The Cellar - Afghanistan

Page 6 of 28

Last »

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Afghanistan (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19231)

TheMercenary

09-09-2009 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 593435)

I can see that there was true justification for going into Afghanistan. But the aims of the administration at the time flounder, for me, on the fact that they chose to also to invade Iraq. Iraq hadn't declared war on America, had no connection whatsoever with the 9/11 attacks, had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat to America, had no Al Quaeda connections.

Different subject altogether.

Quote:

None of this is an attack on the military. It is a criticism of the political war-aims, not the military war-aims.

Fair enough.

tw	09-09-2009 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 593534)

Different subject altogether.

DanaC's post explains why the strategic objective is now so difficult, and now involves so many peripheral issues - including the integrity of NATO. The objective has not changed. But complications attached to that objective are now massive, confusing, and may not be achievable.

If not achieved, then we let bin Laden and his peers win – directly traceable to wacko extremism that made decisions based in a political agenda rather than in reality and the lessons from history.

The allies conquered WWII Germany. The movie Patton even demonstrates the principles violated in Afghanistan. Patton said he only had six months to establish roads, electricity, phones, and sewers. If not, then the allies lose Germany. It was not fiction. Even after the spectacular military victory, the politicians let America then be defeated by bin Laden's allies. And so we must now refight the entire war all over again - this time with major complications.

One must decide whether to concede victory to bin Laden or now spend more than we did in Iraq to achieve the strategic objective. Due to details listed by DanaC, it could easily become that bad. DanaC's post defines what we must correct - why we must sacrifice thousands more American lives - due to gross mismanagement at the highest levels of the American government.

tw	09-09-2009 09:35 AM

More complications created by the fiasco created in 2002 in Afghanistan. Appreciate what happens when the bills come due. From the NY Times of 9 Sept 2009:

Quote:

Panel Calls Program of NASA Unfeasible
NASA, under its Constellation program, is developing a new rocket called Ares I and a new astronaut capsule called Orion, and the system is to begin carrying astronauts to the International Space Station in March 2015. After that, development of a larger rocket, the Ares V, and a lunar lander was to lead to a return to the moon by 2020.

The panel said that those plans were “reasonable” when they were announced in 2005, but that largely because NASA never received the expected financing, the first manned flight of Ares I would probably be delayed until 2017, and the International Space Station is to be discarded by 2016 under current plans. And the projected financing for NASA would not allow enough money for development of Ares V and the Altair lunar lander.

The panel in fact could find no program that “permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way” within the $100 billion for human spaceflight over the next decade.

For $30 billion more, the current Constellation program is feasible, but would still not reach the moon until 2025, the panel said.

Next year, the US will have no transport to ISS except using Russian rockets and Soyuz capsules. Nothing until 2017 when Orion is ready? This is the planning by the same George Jr administration that also created a second war in Afghanistan - that will cost massively more. No money left for his Man to Mars boondoggle. No money for even something to replace the Shuttles. Another surrender of American technology leadership due to bad management. No money because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". More complications - even the manned space program - because of details listed by DanaC.

More complications that adversely affect whether we can even achieve the strategic objective in Afghanistan.

classicman

09-09-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 593553)

the strategic objective now involves so many peripheral issues - including the integrity of NATO. The objective has not changed.

If not achieved, then we let bin Laden and his peers win – directly traceable to wacko extremism that made decisions based in a political agenda rather than in reality and the lessons from history.

What is the objective again? You missed that detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 593553)

Patton said he only had six months to establish roads, electricity, phones, and sewers. If not, then the allies lose Germany. It was not fiction.

Were we at war with a country then or a group of nomadic idealists? I question the relevance of this comparison. (I know I'm gonna regret asking this of tw) Please elaborate on how the two situations compare. How many men did Patton have under his command? How many do we have now in Afganistan? What were the situations? Offhand it seems like two completely different scenarios and to compare them is not only impossible, but something only an extremist would do.

classicman

09-22-2009 01:34 PM

Quote:

Anarea of concern for Obama is Afghanistan. Critics have questioned whether he's deploying enough troops, or whether his strategy can contain rising violence and a resurgent Taliban.

Recently, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, warned that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of a 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Bob Woodward, who wrote the Post's article, called it "a striking thing for a general to say to the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief."

McChrystal "really takes his finger and puts it in their eye -- 'Deliver or this won't work.'

"He says if they don't endorse this full counterinsurgency strategy, don't even give me the troops, because it won't work."

Balls in your court Mr. President.

ZenGum

09-22-2009 10:53 PM

Notice he said, no troops, no victory. He hasn't said (that I've heard, true, and I haven't been listening ver closely) the other way around: more troops = victory. Even with the troops, we've got a lot of work to do.

classicman

10-05-2009 02:34 PM

Quote:

Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan". When asked whether he would support it, he said:
"The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.

The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.

"They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," said Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defence.

Link

Hmm. I'm really not sure what to make of this. Is Obama too busy with the Healthcare situation to deal with this or is this all simply time for reflection and discussion.

xoxoxoBruce

10-06-2009 02:53 AM

Quote:

White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.

The "aides" are probably worrying about the political risk, but Mike Yon says Gates has his head on straight, and understands what must be done over there.

classicman

10-06-2009 09:21 AM

Yeh - a CYA in real time.

ZenGum

10-21-2009 07:57 AM

Obama's delay is probably because of the political paralysis in Afghanistan.
Maybe the run-off election will produce a president who is legitimate, supported, competent, honest, and sane, but this raises the further question, if pigs can fly, would that make them halal?

xoxoxoBruce

10-21-2009 10:36 AM

If the coalition troops beat up the Taliban, drive them out, and take control of a particular area, then what? If they leave, the Taliban moves back in, and because there is no Afghanistan police/army strong enough to take over control, we're stuck with it. Controlling the whole country would take hundreds of thousands of troops, either ours or theirs.

So the obvious solution is to create an Afghan army/police, strong enough to take control of the territory we win. But building such a force, without a strong/respected central government (which Afghanistan has NEVER had), from a group that's illiterate and loyal to hundreds of different tribal chiefs, is fucking near impossible.

Can you say, rock and a hard place?:(

TheMercenary

10-27-2009 07:28 AM

A great story of escape from the Taliban.

A Rope and a Prayer

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1

xoxoxoBruce

10-27-2009 10:15 AM

1 Attachment(s)

This is very disturbing to me. We can't even supply our troops with new boots? :mad:

SamIam

10-27-2009 11:23 AM

Where did that picture come from, Bruce? This is just so wrong.

xoxoxoBruce

10-27-2009 11:33 AM