War-Losing Faction

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion.

Ah, I love this line of thinking that our administration shares: the problem will be solved by removing Saddam and not much will be needed beyond that. Force the dictator out, and the people will resolve the rest, right? Everyone over there supports our ideals, so it should all go smoothly. We should only need 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq right now since they should all mostly be pro-American by now, right? Cultural, tribal, political, and religious issues aside, we can fix anything by simply removing the dictator and letting the people do the rest! It really is that easy.

What? You say there's still violence, unrest, and instability? I have no idea why -- the plan was perfect from day one and it was the only way to solve the world's security problem. It must be an outside force, as the difficulty we're experiencing could never come from within a country we've fully "liberated". Yes, it must be some other entity interfering, someone else that supports the Axis of Evil. It must be Iran, right? What can we possibly do to solve that problem?

I often hear that we're in Iraq because of WMDs/genocide and I often hear that we are there to fight terrorism. By removing the dictator to solve the first problem, we've increased the other. All the air superiority and weaponry in the world will not change people's minds that are set through religion and hundreds of years of cultural differences. Our army is not equipped to do that. We may have removed a dictator, but that thing you fear so much, terrorism, is being made worse by our actions and the power vacuum we created.

UN rules, international policy, and morals aside, the money, manpower, time, and lives wasted in this war could have been better used to build a successful security force here at home. $366,000,000,000+ would have purchased plenty of x-ray machines, metal detectors, radiation scanners, port security, biological agent detectors, and other federal infrastructure to keep out all those WMDs that didn't even exist in the first place. Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.

Is the solution to stop these new terrorists to overthrow the governments of the countries they are coming from? Gee, what do you think would happen if we did that?

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us, that there would be no corruption, that no one would attempt to take advantage of a population that grew up under tyranny in a country where a myriad of religious and political groups, both internal and external, were straining to kill each other and take over. You could call that the fault of someone's optimistic dream, but I tend to think we might have, oh, rushed into this war without too much thought. We just needed to do it. It was the only way.

Oh, if only someone could have warned us! Too bad the only people opposed to this war want us to lose it!

I'd say I'm thankful we didn't destabilize the entire region, but with the recent words coming out against Iran, I don't want to speak too soon.

[DanaC]

Well put Kitsune.

[skysidhe]

I think this was very well said. I applaud you.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us,

'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President.The writing was on the wall for anyone to see. It was the perverbail 'Emperors new clothes' People were told what to see and they saw it.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, if only someone could have warned us!

I heard lots of warnings at the time. I havn't heard the administration bemoaning that. I hear alot of denial though.


Just my personal thoughts as I was reading. I very good read too Kitsune!

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President because the writing was on the wall.

Sorry about that -- I keep saying 'we' as in 'The United States'. It was drilled into my head at an early age and I really should have said 'this administration'.

I also couldn't turn off my sarcasm in writing that post, either.

[Undertoad]

Agree or disagree, good times or bad, I am not dropping my we.

[DanaC]

Sky, I don't think anyone really believes that America is wholly united behind Bush and the war. That just isn't how countries work generally. There's a spectrum in every country, every polity. Just for the record, when I personally refer to 'America' doing something, I am referring to the polity not to the individuals or diverse camps within it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt.

And like I said, you shouldn't have to look in a resolution to find it. "Don't invade" is the universal default. Failing to say "do invade" is equivalent to saying "don't".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

big snip ~ Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.~ big snip

Iraq is going to take forever to stabilize and heal. Fortunately Afghanistan, because we were busy in Iraq, has almost completely healed.
Except for a couple small areas the Canadians and Aussies are controlling, the Taliban holds sway again. The poppy crops are buying materiel, the girls have been kicked out of the schools, that is the ones that haven't been torn down.
Yes sir, Afghanistan is almost healed.

You know if we'd spent all that money on oil-less Afghanistan it would be all screwed up. With decent roads think of the injured children from speeding vehicles. With clean water supplies, they would lose the ability to build up their immune systems. With sustainable crops, they'd pick up all kinds of diverse food to have to learn how to prepare, which would take away from begging time. Without the taliban they would have to go to school, get literate, learn to think, and make decisions that have always been made for them. Oh, the pressure, oh, the humanity.

[Aliantha]

As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq. The political system there is very much the same, with western influences declaring a land mass a country without consultation with the different factions within those borders.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq.

The Taliban were so hated that it took five years of doing nothing for the Taliban to return in strength. But again, that fundamental fact from military science 101 is repeated. Without plans for the peace, then a military victory is lost. We promised to build a water distribution system for Kabul. America did not even do that. America did nothing - essentially zero - to 'nation build' in Afghanistan. America did nothing to get bin Laden. Even Iran was desperately asking to help because Iran's so hates the Taliban. Of course everyone knows why Iran so hates the Taliban - I need not post the most obvious example. Only wacko extremists among us did not learn that news.

An extremist American president stifled any assistance from Iran, from Pakistan, NATO, etc until it was too late to save Afghanistan. So how much of Afghanistan is controlled Taliban? 10%? 20%? From 2005 and 2004:
Understanding terrorism
Let Him Run Free

Today we measure our fruits planted many years ago. Afghanistan was so ready for assistance that it sat waiting for 5 years. Sat waiting longer then America's entire involvement in WWII. Today, NATO needs on the order of hundreds of thousands to restore what has been lost. So George Jr is sending another 3,000. Just enough so that Afghanstan is not lost under his watch? Deja Vue Nixon.

Do you realize how extensive and how long America's denial has been? Of course you have read every week since 2001 this question: "When do we go after bin Laden." Why not? How extensive is this denial?

