Posted on 11/20/2008 11:37:21 AM PST by neverdem
|
obama the warmonger? engaging in american imperialism in afghanistan
Rather, the key was transitioning to counterinsurgency COIN a form of warfare that requires many boots on the ground.
Obama should ask all those cute college kiddies who voted for him to sign up
I'm unclear how this was ever forgotten. It is now and always has been the only way to defeat a counter-insurgency. In an insurgency the battlefield is the people.
Actually, there is another way to defeat an insurgency. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. But that's not ever likely to be an acceptable American tactic. Nor should it be.
I am going on record now being against COIN in Afganistan.
If history has shown us anything (Russia), we should ‘police’ Afganistan while husbanding our resources. There is no good exit stragety available for that area for a long time.
(I know nothing of military strategy but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last month.)
Why, when he can just draft our daughters?
Another thing required, I assume, is more money, if we are going to help them fix up Afghanistan.
Can we afford that, if we may soon be strapped for money to keep things going here in the U.S.? That’s one more difficulty raised by the failed economic policies that have grown up over the years—subprime mortgages, lifting of the separation between banks and investment companies, reduction in the loan reserves banks are required to hold, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, unlimited welfare for illegal aliens, failing corporations, and all the rest of it.
Bad time to be gearing up a new war, desirable as it might be to do so.
Afghanistan is a NATO led mission, unlike Iraq. Obama wants to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan (even though he has said on tape in Germany that all they do in Afghanistan is bomb and kill civilians). I want to see the rest of NATO increase their troop levels in Afghanistan before we send anymore of our young men and women there to be criticized by our next Commander in Chief.
Classic quip: “throwing more manpower at a late project makes it later.”
Some situations just don’t benefit from more bodies. The job will take as long as it takes, given the right people & equipment & information for the job. The problem in Afghanistan isn’t not enough bodies to do the job, it’s FINDING the targets - and throwing more grunts at the problem won’t help.
I really don’t understand what O thinks he can do, what Bush hasn’t done, that will finish the job any faster.
Lots of Luck!!!
Afghanistan is the wrong place at any time. An argument can be made for us having been in Iraq (oil, strategic location, Sadaam’s aggression etc,) any valid objectives we might have in Afghanistan could be realized by remote control. Bomb camps, defoliate poppy fields to cut off opium revenue etc.
Iraq had/has a reasonably developed society with a few main groups. Afghanistan is comprised of MANY warlike tribes that have been in the business of fighting invaders for millennia, from the Persians, Alexander, the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, and now us. They have NEVER been subdued. Even at the height of the power of the British Raj, they only held Kabul and 100 yards to each side of the main supply route. These people’s culture is war. They will NEVER be subdued or stabilized. The terrain and infrastructure in Iraq enabled our forces, the opposite is and will be true in Afghanistan. Even now resupply is sometimes problematical.
We should get out now. the good news is that BO and the Dims are so blinded by Bush hate they will pull out whilly nilly from where we have (arguably) won and, so as not to be labeled weak on defense they will plunge into what will REALLY be a quagmire. It would almost be good if it weren’t that our troops will have to pay the blood price for their folly.
I’ve always felt that iraq made more sense than afghanistan. We’re going to go after a bunch of guys in toyota pickup trucks while Ssaddam had oil, $$$, scuds and who knows what?
But our enemies of radical Islam (and whats left of AQ) is there. They must be continuously hunted until those top-tier elements are dead or captured (and that list is getting smaller without question).
We are not looking to "rule" Stan or turn it into anything specifically other than a quasi-ally / and/or no threat to us (U.S.). By and large this has been accomplished and we've succeeded in Stan like no others have (up till this point). Our enemies are being pushed out, in the opposite direction of their desires (which is why Pak border regions are the area of focus/attention and study).
More boots on the ground in Stan can and will be useful. Albeit, used correctly. More air assault assets / CAV assets even more so. Our OODA circle continues to become smaller and smaller with AOs throughout much of Stan. It is about having the needed assets available to take full advantage of that smaller and smaller OODA loop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.