What Do We Do About Afghanistan?

Proof • September 16, 2009

It’s amazing what a change in Presidents will do to the politics of war.
Back when George W. Bush was the commander-in-chief the lines were clearly drawn in the political arena. The right, generally, supported the war. The left, generally, opposed it. The liberal media gave the war endlessly negative coverage, ignoring almost all news of progress and success in favor of “the car bomb of the day” style coverage. Libertarians stuck with their naive “let’s hid behind our borders and pretend like if we ignore everyone else they’ll ignore us” position.
Now Barack Obama, who first rose to prominence with outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, is President. Thankfully Iraq isn’t much of an issue any more. Thanks to his determination to stick to his guns to the very last days of his administration we won the war in Iraq. All that’s left there is going through the motions until our troops are withdrawn. But Afghanistan remains very much a hot war, and it’s interesting to see how that’s playing in the political arena.
Suddenly liberals, and the media in general, is very quiet about the war and conservatives aren’t nearly so enthusiastic. And what’s a little disappointing is this seems to indicate that, for many, their position on the war was predicated more on domestic politics than a consideration of sound foreign policy.
But the question remains: What do we do about Afghanistan? A question made more pressing by a call from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for more troops in the war.
For my part, I say send them. Some would argue that we never should have invaded Afghanistan. Some would argue that by being in Afghanistan we’re just making ourselves more enemies. I disagree with both of those positions, but what’s more I think the time for having those debates has come and gone a long time ago. The fact remains that we are in Afghanistan now. We invaded with the promise that we would leave the country better off than when we found it. If we abandon our mission now, and our commitment to the people there, we run the risk of creating far more enemies than we ever did by invading in the first place.
And if we let Afghanistan fall into rogue status once again it will revert to the next of terrorism it was when bin Laden was using the nation as a hide-out during the 9/11 attacks.
We won in Iraq by doubling-down during the war’s most critical hours. I think that we can win in Afghanistan by doing the same. I know that, unlike Iraq, we are in dire economic times with a current crop of political leadership that seems to view no deficit as being too large. But war spending is a fraction of our overall deficits problem. We can fix the deficits and follow through on our commitment to Afghanistan.
And more than just “can”, we should do just that.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array sayanything-4625

Its immaterial. We’re in the war now. If we pull out of Afghanistan we’ll still be at war. We will just have lost the choice of battlefield. This isn’t Viet Nam. Hostilities are not going to cease just because we go away.

So the real question is, do you want to fight them there with professionals or do you want to fight them here?

Our other options are to pull out but threaten to bomb, invade or fight any country that offers terrorists aid. The problem with that is everyone knows that won’t happen. We have neither the will or the resources to fight that kind of war. Hell we are losing the will to fight the “good war”. I guess it was only good when it could be used as a political point.

If we are going to stay, half measures are out. I don’t mean we should kill everyone in sight. I mean the restrictive REO’s have to go. The new REO’s have cost us four Marines to date. If you make your village a fort, its going to get bombed. I know some here will call me heartless. Some will say we will make more terrorists. Whatever, by long military custom, fortifications are fair game where ever they are found. I can assure you, if you reduce a couple they will stop using them.
conundrum

Send them in. Conservatives should be supporting this hands down. Too bad wars are fought in the media today. Several bunker buster at the caves of suspected al qaida would seal them in nicely. Its that collateral thats tough.
robert108

IMO, in the same way that we should have never gone into Kosovo, we should never have gone into Afghanistan. The War in Iraq was the right war, and we waste our resources in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan, because we have no national interest there.
Fighting a war for the purpose of revenge is monumentally stupid. Putting a modern nation in the center of the Middle East was a brilliant idea, and it also had the bonus of eliminating a murdering dictator who had ambitions to become the Hitler of the ME.
Unfortunately, since we are in Afghanistan, we should go for the win. When we retreat, the terrorists advance.
sayanything-4625

you did not understand the lesson.
Invaders lose.

