Perpetual War: Trump Advisers Want 50,000 Troops In Afghanistan...

Dschrute3

Gold Member
Dec 10, 2016
15,572
1,870
290
Boy, Trump had a real chance to be different. But sadly, it looks like he's going all-in with the Warmongers. He's continuing several past Presidents' perpetual war policies. We've been in Afghanistan for way too long. It's time to end the longest war in US history. During the Campaign it really sounded like Trump was prepared to go a different route on foreign policy. I'm very disappointed in him.


Publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.

Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.

50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment...

More:
Trump Advisers Want at Least 50,000 US Troops in Afghanistan
 
Boy, Trump had a real chance to be different. But sadly, it looks like he's going all-in with the Warmongers. He's continuing several past Presidents' perpetual war policies. We've been in Afghanistan for way too long. It's time to end the longest war in US history. During the Campaign it really sounded like Trump was prepared to go a different route on foreign policy. I'm very disappointed in him.


Publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.

Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.

50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment...

More:
Trump Advisers Want at Least 50,000 US Troops in Afghanistan
I doubt if we could win it, no matter how many troops we sent to bleed on their soil. The Taliban are bad dudes, right? What will be the repercussions when they again rule Afghanistan? Give a haven to terrorists? What countries are NOT providing that right now?
I say we walk away and look at another way to temper the consequences.
 
Boy, Trump had a real chance to be different. But sadly, it looks like he's going all-in with the Warmongers. He's continuing several past Presidents' perpetual war policies. We've been in Afghanistan for way too long. It's time to end the longest war in US history. During the Campaign it really sounded like Trump was prepared to go a different route on foreign policy. I'm very disappointed in him.


Publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.

Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.

50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment...

More:
Trump Advisers Want at Least 50,000 US Troops in Afghanistan
I doubt if we could win it, no matter how many troops we sent to bleed on their soil. The Taliban are bad dudes, right? What will be the repercussions when they again rule Afghanistan? Give a haven to terrorists? What countries are NOT providing that right now?
I say we walk away and look at another way to temper the consequences.

We routed Al Qaeda and got Bin Laden. We shouldn't be there at this point. And that's the big problem with these undeclared wars or 'interventions.' There is never a clearly defined objective and exit plan. They just go on forever. We need revolutionary change in our foreign policy. We gotta move away from Perpetual War.
 
Boy, Trump had a real chance to be different. But sadly, it looks like he's going all-in with the Warmongers. He's continuing several past Presidents' perpetual war policies. We've been in Afghanistan for way too long. It's time to end the longest war in US history. During the Campaign it really sounded like Trump was prepared to go a different route on foreign policy. I'm very disappointed in him.


Publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.

Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.

50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment...

More:
Trump Advisers Want at Least 50,000 US Troops in Afghanistan
I doubt if we could win it, no matter how many troops we sent to bleed on their soil. The Taliban are bad dudes, right? What will be the repercussions when they again rule Afghanistan? Give a haven to terrorists? What countries are NOT providing that right now?
I say we walk away and look at another way to temper the consequences.

We routed Al Qaeda and got Bin Laden. We shouldn't be there at this point. And that's the big problem with these undeclared wars or 'interventions.' There is never a clearly defined objective and exit plan. They just go on forever. We need revolutionary change in our foreign policy. We gotta move away from Perpetual War.
Afghanistan asked us nice to stay, so we did, but only as "helpers." Our helper soldiers are getting shot and blown up because they can't act like soldiers, and apparently the Afghani's are pretty slow studies, because they aren't shaping up into a functioning military after how many years of "training"? That's not our fault. So maybe we could pull a deal like we did with Saudi Arabia this weekend--sell them some billions worth of war toys and tell 'em to have fun, but we're done.
Unless Afghanistan has some strategic significance I am unaware of, we should get out. That doesn't mean I necessarily think we should get out of EVERY place, though. We have a strong military for a reason and we still have good reason to use it at times.
 
The only way we can win in Afghanistan is to have a permanent occupation - 50 years or more.

On the other hand, it may well be that for as long as we're willing to give them whatever aid they ask for, they prefer to keep the current stalemate with the Taliban. Some Afghanis are probably making a fortune off of American tax payers. Perhaps if we ween them off of our assistance, they'll have no choice but to fight for real.
 
Boy, Trump had a real chance to be different. But sadly, it looks like he's going all-in with the Warmongers. He's continuing several past Presidents' perpetual war policies. We've been in Afghanistan for way too long. It's time to end the longest war in US history. During the Campaign it really sounded like Trump was prepared to go a different route on foreign policy. I'm very disappointed in him.


Publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.

Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.

50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment...

More:
Trump Advisers Want at Least 50,000 US Troops in Afghanistan
I doubt if we could win it, no matter how many troops we sent to bleed on their soil. The Taliban are bad dudes, right? What will be the repercussions when they again rule Afghanistan? Give a haven to terrorists? What countries are NOT providing that right now?
I say we walk away and look at another way to temper the consequences.

We routed Al Qaeda and got Bin Laden. We shouldn't be there at this point. And that's the big problem with these undeclared wars or 'interventions.' There is never a clearly defined objective and exit plan. They just go on forever. We need revolutionary change in our foreign policy. We gotta move away from Perpetual War.
Afghanistan asked us nice to stay, so we did, but only as "helpers." Our helper soldiers are getting shot and blown up because they can't act like soldiers, and apparently the Afghani's are pretty slow studies, because they aren't shaping up into a functioning military after how many years of "training"? That's not our fault. So maybe we could pull a deal like we did with Saudi Arabia this weekend--sell them some billions worth of war toys and tell 'em to have fun, but we're done.
Unless Afghanistan has some strategic significance I am unaware of, we should get out. That doesn't mean I necessarily think we should get out of EVERY place, though. We have a strong military for a reason and we still have good reason to use it at times.

16yrs is enough. Time to come home.
 

Forum List

Back
Top