Where do you get the idea that Afghanistan is teetering on becoming a state sponsor of terrorism?
Well, the Taliban are sponsors of terrorism… and they have significantly increased their incursions and attacks and killings. There are significant portions of the country where the official government representatives don’t dare go for fear of their lives. Things like these. Surely, if you believe that by us leaving Iraq we will create a vacuum to be filled by the terrorists… you must believe that the same thing will happen in Afghanistan if we leave there.
I find it interesting that so many here argue against the wisdom of our presence in Afghanistan when it was our first target in the GWOT. Shouldn’t we secure things there before moving on?
Should we have ignored Afghanistan and simply attacked Iraq in the first place? How about Saudi Arabia? - after all they make a bigger target than Iraq… How about Iran? Venezuela? China? Russia? Brazil? There are plenty of big targets around that have resources… attack away, imperialists.
Back up there a minute. The backgound of this thread is that the Democrats have consistantly criticized Bush’s foreign policy without putting forth their own in any detail 9other that talking with everyone more). The one place they have been specific, and on which we can evaluate their claim to having a superior foreign policy, is their demand we move out of Iraq and move more troops into Afghanistan. This thread solicites input on whether the elements of that policy makes sense.
No one is arguing to withdraw from Afghanistan. We do need enough force there to protect the central government and to prevent the re-establishment of AQ training bases.
I don’t know that the Taliban are sponsors of terrorism. They certainly were protectors of terrorist when they ruled Afghanistan, and they are apparently now resorting to terrorism in an attempt to regain their former status. The Taliban, who are Afghans and essentially fighting a insurrection in their own country, are not Al Qeada, who are mostly Arabs fighting the West.
The history of Afghanistan is that when the British controlled Kabul and ruled the country, they did not control all the hinterlands. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Taliban as the presence of the Northern Alliance attests.
So now the Taliban, operating from safe havens in Pakistan, make annual Spring/Summer raids across the boarder and temporarily take control of the outlying provinces. This is hardly grounds, in my opinion, to conclude that the central government is “teetering”.
Hell, 100 years ago Zapata’s army made cross border raids into Texas, but no one claimed that the US government was teetering.
Is the Democratic leadership advocating we put enough US troops into Afghanistan to occupy all the outlying provinces and shutdown the pakistani boarder? What are their objectives and why should we pursue them?
Back up there a minute. The backgound of this thread is that the Democrats have consistantly criticized Bush’s foreign policy without putting forth their own in any detail 9other that talking with everyone more). The one place they have been specific, and on which we can evaluate their claim to having a superior foreign policy, is their demand we move out of Iraq and move more troops into Afghanistan. This thread solicites input on whether the elements of that policy makes sense.
No one is arguing to withdraw from Afghanistan. We do need enough force there to protect the central government and to prevent the re-establishment of AQ training bases.
Agreed.
I don’t know that the Taliban are sponsors of terrorism. They certainly were protectors of terrorist when they ruled Afghanistan, and they are apparently now resorting to terrorism in an attempt to regain their former status. The Taliban, who are Afghans and essentially fighting a insurrection in their own country, are not Al Qeada, who are mostly Arabs fighting the West.
To protect - to provide safe haven - is a form of sponsorship to my mind.
The history of Afghanistan is that when the British controlled Kabul and ruled the country, they did not control all the hinterlands. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Taliban as the presence of the Northern Alliance attests.
So now the Taliban, operating from safe havens in Pakistan, make annual Spring/Summer raids across the boarder and temporarily take control of the outlying provinces. This is hardly grounds, in my opinion, to conclude that the central government is “teetering”.
Hell, 100 years ago Zapata’s army made cross border raids into Texas, but no one claimed that the US government was teetering.
Is the Democratic leadership advocating we put enough US troops into Afghanistan to occupy all the outlying provinces and shutdown the pakistani boarder? What are their objectives and why should we pursue them?
A reasonable counter argument. Perhaps we don’t need to control the hinterlands… and thus, perhaps we don’t need more troops in Afghanistan (assuming that we control the cities and major roads and such). Assuming that your view is correct - maybe we are only left with the question of what to do in Iraq. ...and it is not connected with Afghanistan.