I’m sure the Carthaginians, the native Japanese (not the people living there today), the Anastasie, the Aztecs, the Myans, the Carribee, all the American Indians, the tribe the Samoians countless tribes that no longer exist agree with you. That’s right, they don’t. Because invaders don’t always lose. In the case of the Aztecs, if the invaders are helped by the population that is being exploited by “home tribe” they often get wiped out. Or did you think 135 white men with single shot muskets really caused the Aztecs to fall. Let’s see, 135 against an Army of 100,000 to 250,000 means you die by being hacked to death. Fun, fun, fun!
butonemike

This is a long one.. but it sums up my view on the matter.
From Camille Paglia:

I was always strongly in favor of bombing the mountains of Afghanistan to smithereens in our search for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida training camps. But committing our land forces to a long, open-ended mission to reshape the political future of that country has been a fool’s errand from the start. Every invader has been frustrated and eventually defeated by that maze-like mountain terrain, from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union. In a larger sense, outsiders will never be able to fix the fate of the roiling peoples of the Near East and Greater Middle East, who have been disputing territorial borderlines and slaughtering each other for 5,000 years. There is too much lingering ethnic and sectarian acrimony for a tranquil solution to be possible for generations to come. The presence of Western military forces merely inflames and prolongs the process and creates new militias of patriotic young radicals who hate us and want to take the war into our own cities. The technological West is too infatuated with easy fixes. But tribally based peoples think in terms of centuries and millennia. They know how to wait us out. Our presence in Afghanistan is not worth the price of any more American lives or treasure.
sayanything-4625

the difference between a people fighting for their liberty and an army fighting to liberate an oppressed people.
Were going to wipe out the Afghans G I A?

No, I said as much in my earlier post. We do, and are, recruiting the Afghans to help us. Unlike many countries, some tribes like us, some don’t. We will have to make sure that we don’t get involved in disputes literally thousands of years old. As we show that cooperation is benificial then we will get more help. Its the surge in Iraq on a smaller scale. It can be done. Our biggest problem is that we don’t have a unified command structure. In some cases we have casualty adverse “allies” with us.

Case in point, the Germans. Several weeks ago they used US planes in an airstrike on two gasoline tanker trucks. It turned out to be a disaster. We also have some really strange ROE’s. We will buzz Al Queda before an airstrike. We won’t allow fire support near any structure. Even if the enemy is using the structure in a firefight. These ROE’s have already gotten 4 Marines killed. I know the reason they do this but its really ridiculous. We are fighting with one hand behind our back. The war won’t end if we leave. We will just switch the battlefield to one of Al Queda’s choosing.
Hannitized

IMO, in the same way that we should have never gone into Kosovo, we should never have gone into Afghanistan. The War in Iraq was the right war, and we waste our resources in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan, because we have no national interest there.

Anybody else going to sign on with this kookoo-bird?
sayanything-4625

It may help in the long run but short term it was a disaster. I’ll have to disagree with you on that point. It will really be a disaster if it makes the ROE’s even more restrictive. They are bad enough as it is.
Neiman

I agree with 108 on this issue, but I would add:

Either stop micromanaging the war in Afghanistan and worrying about whether civilians will get killed and allow them to carpet bomb every Taliban held area, after notifying the civilians to get out, and give them more troops; or, we should get out today and leave those Al Queda-Taliban loving Muslims to themselves.

It is insane to fight a gentleman’s war, one dictated by the U.N. and Geneva rules that were created by liberals; it is criminal to the ultimate degree to send our men into combat unless we are absolutely determined at all costs to be victorious. It is either an all out kill the damn enemy war or it is a police action, which Obama and Billy Jeff like, which exposes our troops to unjustifiable risks.
sayanything-4625

Greg, actually in Afghanistan that attack was not a disaster. Many of the locals in that area approve of that strike, and want more direct military involvement in the region. In the European and American press it is being called that.

I disagree with you Hotel. From a NATO standpoint it was a disaster. The Germans didn’t do a post strike, on the scene assesment like they were supposed to, threw American air under the bus and damaged our already shakey relationship with German and American forces. I realize the Afghans want us to fight the war but we there are improvements we could make. In reality, our forces, the Brits and the Canadians have hung tough. Others not so much. Its a strange war.
carrick

WOOF:

Invaders lose.

