Saving Face in Afghanistan
This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.
The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 – just to be “safe? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it?
I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what?
The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.
Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.
The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Saving Face in Afghanistan
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
United States to send ‘up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan’
James Kirkup and Andrew Hough
Telegraph
October 15, 2009
President Barack Obama’s administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce, as early as next week, the substantial increase to its 65,000 troops already serving there.
The decision from Mr Obama comes after he considered a request from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send tens of thousands of extra American troops to the country.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said: “I don’t want to put words in the mouths of the Americans but I am fairly confident of the way it is going to come out.”
An announcement next week could coincide with a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, due next Thursday and Friday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html
James Kirkup and Andrew Hough
Telegraph
October 15, 2009
President Barack Obama’s administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce, as early as next week, the substantial increase to its 65,000 troops already serving there.
The decision from Mr Obama comes after he considered a request from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send tens of thousands of extra American troops to the country.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said: “I don’t want to put words in the mouths of the Americans but I am fairly confident of the way it is going to come out.”
An announcement next week could coincide with a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, due next Thursday and Friday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan
AFP
October 13, 2009
In an unannounced move, President Barack Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 US troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced publicly in March, The Washington Post reported Monday.
The additional forces are primarily support forces — such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police — the Post said, bringing the total buildup Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.
“Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000, a defense official familiar with the troop-approval process told the daily.
The report, posted on the newspaper’s website late Monday, came as Obama weighs a request from the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for more combat, training and support troops, with several options including one for 40,000 more forces.
Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan - Yahoo! News
AFP
October 13, 2009
In an unannounced move, President Barack Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 US troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced publicly in March, The Washington Post reported Monday.
The additional forces are primarily support forces — such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police — the Post said, bringing the total buildup Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.
“Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000, a defense official familiar with the troop-approval process told the daily.
The report, posted on the newspaper’s website late Monday, came as Obama weighs a request from the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for more combat, training and support troops, with several options including one for 40,000 more forces.
Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan - Yahoo! News
Link removed by moderator
Saving Face in Afghanistan
The situation went irrevocably downhill the moment we invaded.
The invasion was illegal and unjustifiable and the only possible result was to align opposition to the West.
It is far too late to complain about it now it is not going all our way - the time to object was when the warmongers were rattling their sabres.
The invasion was illegal and unjustifiable and the only possible result was to align opposition to the West.
It is far too late to complain about it now it is not going all our way - the time to object was when the warmongers were rattling their sabres.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
US military spreading death?
YouTube - 'US military spreading death'
I am curious to ask this question to all the members of this board.
What will be the consequences for the United States after being the culprit of offensively going out and killing so many people in so many different countries be it both innocent civilian and enemy combatant alike?
Although there may also be benefits to doing such a thing, usuallly ranging from monetary benefits to perhaps a false sense of security, but I am more interested in what the actual consequences will be for such behavior.
Any ideas?
YouTube - 'US military spreading death'
I am curious to ask this question to all the members of this board.
What will be the consequences for the United States after being the culprit of offensively going out and killing so many people in so many different countries be it both innocent civilian and enemy combatant alike?
Although there may also be benefits to doing such a thing, usuallly ranging from monetary benefits to perhaps a false sense of security, but I am more interested in what the actual consequences will be for such behavior.
Any ideas?
Link removed by moderator
Saving Face in Afghanistan
We finally agree on something TB.
Its disgusting when people worry about how we will be percieved throughout the world if we exit as if thats a valid consideration. That really blows my mind.
Its disgusting when people worry about how we will be percieved throughout the world if we exit as if thats a valid consideration. That really blows my mind.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Nomad;1252585 wrote: We finally agree on something TB.
Its disgusting when people consider how we will be percieved throughout the world if we exit as if thats a valid consideration. That really blows my mind.
I wouldn't worry about how the World perceives us as we are exiting. I would worry about what happens if we continue to pour our resources down a back hole for a war that can not be won. And we should be concerned about what happens if we continue to kill the citizens of each country we are currently invading with no end in sight. Eventually, that body count comes back to haunt you. We don't have a clue how many enemies we create daily by slaughtering people's loved ones.
Its disgusting when people consider how we will be percieved throughout the world if we exit as if thats a valid consideration. That really blows my mind.
I wouldn't worry about how the World perceives us as we are exiting. I would worry about what happens if we continue to pour our resources down a back hole for a war that can not be won. And we should be concerned about what happens if we continue to kill the citizens of each country we are currently invading with no end in sight. Eventually, that body count comes back to haunt you. We don't have a clue how many enemies we create daily by slaughtering people's loved ones.
