"Christian Terrorism" ...could you elaborate?
Are you referring to the gay guy that was dragged behind a truck?
The internet is an amazing tool, I use it so poorly.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Our Mission In Afghanistan Is Doomed
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
"Christian Terrorism" ...could you elaborate?
Are you referring to the gay guy that was dragged behind a truck?
The internet is an amazing tool, I use it so poorly.
I agree with the OP ... Obama neither has the will or the ability to succeed.
PULL EVERYONE OUT
PULL EVERYONE OUT
Counter-insurgency requires a HUGE commitment.
It also requires a tremendous amount of resources devoted to the build-out of infrastructure. We're talking water treatment plants, sewers, roads, power grids and power plants, schools, hospitals, transportation, etc.
This isn't just an issue that revolves around troop strength. It's much more than that and requires "soft" power and other infrastructure strategies and commitments that enables the people of Afghanistan to get out from under the bribes and payola demanded by the Taliban.
The problem is . . .
Is that most of Afghanistan makes downtown Baghdad look like Los Angeles in comparison.
Turning things around in Afghanistan won't be done over night. It's gonna take years, if not a full decade . . . especially if Pakistan is the end-game.
It also requires a tremendous amount of resources devoted to the build-out of infrastructure. We're talking water treatment plants, sewers, roads, power grids and power plants, schools, hospitals, transportation, etc.
This isn't just an issue that revolves around troop strength. It's much more than that and requires "soft" power and other infrastructure strategies and commitments that enables the people of Afghanistan to get out from under the bribes and payola demanded by the Taliban.
The problem is . . .
Is that most of Afghanistan makes downtown Baghdad look like Los Angeles in comparison.
Turning things around in Afghanistan won't be done over night. It's gonna take years, if not a full decade . . . especially if Pakistan is the end-game.
Quote from Landis82:
Counter-insurgency requires a HUGE commitment.
It also requires a tremendous amount of resources devoted to the build-out of infrastructure. We're talking water treatment plants, sewers, roads, power grids and power plants, schools, hospitals, transportation, etc.
This isn't just an issue that revolves around troop strength. It's much more than that and requires "soft" power and other infrastructure strategies and commitments that enables the people of Afghanistan to get out from under the bribes and payola demanded by the Taliban.
The problem is . . .
Is that most of Afghanistan makes downtown Baghdad look like Los Angeles in comparison.
Turning things around in Afghanistan won't be done over night. It's gonna take years, if not a full decade . . . especially if Pakistan is the end-game.
PEACE PRIZE NOMINEE!
Work on your reading and comprehesion ???? DOCTOR ????. I never said that.Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:
That's the difference between the two? The word? I see.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053101181.html
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Don't confuse weakness with moderation. Obama's decision will be all about politics, not about what is best for America.
Your comparison of the taliban to Christian fundamentalists is highly offensive and displays astounding ignorance on your part.
I disagree.
They are identical.
Believe something, follow something, or belong to something, that's inherently anti -human, and contains passages relating directly to the extermination of the human race as an objective, or the extermination of large portions of the human race, then the ideologies are the same.
It's not enough, to simply say "Oh, I don't believe THOSE bits."
Astounding ignorance, my ass.
Quote from RangeBar:
There is no "Win" when the objective is destruction of the Taliban. That is and always has been a ridiculous objective. The Taliban makes up 30% of the population in Afganistan. Destoying the Taliban makes as much sense as trying to destroy Christian fundementalism in America. While its true that the end of both these philosophies would be great for the world: it isn't going to happen.
Obama has corrected our current war objective this week by announcing that we are concerned about Al Quida: not the destruction of the Taliban. There is vigorious discussions going on in own government and our NATO allies as to the proper course to take. Many want unilateral withdrawal while others are calling for troop increases of 40,000 soldiers. I suspect that the correct course of action lies somewhere in the middle. In the MIDDLE is where Obama is governing from.
I only disagree with the bracketing you've mentioned, between unilateral withdrawal and troop increases of 40,000. It may be that 400,000 more soldiers could achieve the goal. I'm not suggesting that, only pointing out a technicality.
Quote from RangeBar:
In the MIDDLE is where Obama is governing from.