Ask the Afghanis bout Genghis Khan sometime.

Beyond that, what drivel.

We aren’t “invaders” as much as you would like us to be any more than the psychotic Taliban are your heroic freedom fighters you are always desperately yearning for.

Thanks for illustrating why liberals can’t be trusted with the safety of our nation.
robert108

Seems to me as if hacks like robert108 are against Afghanistan now because a Dem is commander-in-chief.

More lying smear from you, Rob! If you had bothered to check your archives, you would discover that I have had this position from the beginning.
Shame on you!
The only reason for going into Afghanistan was for revenge, as it was believed that killing OBL would resolve everything; this was the spew from the lefties, Rob, so it’s no surprise to me that you sign on to it.
Again, going to war for the purpose of revenge is stupid.
The heart of terrorism then was in Iraq, where we should have gone in the first place.
If you’re honest enough to do research in your own archives, Rob, you will see that you owe me one more apology.
I don’t expect you to be honest enough to do that, though.
sayanything-4625

Good Post, Neiman.
Neiman

Seems to me as if hacks like robert108 are against Afghanistan now because a Dem is commander-in-chief.

That is a lie! He did not say his reasons were because of a Democrat President. While you may disagree with his or my position on this war, there is no excuse to lie and make false accusations.

If you had ever bothered to don a military uniform and serve in any combat ready unit, you could better appreciate that under present rules of engagement and the micromanaging by the Congress, White House and United Nations, we are not going to be allowed to really engage in and win this war. If we were committed to absolute victory then I have no problem winning there and telling the Middle East we are serious, but our current policy makes us look like boy scouts and we are losing military lives just to be stylish.
sayanything-4625

The Germans violated the RoE, they did not have eyeson, hell they didn’t have a body within visual range of the targets. You can’t depend on drones and aircraft in situations where you should have troops actually on scene. And we see what depending on a questionable local source did. That is a major problem, one that Americans, Canucks and Brits are not having.

They have FOs actually calling strikes, that was one of the changes that was put on a few months ago. And it is a damned good idea. An Army or Marine FIST team would not have called down the lightning on this one. Not with a large, unarmed civilian presence.

I agree with you there. In the Army if you call the strike ,you own it. You also have to have eye’s on.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/09/14/sot.ied.surveillance.cnn?iref=videosearch

Here’s an American team at work. Notice all, they do not shoot because there is a kid in the AO. Luckily for the good guys the idiots blow themselves up.
Brent

Libertarians stuck with their naive “let’s hid behind our borders and pretend like if we ignore everyone else they’ll ignore us” position.

And conservatives are still advance big government while trying to appear tough after all these years. So, Rob, are you the douche that has insecurity issues because you were picked on in school or were you the “cool” school bully?
robert108

Neiman: In my early days on this blog, I criticized the delay caused by our going into Afghanistan, and also suggested some ways in which we might prevail there, since we were already committed. One of those suggestions was for elite hunter-killer covert squads, which would operate independently without needing outside support to eliminate the AQ hierarchy.
Rob is just venting his animus against me because I don’t agree with his lack of moral positions on three issues.
He lets his resentment spill over into other subjects, like the rigid ideologue he is.
carrick

WOOF:

SIx years of futility.
The Afghans are not going accept us as their masters.

Short version: Leftist defeatism or “Why Liberals Shouldn’t be in Charge of National Security.”
jimmypop

The Afghans are not going accept us as their masters.

We’re not trying to be their masters, moron.

exactly. this is why all the others failed before us. they wanted to control. we want to secure and leave. annnnnnnnnnnnd……. maybe build a big airbase to launch mideast strikes from. of course we will pay to rent the land
Hannitized

R180 is a hack and a complete loon. He not only supported the Afghanistan war when Bush was president, but he called the Liberals terrorist loving traitors for if any of them talked about the problems inherent with war.

Most Democrats supported the efforts in Afghanistan, and they most certainly felt it was in our national interest to go after those who killed us on 9-11.

