Wag the Dog?

[Wry Catcher]

They are saying he actually listened to the Generals. Maybe thats why MAttis was praising him the other day.
Im kinda torn on this.
Do we want another Iraq? Of course not.
Do we want troops there? Of course not.
What do you do?

Demand that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and African nation states engage the Taliban, ISIS and Goko Haram, kill, arrest or incarcerate its members or let them continue to kill without any aid from our country.

And have them do that while we pack up our shit.

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them. BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

 

[NightFox]

They are saying he actually listened to the Generals. Maybe thats why MAttis was praising him the other day.
Im kinda torn on this.
Do we want another Iraq? Of course not.
Do we want troops there? Of course not.
What do you do?

Demand that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and African nation states engage the Taliban, ISIS and Goko Haram, kill, arrest or incarcerate its members or let them continue to kill without any aid from our country.

And have them do that while we pack up our shit.

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them.

They already do that in addition to cooperating with U.S. Intelligence Agencies to aid and abet operations outside their own borders but if you'll pay attention I didn't suggest that you were since I was responding to another poster that suggested "we pack up our shit" implying those countries take over the current U.S. role in Afghanistan.

BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

Uh-huh but neither one have any problems exploiting the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan if the U.S. summarily withdrawals.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

It is obvious that we have no president. He continues to blame everything on someone else and takes no responsibility for his time in office. All orange-turd every says in any speech is "we're great, look at us, look at me, I'm a negotiator, blah blah blah", then he fails, and then blames someone else on twitter like a 12 year old girl.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Demand that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and African nation states engage the Taliban, ISIS and Goko Haram, kill, arrest or incarcerate its members or let them continue to kill without any aid from our country.

And have them do that while we pack up our shit.

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them.

They already do that in addition to cooperating with U.S. Intelligence Agencies to aid and abet operations outside their own borders but if you'll pay attention I didn't suggest that you were since I was responding to another poster that suggested "we pack up our shit" implying those countries take over the current U.S. role in Afghanistan.

BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

Uh-huh but neither one have any problems exploiting the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan if the U.S. summarily withdrawals.

How so? Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

It is obvious that we have no president. He continues to blame everything on someone else and takes no responsibility for his time in office. All orange-turd every says in any speech is "we're great, look at us, look at me, I'm a negotiator, blah blah blah", then he fails, and then blames someone else on twitter like a 12 year old girl.

That's called WINNING, duh!

 

[NightFox]

And have them do that while we pack up our shit.

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them.

They already do that in addition to cooperating with U.S. Intelligence Agencies to aid and abet operations outside their own borders but if you'll pay attention I didn't suggest that you were since I was responding to another poster that suggested "we pack up our shit" implying those countries take over the current U.S. role in Afghanistan.

BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

Uh-huh but neither one have any problems exploiting the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan if the U.S. summarily withdrawals.

How so? Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

Apparently you're unaware of the details of the situation, according to the USGS Afghanistan has some of the richest mineral deposits (gold, silver, platinum, iron, uranium, zinc, copper, coal, and natural gas) in Southern Asia and it's almost completely untapped not to mention it lies at a critical juxtaposition between the major Asian powers (China, Iran, Pakistan and the Former Soviet States of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (i.e. "Putin Aggression Justification Vectors").

Once you have no U.S. Forces in Country the regional powers have far less disincentive to getting itchy trigger fingers and exploiting the chaotic situation for both economic and strategic advantage.

I don't like having U.S. Troops on foreign soil AT ALL but given the current situation IMHO cut & run carries a risk that is far greater than the strategy we're currently pursuing.

 

[Crixus]

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them.

They already do that in addition to cooperating with U.S. Intelligence Agencies to aid and abet operations outside their own borders but if you'll pay attention I didn't suggest that you were since I was responding to another poster that suggested "we pack up our shit" implying those countries take over the current U.S. role in Afghanistan.

BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

Uh-huh but neither one have any problems exploiting the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan if the U.S. summarily withdrawals.