I would suggest that he is attempting to govern from the middle of his "progressive" base, not the middle of the macro political spectrum. The ire heaped upon the "blue dogs" over their concerns on spending and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power grab would be my offer of evidence.
I think the whole counter-insurgency strategy is flawed. Somehow if we shower enough goodies on these people in the form of roads, schools, dams, etc they are supposed to reject their religion and culture and support a corrupt central government that exploits and abuses them almost as badly as the taliban. Has it ever worked anywhere?
We need only go into pretty much any urban area of the US to prove that such an approach will not work. For example, the Washington Post has been reporting on a horrifying situation at an inner city academy that attempts to foster excellence in education in a city that spends more than any other city per student but has abysmal results. Every day its students are assaulted by neighborhood gangs as they leave the school grounds. Police and metro officials do little to protect them. We can never pour as much money into afghanistan as we do into these inner cities, yet we make little progress. Their residents act like animals in the jungle.
Our mistake in afghanistan was to ignore its history as a tribal society with a minimalist central government. We should have focused our efforts on arming and training tribal leaders and regional warlords, and let them sort out the central government. Instead, we tried to impose a top-down solution in the form of a strong central government and "democracy." That barely functions in the US. It had no chance in a country where government officials use their positions to settle tribal grievances and graft.
I suppose obama will delay leaving afhganistan until just before the 2012 elections, then grandly announce he has achieved victory and bring the troops home. He'll no doubt win his second Nobel Peace Prize. The taliban or someone worse will be in charge within six months.
We need only go into pretty much any urban area of the US to prove that such an approach will not work. For example, the Washington Post has been reporting on a horrifying situation at an inner city academy that attempts to foster excellence in education in a city that spends more than any other city per student but has abysmal results. Every day its students are assaulted by neighborhood gangs as they leave the school grounds. Police and metro officials do little to protect them. We can never pour as much money into afghanistan as we do into these inner cities, yet we make little progress. Their residents act like animals in the jungle.
Our mistake in afghanistan was to ignore its history as a tribal society with a minimalist central government. We should have focused our efforts on arming and training tribal leaders and regional warlords, and let them sort out the central government. Instead, we tried to impose a top-down solution in the form of a strong central government and "democracy." That barely functions in the US. It had no chance in a country where government officials use their positions to settle tribal grievances and graft.
I suppose obama will delay leaving afhganistan until just before the 2012 elections, then grandly announce he has achieved victory and bring the troops home. He'll no doubt win his second Nobel Peace Prize. The taliban or someone worse will be in charge within six months.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I think the whole counter-insurgency strategy is flawed. Somehow if we shower enough goodies on these people in the form of roads, schools, dams, etc they are supposed to reject their religion and culture and support a corrupt central government that exploits and abuses them almost as badly as the taliban. Has it ever worked anywhere?
We need only go into pretty much any urban area of the US to prove that such an approach will not work. For example, the Washington Post has been reporting on a horrifying situation at an inner city academy that attempts to foster excellence in education in a city that spends more than any other city per student but has abysmal results. Every day its students are assaulted by neighborhood gangs as they leave the school grounds. Police and metro officials do little to protect them. We can never pour as much money into afghanistan as we do into these inner cities, yet we make little progress. Their residents act like animals in the jungle.
Our mistake in afghanistan was to ignore its history as a tribal society with a minimalist central government. We should have focused our efforts on arming and training tribal leaders and regional warlords, and let them sort out the central government. Instead, we tried to impose a top-down solution in the form of a strong central government and "democracy." That barely functions in the US. It had no chance in a country where government officials use their positions to settle tribal grievances and graft.
I suppose obama will delay leaving afhganistan until just before the 2012 elections, then grandly announce he has achieved victory and bring the troops home. He'll no doubt win his second Nobel Peace Prize. The taliban or someone worse will be in charge within six months.
Well DUH.
Why did bush go for saddam? Tribal grievances and vengeance, saddam supposedly tried to kill his papi.
Lets see;
try to prop up a failing government, or install a new one, and it ends in tears because the population itself doesn't support your hearts and minds objectives, no wonder, when villages are being napalmed, everybody is related , and everyone family has an AK-47 or better.
And now, it's all obama's fault??
You are a half-tard.