R180 is a kook.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

I would love to be able to opine intelligently about this war by having access to CIA area studies, getting a commander’s task force situation briefing, as well as other background information.

Alas, I, like the rest of you, do not.

I’ll have to go on the history of warfare in general and the history of warfare in that region and shoot for an educated SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess) .

Intelligence estimates were far simpler during the Cold War years. We had was was, for all intents and purposes, a Tri-polar world: 1) The US and her NATO, CENTO, OAS and ASEAN allies; 2) The Soviets and the Soviet Bloc nations; and 3) The Communist Chinese and their allies (North Korea, North Vietnam and wherever else they extended their foreign policy) But focusing our intelligence-gathering efforts at Moscow Center we could pretty much glean what was happening that might be bad in Eur-Asia. By focusing on Beijing, we could pretty much assess the plans the Red Chi-Coms were hatching.

But now, after the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, other threats have moved to fill this vacuum — a vacuum created in large part by Clinton’s total abandonment of the very necessary counterintelligence and security efforts which this world requires on a moment-by-moment basis.

Instead, Clinton completely abandoned any meaningful efforts are tracking and containing the efforts of Saddam Hussein and other Muslim radicals, and indeed, allied himself with
with them in South-Eastern Europe, up to and including paving the way for a Muslim terrorist (KLA) victory in Yugoslavia.

During the Cold War, Pakistan was vital to US interests, since the Soviets had overthrown the government of Afghanistan and invaded. Pakistan was useful to us in ferrying weapons and otherwise as a gateway into Afghanistan where we had been pursuing an anti-Soviet guerilla war. A war, I might add, was quite successful.

But now things are different.

We are left with the Clinton legacy of allowing Muslim extremists to murder the leadership of moderates and keep those who remain cowed in terror of reprisal.

What we are left with is the very ancient Power Politics.

The Squishy Middle in the Middle East will ally themselves with those whom they deem will be the winning party in any conflict. Not because they particularly like that side, but because, in those regions, losing a political fight means ending up with your head on a stake.

Thus everything we do and fail to do becomes precedent in the rest of the Muslim world. If we fail here, expect to fail for generations within the Muslim world. Weak leaders get no respect in those regions. All the eyes of the Muslim world will look to those who will support them when times are rough — not just financially, but with arms and troops.

So to answer the question:

What Do We Do About Afghanistan?

the answer is simple:

WIN IT.
robert108

He not only supported the Afghanistan war when Bush was president…

Lying little H: I supported it the same as I do now; since we are already there, we should go for the win. When we retreat, they advance.
I was against going there in the first place, since I considered it a distraction from our real mission against terrorism in Iraq.
You and Rob are both lying about this, but then, I expect no less from the two of you.
2Hotel9

“What Do We Do About Afghanistan?”

Hunt and kill Taliban/Al Queda. The people of Afghanistan understand that Taliban is using them for shields and as corpse props for their media show. That is beginning to undermine their ability to get cooperation from the people.

A major mistake is in the opium/poppy eradication program. We should be BUYING all that raw opium for use in the pharmaceutical industry, that would have cut the legs out from under the Taliban early on.

Another? The insistence of turning command over to a European/NATO consortium. They gave the Afghanis the distinct impression that they were there to take over. That set things back, along with their complete unwillingness to go out and hunt down Taliban. The Canadians and Brits, along with US, kept the pressure on in direct combat. The rest of them? Not so much. They were there to get what they could, and to play fake policeman. That made many of the problems that must now be overcome.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Thanks for the invitation, Neiman. I agree with several posters already.

WIN IT.

This is an interesting comment:

Either stop micromanaging the war in Afghanistan and worrying about whether civilians will get killed

Some civilians may be killed by accident. This happens with police, fire departments, hospitals and even burger turners. We must not let THE PRESS — the liberal press, to take the light away from our efforts like walter did with Tet.

The conflicting problem here is that NATO is involved. That ties our hands a bit more.
We should take over complete control of operations and kill the bad guys.

