Afghanistan now Obama's war.

[zulater]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" -- as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that -- even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.

Having some vague concept of America's national interest -- unlike liberals -- the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

If Saddam Hussein had been a peach, it would still be a major victory in the war on terrorism to have a Muslim Israel in that part of the globe, and it sure wasn't going to be Afghanistan (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).

But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain -- thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.

[zulater]

Having absolutely no interest in America's national security, the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman) wailed about the war in Iraq for five years, pretending they really wanted to go great-guns in Afghanistan. What the heck: They had already voted for the war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 when they would have been hanged as traitors had they objected.

The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. Democrats have no interest in fighting any war that would serve America's interests. (They're too jammed with their wars against Evangelicals, Wal-Mart, the Pledge of Allegiance, SUVs and the middle class.) Absent Iraq, they'd have been bad-mouthing Afghanistan, too.

So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq, all we heard from these useless Democrats was that Iraq was a "war of choice," while Afghanistan -- the good war! -- was a "war of necessity." "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan!" "He got distracted by war in Iraq!" "WHERE'S OSAMA?" and -- my favorite -- "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!"

Of course, neither did Afghanistan. But Democrats were in a lather and couldn't be bothered with the facts.

The above complaints about Iraq come -- nearly verbatim -- from speeches and press conferences by Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama's national security advisers Susan Rice and Richard Clarke. Also, the entire gutless Democratic Party. Some liberals began including them in their wedding vows.

(By the way, Democrats: WHERE'S OSAMA?)

Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.

As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.

There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

[zulater]

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

[The Patriot]

I can't believe I read this article.

[Mach1]

bu, bu, bu, bush

[ricardisimo]

I can't believe I read this article.

Why do you have to be a Patriots fan? But for that detail you and I might get along splendidly.

[zulater]

I can't believe I read this article.

Why, don't like the news if it doesn't say what you want it to? You can hate Ann Coulter ( I usually do as well)_ but she makes good points here. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war, you can argue about the merits of going there to begin with all you want, but the fact is that Obama is the one that has the ability to pull the plug on that war now, not Bush. And rather than end it all he's done is throw more logs on the fire. So to speak.


She was also right in the fact that Iraq was a worthwhile venture because they possess a governable populace. Afghanistan has always been ruled by rogue tribes and bandits and probably always will be. It's an ungovernable mess. Every life invested there from this point foward is a wasted life in my opinion.

[st33lersguy]

The title of this thread makes me lose sleep

[SteelCityMom]

Why, don't like the news if it doesn't say what you want it to? You can hate Ann Coulter ( I usually do as well)_ but she makes good points here. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war, you can argue about the merits of going there to begin with all you want, but the fact is that Obama is the one that has the ability to pull the plug on that war now, not Bush. And rather than end it all he's done is throw more logs on the fire. So to speak.


She was also right in the fact that Iraq was a worthwhile venture because they possess a governable populace. Afghanistan has always been ruled by rogue tribes and bandits and probably always will be. It's an ungovernable mess. Every life invested there from this point foward is a wasted life in my opinion.

Ehhh...maybe so, but it wouldn't really matter who was in office. I'm positive McKain would have sent more troops over as well.

[steeldawg]

Ehhh...maybe so, but it wouldn't really matter who was in office. I'm positive McKain would have sent more troops over as well.

The point is Obama can pull the troops out and i believe he should. We could solve 2 problems at once , bring the troops home and have them securing our borders and defending our shores. It is still a fact that Obama did increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, He even said during his campaign that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Also in his campaign he said he would bring the troops home tugging on everyones heart strings but has really done the opposite by sending more over. What your starting to see is the media and the people growing tired of the Bush excuse.

[SteelCityMom]

The point is Obama can pull the troops out and i believe he should. We could solve 2 problems at once , bring the troops home and have them securing our borders and defending our shores. It is still a fact that Obama did increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, He even said during his campaign that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Also in his campaign he said he would bring the troops home tugging on everyones heart strings but has really done the opposite by sending more over. What your starting to see is the media and the people growing tired of the Bush excuse.

I know this. I'm just saying I don't think McKain (or any other republican) would have done it any differently. I know there's no point in them being over there right now. Besides, he's not the first (or the last) president to go back on his campaign promises. I don't know why everyone is so shocked.

[Godfather]

Mann Coulter supports the terrorists. How dare she criticize the Commander in Chief while troops are in harm's way? That serves only to give aid and comfort to the enemy just like the hippies did in Vietnam.