Any insight as to why the Brits took their thousand troops recently removed from Iraq and placed them in Afghanistan? What is their rationale? Were they needed in a major city or in the hinterlands? If they actually needed the additional thousand troops there, do they need more?
Well, the Taliban are sponsors of terrorism… and they have significantly increased their incursions and attacks and killings. There are significant portions of the country where the official government representatives don’t dare go for fear of their lives. Things like these. Surely, if you believe that by us leaving Iraq we will create a vacuum to be filled by the terrorists… you must believe that the same thing will happen in Afghanistan if we leave there.
You obviously know little about the strategic aspects of warfare, particularly in the Middle East. The current war isn’t about the Taliban, bin Laden, or even al-Qaeda; it is to end the support of the Islamic nation states for the terrorist organizations. We can only accomplish that objective through maintaining a massive force in the region. Look at a map.
There are only three states capable of absorbing such a force: Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, which are also the main supporters of al-Qaeda, et.al. Since we’ve already been kicked out of the Kingdom and are already fighting a covert war with Iran, that leaves Iraq. Like I said, look at a map and our objectives become obvious.
etoipi - 02 May 2007 10:32 AM
I find it interesting that so many here argue against the wisdom of our presence in Afghanistan when it was our first target in the GWOT. Shouldn’t we secure things there before moving on?
No one here is arguing against our continued presence in Afghanistan; we are replying to a hypothetical question about which country holds the greater strategic importance to the United States. That would be Iraq.
etoipi - 02 May 2007 10:32 AM
Should we have ignored Afghanistan and simply attacked Iraq in the first place? How about Saudi Arabia? - after all they make a bigger target than Iraq… How about Iran? Venezuela? China? Russia? Brazil? There are plenty of big targets around that have resources… attack away, imperialists.
Oh, puh-lease. We’ve heard this argument in one form or another for the past six years. What about North Korea? What about Darfur? What about Iran? What about them? Are you seriously suggesting that the Democrats would have supported action against any of the above-listed nations in place of Iraq? Or are you arguing that Murtha and company plan to take the war to China and North Korea through their proposed redeployment of the US military to Okinawa?
If you had any knowledge of warfare, you’d know why we haven’t “gone after” North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia at this time. If you did, you’d realize that China considers North Korea to be within its sphere of influence and uni-lateral action by the US against it would provoke a serious diplomatic confrontation between America and the PRC. You’d know that we have, through military and diplomatic action, almost surrounded Iran which knows that the noose is slowly tightening around its borders. And you’d know that we cannot declare war against the nation that supplies approximately 40% of our oil without very serious consequences to our economy.
However, liberals only use such statements to deflect the debate from Iraq, not to seriously engage in a debate about strategic objectives in this war. Otherwise, you would not have extended your specious argument to include Brazil, which threatens us exactly how???
Back up there a minute. The backgound of this thread is that the Democrats have consistantly criticized Bush’s foreign policy without putting forth their own in any detail 9other that talking with everyone more). The one place they have been specific, and on which we can evaluate their claim to having a superior foreign policy, is their demand we move out of Iraq and move more troops into Afghanistan. This thread solicites input on whether the elements of that policy makes sense.
No one is arguing to withdraw from Afghanistan. We do need enough force there to protect the central government and to prevent the re-establishment of AQ training bases.
Agreed.
I don’t know that the Taliban are sponsors of terrorism. They certainly were protectors of terrorist when they ruled Afghanistan, and they are apparently now resorting to terrorism in an attempt to regain their former status. The Taliban, who are Afghans and essentially fighting a insurrection in their own country, are not Al Qeada, who are mostly Arabs fighting the West.
To protect - to provide safe haven - is a form of sponsorship to my mind.
The history of Afghanistan is that when the British controlled Kabul and ruled the country, they did not control all the hinterlands. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Taliban as the presence of the Northern Alliance attests.
So now the Taliban, operating from safe havens in Pakistan, make annual Spring/Summer raids across the boarder and temporarily take control of the outlying provinces. This is hardly grounds, in my opinion, to conclude that the central government is “teetering”.