The ones who masterminded 9.11.01
Neiman

Chief: As as military man I KNEW that is what you would say, “win it!” Or, don’t stay there! War as you and I know is no game, it is life and death and if we as a people decide to approve of war, winning is the only option. The faster and more decisive the better.

It is no longer in Aghanistan and issue of whether we should have gone in or not, we are there – win the damn thing!
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Yes. Same issue came up in World War II. Millions of our troops were killed. Millions of civilians were also.

The alternative is to allow communists to murder hundreds of millions, then lie and cover up their crimes.

Taking a lie is almost as bad as being tortured. My Representative, Joe Wilson (SC-2) had the courage to call it — a lie.
robert108

Wrong again, little woof: Commies lose. In fact, they lost so badly they lost their “Soviet Union”. Where is it now?
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

Woof is a Leftard.

As such they refuse to acknowledge that STATISM is evil and only maintains power through brute force and the terror of a Secret Police, mass executions and Gulag death camps.

So self-deluded, they cannot understand the difference between a people fighting for their liberty and an army fighting to liberate an oppressed people.

Not all armies and soldiers are the same, yet Woof would have us believe that the Wehrmacht of 1940 is exactly the same as the allied landing in 1944.

Leftists are self-deluded fools.

They cannot be entrusted with authority or responsibility.

And they certainly cannot be entrusted with matters related to freedom and national defense.
Hannitized

I was against going there in the first place, since I considered it a distraction from our real mission against terrorism in Iraq.

Um…we went to Afghanistan first. There was no open discussion to the public about Iraq at that time.

I would not be surprised to learn you defended AQ and the Taliban. After all, it’s not in our national interest to attack those who killed us on 9-11.

You and Rob are both lying about this, but then, I expect no less from the two of you.

You have zero credibility.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

Woof,

If you are trying to forward a winning argument, you still haven’t done so.

Austrians? In what era?

The time of Serbian separatists under the Austro-Hungarian empire, triggering WWI?

Czechoslovakia? Swallowed up in turns, by Nazi Germany, then Soviet Russia, its bid for freedom brutally suppressed by Soviet tanks in 1968, and finally free at last after the fall of the Iron Curtain?

Poland, basically, constantly the pathway for invading armies, torn in two by the Soviet and the Nazis in 1940, occupied by the Soviets after WWII and whose national boundaries were physically shifted hundreds of miles Westward by the Communists, finally freed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

What point was it you were trying to make?
robert108

Um…we went to Afghanistan first. There was no open discussion to the public about Iraq at that time.

My point was that we went to Afghanistan when we should have been going directly to Iraq. Are you really too stupid to read and understand English?

As far as “supporting AQ and the Taliban”, I’ll leave that to you and your leftie terrorist appeasing buddies, like Obama.

AQ was in Iraq; it was the center of terrorism in the ME. How has being in Afghanistan made any difference in the war against Islamic terrorism, fool?
Again, idiot, going to war for the purpose of revenge is stupid, just like you babbling lefties.
Our killing of terrorists in Iraq is what kept us safe for eight years; not being in Afghanistan. If you can’t figure that out, you should seek help.
DINO

The smartest thing would be to send all the republicans there to start a new homeland.

Think of the progress we could make as a culture with the removal of that malignant tumor of ignorance we call conservatism!

Problem is, Afghanis would probably send them back after finding out what assholes they are.
Hannitized

My point was that we went to Afghanistan when we should have been going directly to Iraq. Are you really too stupid to read and understand English?

Your point was that you didn’t support the Afghanistan war, period. That is what you said.

Then you said we should have been going to Iraq, where there might have been (3) AQ terrorists until we invaded.

I think you are insane.

AQ was in Iraq; it was the center of terrorism in the ME. How has being in Afghanistan made any difference in the war against Islamic terrorism, fool?

Um, well let’s see…..we caught the majority of AQ terrorist leaders there? Maybe that is a good thing???

Hahaha. You are drunk, stupid or stoned. Which one is it?
2Hotel9

Greg, actually in Afghanistan that attack was not a disaster. Many of the locals in that area approve of that strike, and want more direct military involvement in the region. In the European and American press it is being called that.