How so? Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

Apparently you're unaware of the details of the situation, according to the USGS Afghanistan has some of the richest mineral deposits (gold, silver, platinum, iron, uranium, zinc, copper, coal, and natural gas) in Southern Asia and it's almost completely untapped not to mention it lies at a critical juxtaposition between the major Asian powers (China, Iran, Pakistan and the Former Soviet States of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (i.e. "Putin Aggression Justification Vectors").

Once you have no U.S. Forces in Country the regional powers have far less disincentive to getting itchy trigger fingers and exploiting the chaotic situation for both economic and strategic advantage.

I don't like having U.S. Troops on foreign soil AT ALL but given the current situation IMHO cut & run carries a risk that is far greater than the strategy we're currently pursuing.

Bummer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the "African nation states" send troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate a U.S. withdrawal ?

If so, you must be taking the same drugs as the OP since that would be an open invitation for direct military intervention by every country in the region including Pakistan, India, China and Russia, are you hoping for a general war to break out in Southern Asia?

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Within their own borders, or together within the borders of each work together to kill or capture Jihadists and destroy any training camps within them.

They already do that in addition to cooperating with U.S. Intelligence Agencies to aid and abet operations outside their own borders but if you'll pay attention I didn't suggest that you were since I was responding to another poster that suggested "we pack up our shit" implying those countries take over the current U.S. role in Afghanistan.

BTW, Russia and China have their own problems with terror.

Uh-huh but neither one have any problems exploiting the ensuing chaos in Afghanistan if the U.S. summarily withdrawals.

How so? Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

Apparently you're unaware of the details of the situation, according to the USGS Afghanistan has some of the richest mineral deposits (gold, silver, platinum, iron, uranium, zinc, copper, coal, and natural gas) in Southern Asia and it's almost completely untapped not to mention it lies at a critical juxtaposition between the major Asian powers (China, Iran, Pakistan and the Former Soviet States of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (i.e. "Putin Aggression Justification Vectors").

Once you have no U.S. Forces in Country the regional powers have far less disincentive to getting itchy trigger fingers and exploiting the chaotic situation for both economic and strategic advantage.

I don't like having U.S. Troops on foreign soil AT ALL but given the current situation IMHO cut & run carries a risk that is far greater than the strategy we're currently pursuing.

AS you stated the minerals are undeveloped, my comment was based on the GDP. Natural gas is controlled by the government - so to speak - which under Karzi likely ended up in the pockets of the few.

 

[Kosh]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

Yes the far left will excuse the fact that Obama was a failure on every level.

Obama did the damage and now it will be cleaned up..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

Yes the far left will excuse the fact that Obama was a failure on every level.

Obama did the damage and now it will be cleaned up..

OFF TOPIC, NON SEQUITUR ^^^; the usual crap from a hack.

 

[NightFox]

AS you stated the minerals are undeveloped,

Which makes them more valuable to a foreign nation state seeking to control them not less, the fact that they're largely undeveloped means there are no sticky external or internal business entanglements to cope with, much easier (and less risky) to send in your own enterprise to exploit natural resources than having to wrest control of them from existing enterprises.

my comment was based on the GDP.

Ahem....

Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil

You need to work on your clarity skills, since "nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil" gives one the impression that you were unaware of the Afghan natural resource stock and it's strategic geographic location as well as ignorance of the fact that it's current GDP is irrelevant to the scenario under discussion.

Natural gas is controlled by the government - so to speak - which under Karzi likely ended up in the pockets of the few.

The threat is a regional power dominating the (currently very weak) Afghan Central Government and exploiting the available land and labor resources or barring that exploiting relationships with the various regional tribal leaders to do it, in either scenario the current (small) NG production by AGE would just be a "bonus" that comes with it.

and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

What difference does the current structure of its economy make? As I've already pointed out the draw is it's untapped natural resources and it's strategic location and the existence of terrorist organizations on Afghan soil only serves to provide a convenient pretext for regional powers to get involved militarily.

With no U.S. Forces in country there is both an very attractive draw (untapped natural resources and strategic location) and an excuse (the threat of exportable militancy) for the regional powers, my guess would be that Iran would be the first to make an overt move as soon as the U.S. Forces hit the road.

 

[JoeB131]

They are saying he actually listened to the Generals. Maybe thats why MAttis was praising him the other day.
Im kinda torn on this.
Do we want another Iraq? Of course not.
Do we want troops there? Of course not.
What do you do?

