Why?

[Dr.Traveler]

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

I don't think we went in with a particular plan other than "Kill Bin Ladin!" We certainly don't have a plan now. The current Afghanistan administration has zero credibility with the Afghanis. We have little to no control over some regions of Afghanistan. Its a mess.

But if he pulls out at this point, he'll be lambasted. He'll probably lose the House and Senate in 2010, and possible the White House in 2012. At least that has to be what he fears.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes, I'm the troll. I'm not sure why ewe asked a question if ewe were going to get all whiney about the response Vayank.........

Obama should get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Say it, and say it out loud. What's the hold up?

Then we agree.....we need to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why in the world did it take you so long to say that? Was that so hard?

 

[nodoginnafight]

But regardless of what some "Crystal Balls" here may predict about "what would have happened" if Bush had pursued this offer from the Taliban further, it is clear that it would have cost us nothing to try and could have potentially saved many lives, much money, and could have resulted in a definitive answer to the issue of Bin Laden rather than the questions that still remain.

Clear Mistake.

But that is water under the bridge. What we are left with is a decision on how to make the best of the situation as it stands now.

And (imho) the very little that can still be accomplished in Afghanistan is not worth it.

Well yeah it would have cost plenty. Using hte delay the Taliban could have dug in, prepared hide outs, done all sorts of things. And they knew that time was on their side, that the US would get tired of the war and want to go home. Which is where we are now.

Well since you acknowledge that "is where we are now" then it is clear that failing to pursue the offer did not prevent the situation that you claim would have resulted from a delay.

Are you are suggesting that the Taliban was not already "dug in" or that they had no "hide outs" prepared? These guys have been in pretty good shape in those terms ever since they booted out the Russians. Afghanistan is virtually one big hide out.

Spending a couple of weeks pursuing a negotiated resolution - one that could have avoided this war which has now stretched to eight years (and still counting) - clearly would have been the wiser call.

 

[VaYank5150]

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

I don't think we went in with a particular plan other than "Kill Bin Ladin!" We certainly don't have a plan now. The current Afghanistan administration has zero credibility with the Afghanis. We have little to no control over some regions of Afghanistan. Its a mess.

But if he pulls out at this point, he'll be lambasted. He'll probably lose the House and Senate in 2010, and possible the White House in 2012. At least that has to be what he fears.

The Afghan election was a sham and the government is as corrupt, if not moreso than our own. There is no victory to be had in Afghanistan, just as there was no victory to be had in Iraq, regardless of how many people swear the surge "worked". We need to bring our troops home now.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think it's pretty obvious the neocommunists like Vayank know we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday, but are having a difficult time saying it because they are gargling Obama's ball bag.

That's right. I said it.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

All I saw was 5 pages of Bush did this and that, none of this has anything to do with Democrats, and Obama can do no wrong................

 

[Titanic Sailor]

You are trying to impose a corrupt government like Uncle Sam's on a corrupt people in Afghanistan and Iraq. What do you expect?

 

[VaYank5150]

All I saw was 5 pages of Bush did this and that, none of this has anything to do with Democrats, and Obama can do no wrong................

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

 

[xsited1]

I voted for Obama. I still support many of his initiatives. HOWEVER, can someone please explain to me WHY we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. I CANNOT see us winning anything there. Based on our best intelliegince, Osama Bin Laden is no longer there, but rather in Pakistan. Besides more deaths, and more billions of dollars spent, what good is goiing to come from this?

He'll get re-elected.

Pulling out of Afghanistan at this point is political suicide. The announcement he was going to send more troops may as well have been an announcement he was going to seek re-election.

Winning Afghanistan may not be possible after ignoring that front in favor of Iraq for so long, but not trying would finish the Obama Administration. So, the war goes on....

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

Here's the deal: the people in Washington are clueless. Obama WILL send more troops to Afghanistan and pretend that there is an exit strategy. In the meantime, more US soldiers will die and more money (that we don't have) will be spent. There is no 'Why'. Now be a good Obama supporter and support him!

 

[amrchaos]

All I saw was 5 pages of Bush did this and that, none of this has anything to do with Democrats, and Obama can do no wrong................

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

 

[nodoginnafight]

All I saw was 5 pages of Bush did this and that, none of this has anything to do with Democrats, and Obama can do no wrong................

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

The reason to send more troops is because the mission has expanded from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to include the Taliban. (Big mistake imho). Not only are there HUGE parts of Afghanistan that we do not control - there are HUGE sections of Afghanistan that NO ONE (other than a local warlord) has EVER controlled.

They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government that maintains control over the ENTIRE country and (IMHO) our chances of installing one are virtually nil.

