. There is no amount where I would say “We lost, might as well quit stopping them from hitting us.” I don’t think our military situation is as bad off in any way as we were in January 1942. I don’t think you’ve earned the right to whine about the costs. We are choosing not to win a war of self-defense, and nothing good can come of it.

“Village consensus in Afghanistan is key and the Taliban realize this”

So what’s wrong with winning like we did in Iraq? Isn’t that McCrystals plan if he can get the extra troops?

Never expected to see so much defeatist attitude at HA.

Iraq was a modern secular nation under saddam, all we needed to do was remove saddam and place a new authority at the head of government. Afghanistan is in 700 AD, no water, no power, no literacy, not secular, and tribal. We only needed to change the apparatus of government in Iraq, we are trying to change a civilization in Afghanistan. We are trying to change who these people fundamentally are which is a devout, ignorant, bass-ackwards society oh and many are very content to stay that way. Many of the rural Pashtuns what nothing to do with modernity. They don’t want their wives exposing their hair, or their daughters reading Twilight or taking birth control. All of this modernization and progress we are trying to give is destroying the life they know and so they resist. Iraq was nothing like this. Iraqis had tv and satellite dishes. they know the modern world and were a part of it under saddam. The jihadist in Iraq were foreigners trying to change Iraq, thats why the Iraqis sided with us to help kick out foreign jihadist. The jihadist in Afghanistan are Pashtuns (even if their technically Pakistani) the Afghans are not going to ultimately side with the foreigners (us) to kick out their own.

Can any right winger consider themselves both a fiscal con and a nation builder? Why is spending a trillion over 10 years on health care a bad idea, if spending the same in Afghanistan is good? Please? Anyone? And please answer me docdave haw many extra tax dollars are you willing to pay to bring Afghanistan into modernity?

McChrystal’s either going to get the troops he wants or some fraction thereof, and he’ll have to try to secure the country with what he’s got.

Fixating on the number of American troops in Afghanistan is missing the forest for the trees as doing so shuts one’s eyes to what is much more important – strategy and ROE.

Trying to win with the resources available or sporadically telling the troops who’ll have to fight the rest of this war under tough conditions that they’re destined to lose?

Win what?

Even so, this is a rotten thing to say when troops are in the field, with morale already sagging.

I really doubt that very many of the troops have lower morale because they are worried that they might not get to spend every other year for the next twenty years in the Mullah’s hemorrhoid called Afghanistan. And that’s even never minding the ROE that have been in place for the last few months.

So do we stay forever to prevent this??? Or use Special ops, cia, drones, spies etc to wage an almost guerrila war against them?

snoopicus on November 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM

So what’s wrong with winning like we did in Iraq? Isn’t that McCrystals plan if he can get the extra troops?

Never expected to see so much defeatist attitude at HA.

If we leave, it will revert back to that state, the world will be plunged into increased terrorist activity and we’ll lose whatever remaining influence we have in the mid-east.

So do we stay forever to prevent this??? Or use Special ops, cia, drones, spies etc to wage an almost guerrila war against them?

If we leave, it will revert back to that state, the world will be plunged into increased terrorist activity and we’ll lose whatever remaining influence we have in the mid-east.

This is total bullshit. Its wack-a-mole over there, if we start kicking their asses in afghanistan, they simply move to pakistan. I don’t know about you but I would rather have al-quaeda in 700AD afghanistan than nuclear armed pakistan. The thing that this point of view misses is that pre 911 we never did anything to disrupt al-quada, and a return to that is not what is being advocated. All I want to do is reduce our troop presence to a few thousand special ops coordinating drone attacks and targeted assinations on al-quada whenever they meet. Lets fight in afghanistan the way we fight them in pakistan. The problem with the current senario is that we don’t really fight that much with all the troops we have. They are just forced to go on patrols where the eventually walk by an ied that is detinated by someone with a cell phone. Al-quada is mobile, if we deploy more troops they just lay low. If we begin to pull out, perhaps the turtle will come out of its shell.

PS please dont pretend we need tens of thousands of troops to produce intelligence, its not true.

No one wants to confront nuclear Pakistan to deliver al Qaeda for prosecution.

Yes, Iraq was and is a literate and educated society that during Hussein’s rule was as secular as could be.

Iraq was a strategic point between nuclear Pakistan that shares the insurmountable terrain with Afghanistan, and IRAN. To deal with al Qaeda AND nuclear Islam, the US needed a military base within Islam; and Iraq would serve that purpose.

And to motivate support to attack Hussein, the unconfirmed agreement for American popular appeal was that the US military campaign in Iraq would be financially recompensed via the liberated Iraq government’s oil profits. That rumor staved off the leery anticipation against invasion due to the extraordinary expense to tax payers.

The astute warning that Michael Savage reminds Americans to consider regards Bush’s Iraqi shift of political power that has genocidal results.
1. The forgotten Iraqi Christian population, tolerated for 2000 years, has been annihilated since Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
2. A new monopoly of power unites the single most populous Muslim sect that Iraq shares in common with Iran, strengthening rather than weakening the Iranian theocratic radical influence over Iraq.

McChrystal’s report from Afghanistan stipulates basic matters that no other US official report dared to address because though factual, these matters are neither politically correct nor exuded Bush’s “HOPE” for mutual respect.

According to McChrystal’s report, EVERYTHING that America does and decides in Afghanistan creates a seismic (not hairline) shift in power that by nature alienates every existing power as every tribal member and leader experiences a loss in stature from what they have been, destabilized, literally experiencing the negative effects of redistribution.

McChrystal stipulates that Muslim mountain tribal customs will NEVER change to suit anyone outside the tribe. So whether Bush or Obama, you can lead the Muslim fundamentalist to water of “improvement” or change, but you can’t make him drink it and expect to get what you want in return. Ever. You can educate and extend “enlightenment” friendship and even confidence, but only as a fool if you expect mutual reciprocation of complete respect for you and your “corrupt” ways from a fundamentalist society.

Obama charged McChrystal with the duty to surmise the US Military position in Afghanistan and determine how to militarily maintain control of the region. Meanwhile, Obama is WAITING for decisive solutions to appear magically like the stalk to heaven from the beans he traded for his mom’s cow.

Update: Commenters are arguing that if we’re only going to fight at half-strength, to “lose with honor,” then we’re better off bringing everyone home and saving some American lives. That’s a noble sentiment — I’m sure I’ve said it before myself — but the hard, cold fact of the matter is that bringing them home isn’t an option that’s being considered.

Dont be so sure that leaving is not an option being considered. Staying in Afghanistan forever is the only thing that won’t be considered. For everyone who wants to stay and fight the fight to the bitter end, what is it worth to you as a tax payer? Would you accept say a 2% increase in income tax? How about a 10%. If the generals come back and say it should take 5 more years is that too long? How about 10 years? If we lose 1000 more soldiers is that acceptable? What are your limits, at what point does the cost of all this outweigh the benefits? And please explain what these benefits will be.

Allahpundit wanted a young potus, and got one.