You admit the thing was a big mistake and you pull out. tomorrow.

We are falling into the same trap we fell into with Vietnam. We know we can't possibly achieve our objective, but we continue to do it for no other reason than we can't admit failure.

 

[JoeB131]

Winning is better than losing, and after almost 16 years of our troops fighting, people who volunteer nowadays know what they are getting into.

Sorry, bud can you define "winning" for me. Because we have been over there for 16 years and I'm not really sure what that is supposed to look like at this point.

How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake we made when he was a toddler?

 

[TNHarley]

They are saying he actually listened to the Generals. Maybe thats why MAttis was praising him the other day.
Im kinda torn on this.
Do we want another Iraq? Of course not.
Do we want troops there? Of course not.
What do you do?

You admit the thing was a big mistake and you pull out. tomorrow.

We are falling into the same trap we fell into with Vietnam. We know we can't possibly achieve our objective, but we continue to do it for no other reason than we can't admit failure.

But what about what happens after that? ANOTHER monster we have created. You know it will happen..

 

[JoeB131]

But what about what happens after that? ANOTHER monster we have created. You know it will happen..

I don't know if anything will happen.

Frankly, the whole argument for staying in Vietnam was that you would have a "domino effect" of all the nations of SE Asia falling to Communism. Guess what. that didn't happen. Laos and Cambodia did, because we had so destabilized them during the war they couldn't hold up after we left, but the rest of the region was fine.

So continuing a bad policy of what "might" happen is a bit dubious at best.

 

[Wry Catcher]

AS you stated the minerals are undeveloped,

Which makes them more valuable to a foreign nation state seeking to control them not less, the fact that they're largely undeveloped means there are no sticky external or internal business entanglements to cope with, much easier (and less risky) to send in your own enterprise to exploit natural resources than having to wrest control of them from existing enterprises.

my comment was based on the GDP.

Ahem....

Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil

You need to work on your clarity skills, since "nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil" gives one the impression that you were unaware of the Afghan natural resource stock and it's strategic geographic location as well as ignorance of the fact that it's current GDP is irrelevant to the scenario under discussion.

Natural gas is controlled by the government - so to speak - which under Karzi likely ended up in the pockets of the few.

The threat is a regional power dominating the (currently very weak) Afghan Central Government and exploiting the available land and labor resources or barring that exploiting relationships with the various regional tribal leaders to do it, in either scenario the current (small) NG production by AGE would just be a "bonus" that comes with it.

and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

What difference does the current structure of its economy make? As I've already pointed out the draw is it's untapped natural resources and it's strategic location and the existence of terrorist organizations on Afghan soil only serves to provide a convenient pretext for regional powers to get involved militarily.

With no U.S. Forces in country there is both an very attractive draw (untapped natural resources and strategic location) and an excuse (the threat of exportable militancy) for the regional powers, my guess would be that Iran would be the first to make an overt move as soon as the U.S. Forces hit the road.

We cannot continue to police the world. In this alone I agree with Trump. However, the UN is the proper authority - not us alone unless we believe our nations should engage in imperialism and hegemony is in our best interests.

IMO we have enough problems here at home, and don't need to pretend we can solve all the worlds problems. Hell, we can't even lead by example on the issue of climate change.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, this thread asks the question if Trump's decides to change the conversation by engaging in military action, to take the heat off of his repeated failures and approval rating which is in free fall.

 

[NightFox]

AS you stated the minerals are undeveloped,

Which makes them more valuable to a foreign nation state seeking to control them not less, the fact that they're largely undeveloped means there are no sticky external or internal business entanglements to cope with, much easier (and less risky) to send in your own enterprise to exploit natural resources than having to wrest control of them from existing enterprises.

my comment was based on the GDP.

Ahem....

Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil

You need to work on your clarity skills, since "nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil" gives one the impression that you were unaware of the Afghan natural resource stock and it's strategic geographic location as well as ignorance of the fact that it's current GDP is irrelevant to the scenario under discussion.

Natural gas is controlled by the government - so to speak - which under Karzi likely ended up in the pockets of the few.