Afghanistan can still be saved. Iraq is now lost. Read previous warnings about violence in Kirkuk - and today's news.

Of course 'bean counter' politicians are still ignoring the ISG and discussing body counts in Iraq rather than admit reality - deja vue Vietnam. To save Afghanistan means at least 100,000 in country this spring. Nothing new are numbers defined in military doctrine. What is necessary will not happen. Our leaders are so in denial as to even ignore the Iraq Study Group. To even stifle a Senate vote. Anything to obstruct a solution for a poltical agenda. We have the wacko leaders that we wanted. Ironic are similarities between George Jr's agenda - and posts from Ronald Cherrycoke & Urbane Guerrilla.

Meanwhile Afghanistan was so ready to become stable that it took 5 years for Afghanistan to welcome back the Taliban. So when do you finally decide to go after bin Laden? That question defines the intelligence of George Jr and those who are his brown shirt supporters.

[Aliantha]

Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.

As to Afghanistan being able to be saved, well, if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not many of the Taliban are Afghanis. It's primarily a foreign force taking advantage of the wide open spaces and lack of opposition/law enforcement. They fill the void created by the lack of a national government that rules more than the capitol.

Unlike Iraq, the bad guys are fairly easy to spot because they aren't fading into the local population. Although they do fade into the mountains and wilderness, they move as a force, large and small groups. More like a non-uniformed army or militia.

There's no urban massacres because there's no urban. It's a whole different world from Iraq, in infrastructure, lifestyle, wealth and simply because there's no civil war going on. Lack of hostilities, if not cooperation, can be attained and maintained between religious and secular factions, unlike Iraq where multiple religions are competing for power.

The Afghanis don't generally have clean water, electricity, sanitation, schools and medical care, but unlike Iraq, they didn't have it before we got there. We didn't deprive them, just failed to aid them.
Afghanistan can still be neutralized as a training/staging area and cash cow for terrorists, but the door is closing quickly.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.

Correct that the Taliban were still in Afghanistan because Taliban - an organization from Afghanistan tribal regions (mostly tribes in southern Afghanistan) was all but eliminated. Clear majority opposed the Taliban - strongly disapproved of what the Taliban did to their country. Taliban - the organization - mostly disintegrated. People called Taliban quit - returned to their tribes. Those people still existed. Organization mostly did not. Remnants fled to places such as Pakistan. Afghanistan would be peaceful for first of the past five years while American promises - ie nation building - did not happen. As a result, the people called Taliban have reconstituted an organization called Taliban.

We can argue minutia all day. Taliban was all but dead with little hope of reconstitution IF Americans leaders were intelligent. If wacko extremist political agendas were ignored and if planning for the peace was executed (as military doctrine demands), then a Taliban organization would not reconstitute. But American leaders and their right wing wacko supporters so hated America as to not even ask this question - "When do we go after bin Laden?"

A conquered nation with no program for the peace will rebel after 6 months or one year. Distaste for Taliban rule was so strong that it took five years for Taliban to become popular again. One need only look at highest levels of America's government to appreciate why Taliban have returned.

Aliantha, the Afghan war - a war justified by a smoking gun - is still winnable. However an Afghan victory is becoming less likely with each month. Situation is deteriorating quickly. Why? Well look at the intelligence of an American president, wacko extremism of the real boss Cheney, and an intransigent ideology of those here who support those scumbag leaders.

Iraq is done. Last chance we had to win required 500,000 troops last summer. The Iraq Study Group has simply defined how to get out - an exit strategy - with minimal losses. Afghanistan is now quickly going the way of Iraq. Massive deployment is the only way Afghanistan can be 'saved'.

Deja vue Nam. Whereas the Wise Men in 1968 defined Vietnam as lost; Iraq Study Group in 2006 has defined how to minimize an Iraq defeat. American wacko extremists simply massacred another 30,000 American soldiers in Nam to protect the legacy of an anti-American president. That war ended in 1975. How many years will Americans be massacred in Iraq to protect George Jr's legacy?

In both cases, an American president ignored facts so that the defeat did not happen under his watch. In both cases, the president (and his wacko supporters) worried more about the president's legacy than about supporting the troops.

And so Afghanistan will also be lost. It could be saved if the president was patriotic - admitted defeat in Iraq. But he will not do that. He would rather have both Iraq and Afghanistan lost under some other president's watch. And then 'big dics' Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke will rewrite history to blame that other president.

We are pretending Afghanistan does not exist. Afghanistan is a war justified by a smoking gun. Because of Iraq (as Aliantha accurately notes), American will lose its first 'justified' war. Special thanks to our 'big dics' who will say anything to support the mental midget and his unjustified war.

We all are not asking the only important question that 'big dics' fear: "When do we go after bin Laden." When was the last time you asked that question of Urbane Guerrilla, Ronald Cherrycoke, and George Jr? Having not asked that question weekly, we all contribute to a defeat in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan can still be won. But the door is closing fast. Why? Where do American patriots ask every day, “When do we go after bin Laden?” You know that ‘big dics’ will not ask that question. It is THE question that separates patriots from ‘big dics’.


No urban in Afghanistan? Afghanistan population was about 30 million. Iraq population was only 26 million - including the 2+ million that have since left Iraq. Where does Afghanistan put all those people if major urban centers do not exist?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Kabul - 3,120,963
Kandahar (Qandahar) - 401,395
Mazari Sharif - 314,915
Herat - 278,209
Jalalabad - 208,960
Kunduz - 166,824
Ghazni - 149,998
Bamyan - 131,233
Balkh - 126,553
Baghlan - 111,902
Not very urban.

I've been trying to get a shisha & tea bar around here for ages!