Afghanistan: "Cut and Run"

[scoutldr]

Perhaps some other country will invade us and free us of the tyranny of socialism because it's not what THEY believe in and we're too stupid to do it ourselves.

[packsaddle]

"just what you want to be, you will be in the end."

Moody Blues

As in every product, as in education, as in life, we get the government that we ask for (deserve) in many ways, and are willing to pay for. This is more true for a country like ours than for any country in which the vote doesn't exist or is dishonest.

[le Voyageur]

There'll be no "cut and run". Just a readjustment to National Policy to keep the oil flowing to prop up our petro dollars, and our economy from tanking...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

 

 

Like it, or not...this war was lost from the get go.(This message has been edited by le voyageur)

[packsaddle]

"The only way to decisively and quickly win this war is by using missles, drones, stealth bombers and virtually decimate the hills and caves where these guys are hiding. There would be a lot of collateral damage, civilian deaths, etc."

I agree. The collateral damage could have been minimized back when we had our best chance.

NJ is right too, about shifting focus to Iraq when we should have applied the 'terrible swift sword' to Bin Laden and the Taliban. We can call Obama a cheerleader and pretend that we've made a profound statement but the truth is that while Bush was looking Vladimir in the eye and grandstanding on aircraft carriers with that smirking swagger, behind it all was a little boy trying desperately to please his daddy and knowing he was in WAY over his head...so his daddy's cronies made his decisions for him so he could strut around like a bantam rooster and pretend he was something he wasn't. But Bin Laden is a cobra and if he and his people are not killed, they will strike again, as often as they can. I can't believe I'm hearing what I'm hearing from people...who previously seemed proud to think we were kicking butt in Iraq. It's as if we've forgotten about what Bin Laden is, what he did, and what he intends to do, and what he WILL do again when he can.

If we don't go for the kill, and I mean ALL the way, we are sowing the seeds for things far worse. I am amazed at the timidity I'm seeing.

[le Voyageur]

Have to disagree, as such a tack is folly. Having been an eye witness to the pickle that the Soviet Union got itself in using those means didn't work then, and it still won't work now. Bankrupt the taxpayer, and the war is over, it's that simple on why this war will eventually end in a withdrawal....

[packsaddle]

The Soviet Union wasn't attacked within its sovereign territory. It moved into Afghanistan for purely geopolitical purposes to prop up their own puppet government. Their enemy wasn't an identifiable group, it was the idea that another form of government should govern the country. The Soviet Union wasn't just fighting insurgents, it was fighting insurgents equipped and funded by guess who?

The Soviet Union was fighting from the low moral ground and they knew it. We aren't. We should know that too.

[le Voyageur]

The Soviet Union wasn't attacked within its sovereign territory.

 

Apples and Oranges. A war is a war is a war no mater the reasons. All wars cost money, and every nation state has finite resources that can't be breeched, no matter how desperate they are to continue the fight.

 

It moved into Afghanistan for purely geopolitical purposes to prop up their own puppet government.

 

As we are now doing due to mission creep, and the fluidity of the Taliban.

 

Their enemy wasn't an identifiable group, it was the idea that another form of government should govern the country.

 

Soviet intervention was at the behest of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the PDPA, a marxist government, against the Islamist Mujahideen Resistance.

 

The Soviet Union wasn't just fighting insurgents, it was fighting insurgents equipped and funded by guess who?

 

Besides the US, other players were Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Egypt and Israel played in the shadows. The Soviets had the support of India, and Iranian observers. US involvement was code named Operation Cyclone.

 

The Soviet Union was fighting from the low moral ground and they knew it. We aren't. We should know that too.

 

??????....I've no clue where you got that information concerning the Soviets. Please remember, I was working military intell at the time observing this war (Key Hole), and much aware of what was happening in that arena. Not sitting in from of the tele, being fed misinformation by the media, so please source this with some facts. As for moral grounds for war, there's no such animal. It's all propoganda, and spin by the State, there is always a hidden agenda or two wrapped tight in lies masquerading as truth by warring governments, including ours.

 

(This message has been edited by Le Voyageur)

[Lisabob]

Sorry pack, le Voyager has the scoop on this one.

 

I would add that the Soviet military was not in great shape in terms of morale. In the early 90s I met a number of ex-Soviet conscripts who had been sent to Afghanistan. The stories they told of their treatment within the military were harrowing. They all believed that the low morale of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was a major issue. They also all knew quite a few people who had defected, and the civilian pressure on the Soviet gov't over the treatment of conscripts (especially ethnically non-Russian conscripts) was tremendous. In that regard, the Soviet situation in Afghanistan was quite different from our current occupation where, at least, our soldiers are volunteers who have some clue about what they are getting into. (Well, mostly - setting aside crazy stop loss policies)

 

 

[packsaddle]

Perhaps I'm alone in the view that the 9/11 attacks were real and not 'spin' and that we have an identified enemy - that could be myth as well. The low moral ground of the Soviets is my view...again I may be wrong about that, perhaps I am wrong and they held the high moral ground. The absence of an element of 'morality' in grounds for war is, for want of a better term, astounding.

But you've convinced me. I'll say no more.

 

Edited to add: Actually, thanks. I think I now understand well why we're going to lose. And deserve to.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Lisabob]

Wait, what? I missed how a comparison of US and Soviet positions in Afghanistan relates to whether or not 9/11 actually happened.

 

I do not believe anybody was suggesting 9/11 is a conspiracy or spin.

 

I do believe that making a direct comparison between the US position in Afghanistan and the Soviet position in Afghanistan in the 80s is problematic. If people are going to do that - and if we're going to then proclaim alternately that "it can't be done" because the Soviets failed, and because it is "another Vietnam," OR that it can only be done when/if we blast every last one of those suckers (etc) then the details matter. Otherwise we're not evaluating from a position of fact, but instead from a position of emotion.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

"Having been an eye witness to the pickle that the Soviet Union got itself in using those means didn't work then, and it still won't work now. Bankrupt the taxpayer, and the war is over, it's that simple on why this war will eventually end in a withdrawal...."

Lisa, There is your comparison.

[Lisabob]

That is not a statement that indicates 9/11 was spin.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Lisa, I maintain that the stated reason for going into Afghanistan was in order to respond to the 9/11 attack. I maintain that we had and have the moral high ground on that basis, especially compared to what the Soviets engaged in. It's just my view. But in response, "As for moral grounds for war, there's no such animal. It's all propoganda, and spin by the State, there is always a hidden agenda or two wrapped tight in lies masquerading as truth by warring governments, including ours."

 

Did you 'get' that 'spin' part yet?

[skeptic]

Ahh yes. The first place we went after 9/11 was Afghanistan. As pointed out by quite a few, this is where we should have put the emphasis period. If we had concentrated the force we wasted, and are wasting still, in Iraq in Afghanistan to start with, we likely not only would have dealt Al Qaida a fatal blow, but very well may have actually caught Bin Laden. And we also likely would have already finished the real job, and be far better off internationally and internally.

[Lisabob]

Sorry pack but I really think you are twisting what was said. However, twist away and I'll say no more on this. I'm also quite sure Voyager can defend his own words.