Hell, 100 years ago Zapata’s army made cross border raids into Texas, but no one claimed that the US government was teetering.
Is the Democratic leadership advocating we put enough US troops into Afghanistan to occupy all the outlying provinces and shutdown the pakistani boarder? What are their objectives and why should we pursue them?
A reasonable counter argument. Perhaps we don’t need to control the hinterlands… and thus, perhaps we don’t need more troops in Afghanistan (assuming that we control the cities and major roads and such). Assuming that your view is correct - maybe we are only left with the question of what to do in Iraq. ...and it is not connected with Afghanistan.
Any insight as to why the Brits took their thousand troops recently removed from Iraq and placed them in Afghanistan? What is their rationale? Were they needed in a major city or in the hinterlands? If they actually needed the additional thousand troops there, do they need more?
In my mind protecting someone is a passive support and sponsorship is an active activity.
If you assume my view is correct, do you also conclude that the Democratic leadership is a bunch of unqualified ignoramouses when it comes to foreign and military policy.
I don’t know why the British did that, but I would advocate that if we do pull out of Iraq we should do something similar. Only as a face saving gesture to show we weren’t in full, blind, retreat from the terrorists and to blunt their inevitable claims of victory.
You obviously know little about the strategic aspects of warfare, particularly in the Middle East. The current war isn’t about the T, bin Laden, or even al-Qaeda; it is to end the support of the Islamic nation states for the terrorist organizations. We can only accomplish that objective through maintaining a massive force in the region. Look at a map.
There are only three states capable of absorbing such a force: Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, which are also the main supporters of al-Qaeda, et.al. Since we’ve already been kicked out of the Kingdom and are already fighting a covert war with Iran, that leaves Iraq. Like I said, look at a map and our objectives become obvious.
Yes. A large, permanent presence in Iraq. Despite denials by the administration, it is obvious to both you and I that this is the goal being pursued by the administration. ...And it will never be a popular idea in Iraq or neighboring countries. We are not wanted there long-term by anyone - and if we stay, we truly prove the claim that we are occupiers.
etoipi - 02 May 2007 10:32 AM
Should we have ignored Afghanistan and simply attacked Iraq in the first place? How about Saudi Arabia? - after all they make a bigger target than Iraq… How about Iran? Venezuela? China? Russia? Brazil? There are plenty of big targets around that have resources… attack away, imperialists.
Oh, puh-lease. We’ve heard this argument in one form or another for the past six years. What about North Korea? What about Darfur? What about Iran? What about them? Are you seriously suggesting that the Democrats would have supported action against any of the above-listed nations in place of Iraq?
No.
Or are you arguing that Murtha and company plan to take the war to China and North Korea through their proposed redeployment of the US military to Okinawa?
No - I hadn’t heard about that plan. Take the war to China? Really?
If you had any knowledge of warfare, you’d know why we haven’t “gone after” North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia at this time. If you did, you’d realize that China considers North Korea to be within its sphere of influence and uni-lateral action by the US against it would provoke a serious diplomatic confrontation between America and the PRC. You’d know that we have, through military and diplomatic action, almost surrounded Iran which knows that the noose is slowly tightening around its borders. And you’d know that we cannot declare war against the nation that supplies approximately 40% of our oil without very serious consequences to our economy.
However, liberals only use such statements to deflect the debate from Iraq, not to seriously engage in a debate about strategic objectives in this war. Otherwise, you would not have extended your specious argument to include Brazil, which threatens us exactly how???
By posing the Krauthammer question, conservatives set a false dilemma: Iraq or Afghanistan - and try to base it solely on the attractiveness of a presumed sure win ignoring such things as likelihood. Any related prices we pay are also ignored - such as ill-will in neighboring countries (We remain in Iraq and we continue to piss off all surrounding countries… we remain in Afghanistan and no one has a problem with it except the Taliban and AQ). I don’t feel that we have any pressing need to attack a country at the moment. Distribution of our forces to Diego Garcia, Okinawa, and other bases around the world within striking distance of the hot spots seems reasonable.
