Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama administration’s goals seem muddled even to the people who fund the war. Last week, I visited Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “The policy in Afghanistan is confusing to me, and if it’s confusing to me, who does this every day, it’s got to be confusing to someone whose primary responsibility is to raise their family and go to work,” he said.
I asked Rogers what, specifically, he found so confusing. His answer was pleasantly clear-cut. “The administration is talking about negotiating with the very people we’ve been trying to discredit for 10 years,” he said. “We’ve been trying to gain the support of people who are scared to death of the Taliban, and now they’re scared to death that we’re trying to bring the Taliban back.”
Rogers, a former Army officer whose brother is a two-star general, doesn’t think it’s too late to inflict a strategic defeat on the Taliban. But he argues that this isn’t a goal shared by the Obama administration. “We were winning on the ground. I was one of the few who came out in favor of the president’s surge. Yes, people say we’ve been there for 10 years, but it’s really been only since 2009. The surge is the real date. We had good intel then that the Taliban commanders were losing the fire in the belly. We saw what was happening, but guess what? We brought them back to life -- we said we were leaving, we don’t care what the circumstances are. It’s a well- known idea that you never go to war thinking that you can’t win.”
What a waste of time and money - not so much the mission, but the lack of wanting to win the war, telling the enemy when we are leaving regardless of the progress. This is a total shame.
Exactly what was the mission? And what did the US accomplish??
Good question - nothing clear was defined that I can remember. I suppose if the mission was not defined, it makes that the exit is undefined also. So I guess I have a problem with the purpose of the surge also.
I will research and see if Obama actually stated a purpose.
doesn’t think it’s too late to inflict a strategic defeat on the Taliban.
I'd sure be interested in hearing exactly how he thinks that can be done and why it wasn't done in the 8 years before Obama took office.
Quote:
What a waste of time and money - not so much the mission, but the lack of wanting to win the war, telling the enemy when we are leaving regardless of the progress. This is a total shame.
Maybe that lack of desire to win has something to do with the clear and inescapable fact that nobody has ever defined "winning." Not since day one have we had any goal beyond the rather inexact idea of "fostering democracy."
It is a shame. The war COULD have been won long ago with the application of raw force, but neither Bush nor Obama understood that. Neither did Congress. Only morons and the most intransigent of ideologues think you can nation build before defeating the enemy militarily. Simpletons who believe that nonsense always point to Germany or Japan as evidence that nation building can work. What they fail to note is that we beat them into total submission first.
As for "telling the enemy when we are leaving regardless of the progress?" They didn't HAVE to be told that. They've known it from the first day and so has anyone else with half a brain. Given our "strategy" and the tactics we've employed in Afghanistan, there has never been any other possibility.
Afghanistan has been a complete victory for all the people and companies that were paid to provide goods and services to our Military during this "War". This has been a very successful campaign even if you count the insurance losses for the troops that have been killed. It is a great war for the warmongers and profiteers.
NOT for the rest of us paying the Butcher's Bill and definitely NOT for all the Afghani civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Good question - nothing clear was defined that I can remember. I suppose if the mission was not defined, it makes that the exit is undefined also. So I guess I have a problem with the purpose of the surge also.
I will research and see if Obama actually stated a purpose.
The US has been in Afghanistan "Fighting the War on Terror" since 2001. I think you need to research GWB to find the answer. If you can't find an explanation from GWB, try Cheney.
I'd sure be interested in hearing exactly how he thinks that can be done and why it wasn't done in the 8 years before Obama took office.
Maybe that lack of desire to win has something to do with the clear and inescapable fact that nobody has ever defined "winning." Not since day one have we had any goal beyond the rather inexact idea of "fostering democracy."
It is a shame. The war COULD have been won long ago with the application of raw force, but neither Bush nor Obama understood that. Neither did Congress. Only morons and the most intransigent of ideologues think you can nation build before defeating the enemy militarily. Simpletons who believe that nonsense always point to Germany or Japan as evidence that nation building can work. What they fail to note is that we beat them into total submission first.
As for "telling the enemy when we are leaving regardless of the progress?" They didn't HAVE to be told that. They've known it from the first day and so has anyone else with half a brain. Given our "strategy" and the tactics we've employed in Afghanistan, there has never been any other possibility.
Nonsense. We NEVER could've won that war, and thinking otherwise is pure fantasy. Nothing short of a nuke could've ended in a victory for us. This cockiness and hubris is what gets us in trouble in the first place.
Some of you think that we're supermen. The Afghan's are like 100-0 as far as their won-loss record. And they'll maintain that record no matter who shows up at their doorstep. Us included.
If we would've tried to apply this "raw force" you speak of, we would've just gotten a "rawer asswhipping." That's all there is to it.
The Obama administration’s goals seem muddled even to the people who fund the war. Last week, I visited Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “The policy in Afghanistan is confusing to me, and if it’s confusing to me, who does this every day, it’s got to be confusing to someone whose primary responsibility is to raise their family and go to work,” he said.
I asked Rogers what, specifically, he found so confusing. His answer was pleasantly clear-cut. “The administration is talking about negotiating with the very people we’ve been trying to discredit for 10 years,” he said. “We’ve been trying to gain the support of people who are scared to death of the Taliban, and now they’re scared to death that we’re trying to bring the Taliban back.”
Rogers, a former Army officer whose brother is a two-star general, doesn’t think it’s too late to inflict a strategic defeat on the Taliban. But he argues that this isn’t a goal shared by the Obama administration. “We were winning on the ground. I was one of the few who came out in favor of the president’s surge. Yes, people say we’ve been there for 10 years, but it’s really been only since 2009. The surge is the real date. We had good intel then that the Taliban commanders were losing the fire in the belly. We saw what was happening, but guess what? We brought them back to life -- we said we were leaving, we don’t care what the circumstances are. It’s a well- known idea that you never go to war thinking that you can’t win.”
What a waste of time and money - not so much the mission, but the lack of wanting to win the war, telling the enemy when we are leaving regardless of the progress. This is a total shame.
Seriously?
We leave---the right says NO!!!
We stay---the right says NO!!!
The shame is that Afghanistan was neglected because of Iraq, a war based upon evidence that did not exist.
Maybe that lack of desire to win has something to do with the clear and inescapable fact that nobody has ever defined "winning."
Exactly- the only way to "win" the war in Afghanistan is to turn the country into a molten sea of glass. That obviously wouldn't be good for the thousands of innocent civilians, but anything short of that is a waste of time, money, and American lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't find an explanation from GWB, try Cheney.