[Godfather]

Why, don't like the news if it doesn't say what you want it to? You can hate Ann Coulter ( I usually do as well)_ but she makes good points here. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war, you can argue about the merits of going there to begin with all you want, but the fact is that Obama is the one that has the ability to pull the plug on that war now, not Bush. And rather than end it all he's done is throw more logs on the fire. So to speak.


She was also right in the fact that Iraq was a worthwhile venture because they possess a governable populace. Afghanistan has always been ruled by rogue tribes and bandits and probably always will be. It's an ungovernable mess. Every life invested there from this point foward is a wasted life in my opinion.

Disagree. We HAVE to keep the Taliban out of power. If we leave and they take over again there will be more 9/11s.

[zulater]

Disagree. We HAVE to keep the Taliban out of power. If we leave and they take over again there will be more 9/11s.

We can do that without trying to win an uwinnable war. Keep a minimal force there like Bush did and use predator drones and special forces to take out anyt Taliban base camps you can locate.

You can't nation build in afghanistan. You're not going to win the populace's heart and loyalty. so quit fucking trying!

[zulater]

I know this. I'm just saying I don't think McKain (or any other republican) would have done it any differently. I know there's no point in them being over there right now. Besides, he's not the first (or the last) president to go back on his campaign promises. I don't know why everyone is so shocked.

Well they're not in office, Obama is and the death toll is growing. 6 more American deaths yesterday.

[SteelCityMom]

Well they're not in office, Obama is and the death toll is growing. 6 more American deaths yesterday.

I guess you missed where I said I know there's not point in them being over there (that many troops at least). That means I agree with you. I just don't know why everyone is so shocked that Obama went back on his campaign speeches. It happens every term.

[zulater]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...ZbQIHAyOXRocAM


GEN. Stan McChrystal, an honorable soldier, has reported from Afghani stan: He wants more troops for a "classic" counterinsurgency strategy to secure the population, then win hearts and minds.

President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.

I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.

Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen.


McChrystal: Has been handed an impos- sible mission.
Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) Here's a simple way to conceptualize our problem: A pack of murderous gangsters holes up in a fleabag motel. The feds raid the joint, killing or busting most of them. But some of the deadly ringleaders get away.

Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.

Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.

What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration.

Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents.

Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.

The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps.

What of the notion that a surge could turn Afghanistan around since a surge worked in Iraq? Iraqis switched loyalties (temporarily) because al Qaeda turned out to be a far less pleasant occupier than we were. We were lucky in our enemies.

But the Taliban's the home team in much of Afghanistan. The dominant ethnic group, the Pashtuns, won't turn against the Taliban because they are the Taliban.

Then there's the subfantasy of "training up" the Afghan military and police (who, after eight years of our efforts, remain operationally ineffective and abysmally corrupt).

A great old soldier recently reminded me that it took us eight years to build a capable South Vietnamese army (which was then betrayed by Democrats in Congress). The difference is that, except for the Montagnards and other back-country folk, Vietnam didn't have tribes.

The Vietnamese had a unified ethnic identity. In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys.

During the Soviet occupation, there was a serious Afghan military of over 300,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. At their peak strength, the Soviets themselves had almost 140,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilian advisers on the ground. Moscow still lost -- and not just because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave the mujaheddin (a core group of whom became the Taliban).

The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.

Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...#ixzz0tPb8C4l5

[zulater]

While a bit dated, the above still is just as true today as it was back in September in my opinion.

[zulater]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...QqQMcYL4BKrDIN

A current commentary by Peters.

[HometownGal]

[Mach1]

We can do that without trying to win an uwinnable war. Keep a minimal force there like Bush did and use predator drones and special forces to take out anyt Taliban base camps you can locate.

You can't nation build in afghanistan. You're not going to win the populace's heart and loyalty. so quit fucking trying!

We need to take the taliban out completely. If we don't their a threat to take over pakistan and get their grubby little hands on nukes.

[zulater]

We need to take the taliban out completely. If we don't their a threat to take over pakistan and get their grubby little hands on nukes.

I think the first Ralph Peters column I posted gives a more comprehensive view of where i think we should take things and is somewhat along the lines of what you're saying.

[ricardisimo]

Here's some commentary from those radical commie-pinkos at Newsweek:


We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It.
Here’s how to draw down in Afghanistan.