By the way, we do import oil from Brazil (approximately 1/3 of what we import from Iraq)… so it does have strategic importance to us. As to how they threaten us, well the same question could be applied to Iraq - which poses no real threat to us.
You said, “Yes. A large, permanent presence in Iraq. Despite denials by the administration, it is obvious to both you and I that this is the goal being pursued by the administration. ...And it will never be a popular idea in Iraq or neighboring countries. We are not wanted there long-term by anyone - and if we stay, we truly prove the claim that we are occupiers.”
Are you sure about this? At least 5 million Kurds would love us to stay. And the 5 million Sunni are starting to read the handwriting on the wall and realizing that they can’t withstand a Shia genocide. I think a helluva lot of them are having 2nd thoughts about us leaving.
The Saudi’s, the Kuwaiti’s, the Jordanians are like the Iraqi Sunnis looking at the long-term threat from Iran, the Iraqi Shia, and the Shia minorities in their own countries and are not so sure about us leaving either.
How about the Turks? Would they like to stay around and keep the Kurds under control?
Be careful with those liberal talking points. What may have been true a year ago may not still be viable.
“By posing the Krauthammer question, conservatives set a false dilemma: Iraq or Afghanistan .....”
Conservatives are not setting anything. This is the Dems position: withdraw from Iraq so we can go fight the “real war” in Afghanistan. Given the value of each, Krauthammer says we certainly shouldn’t sacrifice Iraq to win Afghanistan. Besides, Krauthammer say the Dem position is wrong because it doesn’t have to be a choice and we can do both.
Yes. A large, permanent presence in Iraq. Despite denials by the administration, it is obvious to both you and I that this is the goal being pursued by the administration. ...And it will never be a popular idea in Iraq or neighboring countries. We are not wanted there long-term by anyone - and if we stay, we truly prove the claim that we are occupiers.
I don’t recall any such denials. Can you reference them for the benefit of the group?
We weren’t all that popular in Germany either. As I recall the German youth rioted when we announced plans to install pershing II missles there.
Now they riot if we plan to close a base.
and you are missing some important facts on the ground. The Iraqis have come to understand that we are an impartial arbiter in their very crazy world. It is not uncommon for iraqi elders to ask for American help in resolving intertribal disputes. It would not be far fetched to see new cities sprout around our super bases, just as european towns accreted around castles.
It’s absolutely amazing. The Democratic leadership in effect has proposed a major re-orientation of our foreign policy and military effort, and not one talking head has ever challenged them on it.
The problem with getting any input to this thread is that since the leaders haven’t been challenged, the moonbats haven’t been given their talking points and they can’t generate them on their own.
Why Afghanistan and not Iraq?
WE HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND WE’LL KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL YOU GET IT BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE HOW THE CURRENT ADMIN HAS BRAINWASHED THEIR BLIND LEGIONS: THERE HAS BEEN NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAMS’S IRAQ AND THOSE WHO ATTACKED US. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN. PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR A**ES, FACE REALITY AND DEAL WITH IT! WE HAVE DISHONORED THOSE WHO DIED ON 9/11 BY NOT COMMITTING WHOLLY TO FINDING THE MAN WHO PLANNED THE ATTACKS AND INSTEAD FOCUSED ON A COUNTRY WITH ONE OF THE ONLY SECULAR- NON ISLAMIST GOVERNMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND HAVE TURNED IT INTO A MEAT GRINDER FOR OUR TROOPS, A HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS, AND NOW AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE TO BECOME ... GUESS WHAT!? ANOTHER ISLAMIST GOVERNMENT THAT HATES THE US. THAT’S WHY.
Not only another Islamist government that hates the US, but one under Shia aligned with our archenemy Iran. How’s that for irony (or utter incompetence, I can’t decide which)!
Are you sure about this? At least 5 million Kurds would love us to stay. And the 5 million Sunni are starting to read the handwriting on the wall and realizing that they can’t withstand a Shia genocide. I think a helluva lot of them are having 2nd thoughts about us leaving.
The Saudi’s, the Kuwaiti’s, the Jordanians are like the Iraqi Sunnis looking at the long-term threat from Iran, the Iraqi Shia, and the Shia minorities in their own countries and are not so sure about us leaving either.