Link removed by moderator
Saving Face in Afghanistan
TruthBringer;1252588 wrote: I wouldn't worry about how the World perceives us as we are exiting. I would worry about what happens if we continue to pour our resources down a back hole for a war that can not be won. And we should be concerned about what happens if we continue to kill the citizens of each country we are currently invading.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
The only time a war of this sort has been won that I am aware of was the Malayan Emergency. Took 20 years and was based round "hearts and minds".
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Clodhopper;1252633 wrote: The only time a war of this sort has been won that I am aware of was the Malayan Emergency. Took 20 years and was based round "hearts and minds".
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
It is now - it wasn't before we started it.
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
It is now - it wasn't before we started it.
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Clodhopper;1252633 wrote: The only time a war of this sort has been won that I am aware of was the Malayan Emergency. Took 20 years and was based round "hearts and minds".
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
This war has done nothing but SUCCEED into chasing extremeist and fundamentalist islam into other countries. Sudan and Pakistan for example.
I never believed the reasons given for such an invasion. The U.S. is already very very good at picking off it's individual enemies. I.E. Colonal Moammar Khaddafi (well at least his wife), General Noriega etc. We are commiting the grossest sins in horrific new ways and persuading decent people to go along with it. ie toture, waterboarding, illegal internment etc. How the people of the U.S. can stomach this is beyond me!
With some reluctance I supported the war. I think I still do. For me, the big question is still, "What happens if we pull out?"
At present, it seems to me that the Taliban would then control Afganistan and use it as a base to export terrorism to another country. We would have to oppose it in that other country (or watch another country fall to religious fundamentalism) and STILL be faced with a Taliban controlled Afganistan.
I don't like this war, I don't want this war, but I do worry that the alternative to it is worse.
This war has done nothing but SUCCEED into chasing extremeist and fundamentalist islam into other countries. Sudan and Pakistan for example.
I never believed the reasons given for such an invasion. The U.S. is already very very good at picking off it's individual enemies. I.E. Colonal Moammar Khaddafi (well at least his wife), General Noriega etc. We are commiting the grossest sins in horrific new ways and persuading decent people to go along with it. ie toture, waterboarding, illegal internment etc. How the people of the U.S. can stomach this is beyond me!
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
This war has done nothing but SUCCEED into chasing extremeist and fundamentalist islam into other countries. Sudan and Pakistan for example.
You think a Taliban/Al-Qaeda controlled Afganistan would not have exported fundamentalism to Pakistan and Sudan? I'm under the impression they regard it as their religious duty.
If Afganistan falls to fundamentalism and we pull out, Pakistan will be next and that will give Al-Qaeda nuclear weapons.
You think a Taliban/Al-Qaeda controlled Afganistan would not have exported fundamentalism to Pakistan and Sudan? I'm under the impression they regard it as their religious duty.
If Afganistan falls to fundamentalism and we pull out, Pakistan will be next and that will give Al-Qaeda nuclear weapons.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Clodhopper;1252964 wrote: You think a Taliban/Al-Qaeda controlled Afganistan would not have exported fundamentalism to Pakistan and Sudan? I'm under the impression they regard it as their religious duty.
If Afganistan falls to fundamentalism and we pull out, Pakistan will be next and that will give Al-Qaeda nuclear weapons.
They probably already have them. The intrigues and such that our own governments get up to would probably make most of us live underground. If they keep it up, we'll all be in caves again in no time anyway. Because everybody will bomb everybody back to the stoneage! And we must ask who would benefit from that?
If Afganistan falls to fundamentalism and we pull out, Pakistan will be next and that will give Al-Qaeda nuclear weapons.
They probably already have them. The intrigues and such that our own governments get up to would probably make most of us live underground. If they keep it up, we'll all be in caves again in no time anyway. Because everybody will bomb everybody back to the stoneage! And we must ask who would benefit from that?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Raven;1252985 wrote: They probably already have them. The intrigues and such that our own governments get up to would probably make most of us live underground. If they keep it up, we'll all be in caves again in no time anyway. Because everybody will bomb everybody back to the stoneage! And we must ask who would benefit from that?
Nobody would benefit. The problem is that we care about that and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda DON'T. They just want to be martyrs and to die in a blaze of glory, for their cause.
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori. ~ Wilfred Owen.
Nobody would benefit. The problem is that we care about that and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda DON'T. They just want to be martyrs and to die in a blaze of glory, for their cause.
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori. ~ Wilfred Owen.
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Rapunzel;1252989 wrote: Nobody would benefit. The problem is that we care about that and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda DON'T. They just want to be martyrs and to die in a blaze of glory, for their cause.
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori. ~ Wilfred Owen.
No they dont. They are quite happy in putting others in paradise first. Like babies with bombs strapped to them. :-1
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori. ~ Wilfred Owen.
No they dont. They are quite happy in putting others in paradise first. Like babies with bombs strapped to them. :-1
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
They probably already have them.
Not that I've heard. They might have, but I've not heard anyone claim it.