 

[EriktheRed]

When we first freed people there from under the yoke of the Taliban, it looked to me like we had generated quite a bit of goodwill just for that. Unfortunately, we'll never know how much we could have built on that and used it to our advantage there.

 

[VaYank5150]

He'll get re-elected.

Pulling out of Afghanistan at this point is political suicide. The announcement he was going to send more troops may as well have been an announcement he was going to seek re-election.

Winning Afghanistan may not be possible after ignoring that front in favor of Iraq for so long, but not trying would finish the Obama Administration. So, the war goes on....

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

Here's the deal: the people in Washington are clueless. Obama WILL send more troops to Afghanistan and pretend that there is an exit strategy. In the meantime, more US soldiers will die and more money (that we don't have) will be spent. There is no 'Why'. Now be a good Obama supporter and support him!

Blindly following leaders and their poor decisions (ala Bush and Irag/Afghanistan) is what got us into this mess....no more for me, thanks.

 

[VaYank5150]

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

The reason to send more troops is because the mission has expanded from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to include the Taliban. (Big mistake imho). Not only are there HUGE parts of Afghanistan that we do not control - there are HUGE sections of Afghanistan that NO ONE (other than a local warlord) has EVER controlled.

They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government that maintains control over the ENTIRE country and (IMHO) our chances of installing one are virtually nil.

Fair enough. WHEN and by WHOM was the mission expanded?

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

The reason to send more troops is because the mission has expanded from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to include the Taliban. (Big mistake imho). Not only are there HUGE parts of Afghanistan that we do not control - there are HUGE sections of Afghanistan that NO ONE (other than a local warlord) has EVER controlled.

They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government that maintains control over the ENTIRE country and (IMHO) our chances of installing one are virtually nil.

Fair enough. WHEN and by WHOM was the mission expanded?

I don't know.

 

[VaYank5150]

The reason to send more troops is because the mission has expanded from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to include the Taliban. (Big mistake imho). Not only are there HUGE parts of Afghanistan that we do not control - there are HUGE sections of Afghanistan that NO ONE (other than a local warlord) has EVER controlled.

They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government that maintains control over the ENTIRE country and (IMHO) our chances of installing one are virtually nil.

Fair enough. WHEN and by WHOM was the mission expanded?

I don't know.

Neither do I. Shouldn't WE THE PEOPLE know???

 

[xsited1]

All I saw was 5 pages of Bush did this and that, none of this has anything to do with Democrats, and Obama can do no wrong................

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

It's Bush's fault? Most of the Democrats were on-board with this from the beginning. They're the reason why Obama is going to send more troops. So much for campaign promises.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Fair enough. WHEN and by WHOM was the mission expanded?

I don't know.

Neither do I. Shouldn't WE THE PEOPLE know???

Ideally yes, but I think these "mission creep" things happen incrementaly. Probably be hard to point your finger at a single action/decision and say, "right there!"

 

[VaYank5150]

Did you NOT read my original post? You are obviously allowed to believe whatever you want, but I call them like I see them. Obama is wrong to send more troops to Afghanistan in my opinion, and this whole thread was an attempt to find someone who knows why we SHOULD send more troops.

There is no reason to send troops, Val

I wonder if Obama is trying to right a wrong that is impossible to correct at this late date.

Or Obama wants to look like he is tough on the Domestic scene and this is for politics?

Or the administration actually sees a way to end Al Qaeda once and for all and it requires more troops in Afganistan.

There are alot of possible reaons. But the actual one, I have nary a clue.

But we do know one thing

IT IS BOOOOOOSH AND THE FAAAUUUUUUX NOOOOOOOSE FAULT.
(actually, it is!)

It's Bush's fault? Most of the Democrats were on-board with this from the beginning. They're the reason why Obama is going to send more troops. So much for campaign promises.

MOST? Do I have to print the vote results AGAIN, or will you modify your own post on this one?

 

[xsited1]

I disagree with the whole political suicide point, but we are obviously allowed to disagree. My bigger question would be what does "finishing" in Afghanisatn mean? What does "winning" in Afghanistan mean? What are our goals now? What were they originally? Does anyone even remember? If we continue to move the finish line, we will NEVER cross it in victory or defeat!

Here's the deal: the people in Washington are clueless. Obama WILL send more troops to Afghanistan and pretend that there is an exit strategy. In the meantime, more US soldiers will die and more money (that we don't have) will be spent. There is no 'Why'. Now be a good Obama supporter and support him!

Blindly following leaders and their poor decisions (ala Bush and Irag/Afghanistan) is what got us into this mess....no more for me, thanks.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are all Bush's fault?

Right...