RIGHT. SO LEAVE US THERE TO BE TARGETS. WAY TO “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS”. GOOD THINKING THERE GUY. So did you support the boy-king when he was against nation building, or did you come around to him when all of a sudden, nation building was a great idea. But I forgot, could-have-been-the-first-black-president-John Kerry is the ‘flip-flopper’.
Ok Thanks, judcar. I’ll take that as no one said what you claim, least of all me, and you were merely typing out of your arse.
Hey Wrap, I apologize. I knew when I did it that it was unfair of me draw logical conclusions from your words. I assure you I’ll never apply logic to anything you say again.
Try not to confuse logical conclusion with your gaggle of fear filled “what ifs.”
Wrap, you kinda missed the structure of this thread. It’s a “what if” issue. What if we implemented stated Democratic policy? What would happen if we pull out of Iraq and move forces to Afghanistan?
Your post was very light on answering the “what ifs?” so I tried to help you out. I realize that postulating a “what if” answer is alot harder than posting “What was” rants, which anyone can copy from Moveon or Daily Kos or any of those blogs.
If you don’t like the answers I came up for your post, would you like to expand your answer beyond a couple of one-liners?
Yes. A large, permanent presence in Iraq. Despite denials by the administration, it is obvious to both you and I that this is the goal being pursued by the administration. ...And it will never be a popular idea in Iraq or neighboring countries. We are not wanted there long-term by anyone - and if we stay, we truly prove the claim that we are occupiers.
I don’t recall any such denials. Can you reference them for the benefit of the group?
Here’s a few:
April 21, 2003 press conference - Donald Rumsfeld speaking:
There are four bases that the U.S. is using in that country to help bring in humanitarian assistance, to help provide for stability operations. And are they doing that? Sure. But does that have anything to do with the long-term footprint? Not a whit.
...The impression that’s left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it’s flat false.
...the notion of a permanent presence is regularly rebuffed by the US government. In February (2006), Mr Rumsfeld insisted it was “certainly not true”.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other U.S. officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from “permanent,†and the official U.S. position is carefully worded.
In an Agence France report on 11 March ‘06, Zalmay Khalilzad, one of the signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton supporting regime change in Iraq, and since November ’05 the US ambassador in Baghdad, said his country “did not want permanent military bases in Iraq”
Several officers involved in drafting the consolidation plan said it entailed the construction of longer-lasting facilities… ...But they said the consolidation plan was not meant to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman for the coalition forces’ headquarters in Iraq, told The Independent on Sunday (March 30, 2006): “We have no intention of remaining, or indeed retaining bases in Iraq long-term. “
Yes. A large, permanent presence in Iraq. Despite denials by the administration, it is obvious to both you and I that this is the goal being pursued by the administration. ...And it will never be a popular idea in Iraq or neighboring countries. We are not wanted there long-term by anyone - and if we stay, we truly prove the claim that we are occupiers.
I don’t recall any such denials. Can you reference them for the benefit of the group?
Here’s a few:
April 21, 2003 press conference - Donald Rumsfeld speaking:
There are four bases that the U.S. is using in that country to help bring in humanitarian assistance, to help provide for stability operations. And are they doing that? Sure. But does that have anything to do with the long-term footprint? Not a whit.
...The impression that’s left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it’s flat false.
...the notion of a permanent presence is regularly rebuffed by the US government. In February (2006), Mr Rumsfeld insisted it was “certainly not true”.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other U.S. officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from “permanent,†and the official U.S. position is carefully worded.
In an Agence France report on 11 March ‘06, Zalmay Khalilzad, one of the signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton supporting regime change in Iraq, and since November ’05 the US ambassador in Baghdad, said his country “did not want permanent military bases in Iraq”
Several officers involved in drafting the consolidation plan said it entailed the construction of longer-lasting facilities… ...But they said the consolidation plan was not meant to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman for the coalition forces’ headquarters in Iraq, told The Independent on Sunday (March 30, 2006): “We have no intention of remaining, or indeed retaining bases in Iraq long-term. “