GOP chairman Michael Steele was blasted by fellow Republicans recently for describing Afghanistan as “a war of Obama’s choosing,” and suggesting that the United States would fail there as had many other outside powers. Some critics berated Steele for his pessimism, others for getting his facts wrong, given that President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan soon after 9/11. But Steele’s critics are the ones who are wrong: the RNC chair was more correct than not on the substance of his statement, if not the politics.

Here's the rest of the article... Please do note how, like every good patriot, this fellow would never consider simply throwing in the towel and leaving another country completely alone. No, he thinks we should hunker down in the North... probably for reasons having to do with all of that lithium we just found - specifically - in the North of Afghanistan. God bless America, and the countries we invade.

[NJarhead]

Here's some commentary from those radical commie-pinkos at Newsweek:


We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It.
Here’s how to draw down in Afghanistan.

GOP chairman Michael Steele was blasted by fellow Republicans recently for describing Afghanistan as “a war of Obama’s choosing,” and suggesting that the United States would fail there as had many other outside powers. Some critics berated Steele for his pessimism, others for getting his facts wrong, given that President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan soon after 9/11. But Steele’s critics are the ones who are wrong: the RNC chair was more correct than not on the substance of his statement, if not the politics.

Here's the rest of the article... Please do note how, like every good patriot, this fellow would never consider simply throwing in the towel and leaving another country completely alone. No, he thinks we should hunker down in the North... probably for reasons having to do with all of that lithium we just found - specifically - in the North of Afghanistan. God bless America, and the countries we invade.

From what I understand, we're going to attempt to "pinch" them in the mountains on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The success, I would imagine depends on our Pakistan allies. I know the people of that region are more upset with them they they are with us. But they are also very afraid. I've also seen that they've been able to talk some sense into the younger captured Taliban.

[ricardisimo]

From what I understand, we're going to attempt to "pinch" them in the mountains on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The success, I would imagine depends on our Pakistan allies. I know the people of that region are more upset with them they they are with us. But they are also very afraid. I've also seen that they've been able to talk some sense into the younger captured Taliban.

And I think this article speaks to that point, specifically the passage:

The most politically salient issue highlighted by the new documents, however, is Pakistan's political and material support for the Taliban insurgency, despite its ostensible support for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

It's just not going to work out for the folks up top. You don't invade Russia in Winter, and you don't ever try to occupy Afghanistan. Don't know how they missed those details.

[NJarhead]

And I think this article speaks to that point, specifically the passage:

It's just not going to work out for the folks up top. You don't invade Russia in Winter, and you don't ever try to occupy Afghanistan. Don't know how they missed those details.

We have no interest in occupying Afghanistan. We're after a group of folks who are responsible for terrorist acts (aka Cold Blooded Murder) on American soil. Our former President wisely and admirably warned that we will come after these men and any nation who harbors them. I stand by that 100%. I believe that every American should.

[ricardisimo]

In some alternate reality, perhaps, but of course neither Afghanistan's government, nor the Taliban nor the Afghani people had the slightest involvement in 9/11. You and Cheney are more than welcome to continually beat that horse, but it is dead.

[NJarhead]

In some alternate reality, perhaps, but of course neither Afghanistan's government, nor the Taliban nor the Afghani people had the slightest involvement in 9/11. You and Cheney are more than welcome to continually beat that horse, but it is dead.

It's like they say where I (and every man in uniform who fights in your place) come(s) from; "Tough shit."
Even your President realizes what needs to be done there. Perhaps you should do more research on the subject so you can understand the reality (Not the liberal reality, the actual reality) of what our troops are doing over there day in and day out. You may also learn about how the Taliban provided the previously mentioned "harbor" to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The
"people of Afghanistan" you mention, in large part have fought at our sides and the Afghan Government WAS the Taliban.

[ricardisimo]

Quite apropos to a war thread in an NFL forum, there is a new documentary coming out shortly regarding Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan, and his own views on the war, which he shared with his very supportive, very patriotic family. It looks very well made, and I'm eager to see it.

The merry-go-round never stops, obviously, so I'll give it the obligatory push from my end: We could have had bin Laden handed to us with a ribbon, but that would have prevented us from invading.

"My president"? Who, pray tell, is that? Cynthia McKinney? Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? If I were you, I'd start saying to myself: "I disagree with absolutely everything that President Slimeball does or says, and he seems to like these wars, so I had better start reassessing my own support for them." That would never occur to you, though, true patriot that you are. You get a smiley.

Where did you serve, by the way?

[venom]

I hope its a Michael Moore movie. Everything is has done is right on target . Zzzzz