The intrigues and such that our own governments get up to would probably make most of us live underground. If they keep it up, we'll all be in caves again in no time anyway. Because everybody will bomb everybody back to the stoneage! And we must ask who would benefit from that?
Ever since 1945 we have only been a couple of button pushes away from the Stone Age (or complete extinction). Fortunately Mutually Assured Destruction prevented it. Unfortunately, I don't think MAD will deter the fundamentalists.
Not that I've heard. They might have, but I've not heard anyone claim it.
The intrigues and such that our own governments get up to would probably make most of us live underground. If they keep it up, we'll all be in caves again in no time anyway. Because everybody will bomb everybody back to the stoneage! And we must ask who would benefit from that?
Ever since 1945 we have only been a couple of button pushes away from the Stone Age (or complete extinction). Fortunately Mutually Assured Destruction prevented it. Unfortunately, I don't think MAD will deter the fundamentalists.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Raven;1252992 wrote: No they dont. They are quite happy in putting others in paradise first. Like babies with bombs strapped to them. :-1
True, the ones at the top of the pile don't. They're not that stupid.
But all the rest of the brainwashed and unwashed think it's a great idea.
And it only needs one . . . :sneaky:
True, the ones at the top of the pile don't. They're not that stupid.
But all the rest of the brainwashed and unwashed think it's a great idea.
And it only needs one . . . :sneaky:
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Clodhopper;1252993 wrote: Not that I've heard. They might have, but I've not heard anyone claim it.
Ever since 1945 we have only been a couple of button pushes away from the Stone Age (or complete extinction). Fortunately Mutually Assured Destruction prevented it. Unfortunately, I don't think MAD will deter the fundamentalists.
I dont think they are that stupid. They KNOW that their own country would be turned to glass. I think they are working for, and being funded by, the west. Afghanistan has a puppet government and so does Iraq. Who is pulling the strings? The west. SPECIFICALLY the U.S. and UK. Why? Energy reserves. And Russia.
Ever since 1945 we have only been a couple of button pushes away from the Stone Age (or complete extinction). Fortunately Mutually Assured Destruction prevented it. Unfortunately, I don't think MAD will deter the fundamentalists.
I dont think they are that stupid. They KNOW that their own country would be turned to glass. I think they are working for, and being funded by, the west. Afghanistan has a puppet government and so does Iraq. Who is pulling the strings? The west. SPECIFICALLY the U.S. and UK. Why? Energy reserves. And Russia.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
I dont think they are that stupid. They KNOW that their own country would be turned to glass.
As far as I am aware, they believe they will go to paradise and live in bliss with all the infidels they have killed as their slaves for all eternity.
Very much doubt they are working for and funded by our governments.
As far as I am aware, they believe they will go to paradise and live in bliss with all the infidels they have killed as their slaves for all eternity.
Very much doubt they are working for and funded by our governments.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Saving Face in Afghanistan
Clodhopper;1252998 wrote: As far as I am aware, they believe they will go to paradise and live in bliss with all the infidels they have killed as their slaves for all eternity.
Very much doubt they are working for and funded by our governments.
But why hasnt Bin laden been captured then? Why did Bill Clinton nay say the assasination of the bloke when they had the chance? He is probably living in San Clemente California with Mikael Gorbachav. Too many unanswered questions. And all of them lead me to believe we are deliberatly being misled.
Very much doubt they are working for and funded by our governments.
But why hasnt Bin laden been captured then? Why did Bill Clinton nay say the assasination of the bloke when they had the chance? He is probably living in San Clemente California with Mikael Gorbachav. Too many unanswered questions. And all of them lead me to believe we are deliberatly being misled.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Saving Face in Afghanistan
But why hasnt Bin laden been captured then
I don't think that's as easy as you appear to. Big place, the world. Also, I'm not even sure he's still alive. Do wonder if Tora Bora did for him.
Why did Bill Clinton nay say the assasination of the bloke when they had the chance?
Because he had moral qualms? Or didn't want to create a martyr?
He is probably living in San Clemente California with Mikael Gorbachav
:wah:
Also Elvis and Robert "the Con" Maxwell...
And all of them lead me to believe we are deliberatly being misled.
Blimey. And I thought I was cynical!
Think you might be falling into the conspiracy theory trap.
I don't think that's as easy as you appear to. Big place, the world. Also, I'm not even sure he's still alive. Do wonder if Tora Bora did for him.
Why did Bill Clinton nay say the assasination of the bloke when they had the chance?
Because he had moral qualms? Or didn't want to create a martyr?
He is probably living in San Clemente California with Mikael Gorbachav
:wah:
Also Elvis and Robert "the Con" Maxwell...
And all of them lead me to believe we are deliberatly being misled.
Blimey. And I thought I was cynical!
Think you might be falling into the conspiracy theory trap.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."