The threat is a regional power dominating the (currently very weak) Afghan Central Government and exploiting the available land and labor resources or barring that exploiting relationships with the various regional tribal leaders to do it, in either scenario the current (small) NG production by AGE would just be a "bonus" that comes with it.

and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

What difference does the current structure of its economy make? As I've already pointed out the draw is it's untapped natural resources and it's strategic location and the existence of terrorist organizations on Afghan soil only serves to provide a convenient pretext for regional powers to get involved militarily.

With no U.S. Forces in country there is both an very attractive draw (untapped natural resources and strategic location) and an excuse (the threat of exportable militancy) for the regional powers, my guess would be that Iran would be the first to make an overt move as soon as the U.S. Forces hit the road.

We cannot continue to police the world.

I agree, it's an enterprise that history suggests is not only doomed to failure but also severely injurious to the "world cop" over the long haul.

In this alone I agree with Trump. However, the UN is the proper authority - not us alone unless we believe our nations should engage in imperialism and hegemony is in our best interests.

IMO we have enough problems here at home, and don't need to pretend we can solve all the worlds problems. Hell, we can't even lead by example on the issue of climate change.

Unfortunately the case of Afghanistan is one where abandoning our "cop" role after we've already engaged in it is likely to prove far more injurious to our long term geopolitical and economic interests as well as the interests of Asia and possibly the world at large (for the reasons I pointed out). IMHO The best we can do is to continue to commit the resources necessary and engage partners to take on the costs and risks of reconstruction in order to stabilize the Afghan Central Government and it's attendant security apparatus and then get the hell out ASAP.

Not doing so risks it becoming the powder keg that sets off a general war in the region.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

What specific "rhetoric" are you referring to?

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

It's not his strategy, it's his decision to pursue or not pursue the strategy proposed by U.S. Military Command, if Donald Trump were the one formulating military strategy we'd be deep fucking trouble and as CIC he was responsible for the conduct and outcomes of the war in Afghanistan on the day he was sworn in.

You maybe correct, Trump is too inexperienced and (IMO) not fit to be POTUS. But, the buck stops at his Tee Box, and his flip flop on foreign policy + Brinkmanship is one more example of a chaotic presidency.

 

[Correll]

AS you stated the minerals are undeveloped,

Which makes them more valuable to a foreign nation state seeking to control them not less, the fact that they're largely undeveloped means there are no sticky external or internal business entanglements to cope with, much easier (and less risky) to send in your own enterprise to exploit natural resources than having to wrest control of them from existing enterprises.

my comment was based on the GDP.

Ahem....

Afghanistan has nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil

You need to work on your clarity skills, since "nothing to offer, no minerals, no oil" gives one the impression that you were unaware of the Afghan natural resource stock and it's strategic geographic location as well as ignorance of the fact that it's current GDP is irrelevant to the scenario under discussion.

Natural gas is controlled by the government - so to speak - which under Karzi likely ended up in the pockets of the few.

The threat is a regional power dominating the (currently very weak) Afghan Central Government and exploiting the available land and labor resources or barring that exploiting relationships with the various regional tribal leaders to do it, in either scenario the current (small) NG production by AGE would just be a "bonus" that comes with it.

and it's GDP is based on agriculture and opium. It would seem the current criminal organizations (AQ, ISIS, etc.) are a problem for them too.

What difference does the current structure of its economy make? As I've already pointed out the draw is it's untapped natural resources and it's strategic location and the existence of terrorist organizations on Afghan soil only serves to provide a convenient pretext for regional powers to get involved militarily.

With no U.S. Forces in country there is both an very attractive draw (untapped natural resources and strategic location) and an excuse (the threat of exportable militancy) for the regional powers, my guess would be that Iran would be the first to make an overt move as soon as the U.S. Forces hit the road.

We cannot continue to police the world. In this alone I agree with Trump. However, the UN is the proper authority - not us alone unless we believe our nations should engage in imperialism and hegemony is in our best interests.

IMO we have enough problems here at home, and don't need to pretend we can solve all the worlds problems. Hell, we can't even lead by example on the issue of climate change.

I had no idea you had such a great sense of humor, THE UN?!


lol!