Once Afghanis have the ability and resources to fight the Taliban the support in a region collapses. Why? Because Taliban can no longer round up and kill people with impunity. They have to fight the locals and the Afghani national army AND the coalition forces.
sayanything-4625

What point was it you were trying to make?

That an invader can never win. History is repleat with examples of the invader winning but he has rejected history.
2Hotel9

That was kind of my point. The German commander in this is going to get thumped, he really screwed the pooch on this. Because of his command structures extreme reluctance to actually put troops in the field. They depended on information from an Afghani on a cellphone for that airstrike. The aircraft did a recon pass, saw large numbers of people around the vehicles, some armed, and then did the strike. Not how I was taught to do the job, for damned sure.

From local accounts, in articles at BBC and Al Jazeera, there were 15-25 Taliban there, and 50-70 civilians getting fuel from one truck and helping to get the other unstuck. When they heard the aircraft make that first pass they should have run.
Neiman

Most of you, even you good guys, have gotten distracted by these Leftists into debating issues they drag out, are pure obfuscations and they get us off topic.

I think most of us with military and especially combat experience will argue in this manner: (1) We are there, right or wrong, get over it, deal with the situation at hand. (2) When American troops are committed to war, let the military fight it through to absolute victory. (3) No Congressional or Executive micromanaging, give the troops all the tools they need to win and win fast. Had we really engaged in shock and awe in Iraq, carpet bombed every Republican Guard area and kicked ass hard and fast, we would have eliminated 99% of all the problems and everyone would have respected our decisive actions. Delay a war to fight nice always ends in defeat and disrespect. (4) If civilians don’t want to risk death, then resist allowing the enemy to hide among, get the hell out of the way or to bad for you! (5) Never let the U.N. inside a country where we are fighting!
Neiman

Most of you, even you good guys, have gotten distracted by these Leftists into debating issues they drag out, are pure obfuscations and they get us off topic.

I think most of us with military and especially combat experience will argue in this manner: (1) We are there, right or wrong, get over it, deal with the situation at hand. (2) When American troops are committed to war, let the military fight it through to absolute victory. (3) No Congressional or Executive micromanaging, give the troops all the tools they need to win and win fast. Had we really engaged in shock and awe in Iraq, carpet bombed every Republican Guard area and kicked ass hard and fast, we would have eliminated 99% of all the problems and everyone would have respected our decisive actions. Delay a war to fight nice always ends in defeat and disrespect. (4) If civilians don’t want to risk death, then resist allowing the enemy to hide among, get the hell out of the way or to bad for you! (5) Never let the U.N. inside a country where we are fighting!
2Hotel9

Yea, put in another Brigade, and let them do the damned job.
2Hotel9

The Germans violated the RoE, they did not have eyeson, hell they didn’t have a body within visual range of the targets. You can’t depend on drones and aircraft in situations where you should have troops actually on scene. And we see what depending on a questionable local source did. That is a major problem, one that Americans, Canucks and Brits are not having.

They have FOs actually calling strikes, that was one of the changes that was put on a few months ago. And it is a damned good idea. An Army or Marine FIST team would not have called down the lightning on this one. Not with a large, unarmed civilian presence.

Doing strikes by “remote” is just a bad idea, all the way around.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

Nieman,

seconded.
DINO

Ameriduh is going to lose this war as they watch Iraq slip back into dictatorship. All that money will have been wasted. All that money your fucking kids get to pay back. And their kids.

Mortar shells hitting the green zone today. Time to declare Iraq a success? LOL

All because reagan had to crank up the meddling in the Middle East. Belligerent nationalism. Throwing his weight around. Military expansionism in the Middle East. 9/11. All related. That’s why we got attacked.

This must be what other empires looked like before the collapse. Rotting from the inside, overextended.
2Hotel9

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!! Thats dinothefakehomo all over right there. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Friend sent me some video of Iraqi dinothefakehomos doing much the same thing. He was getting ready to call 155 fire on them when POOF!!! they were gone.
2Hotel9

Did you guys notice? I think the MSNBC ticker is gone. YEA!!
Neiman

This must be what other empires looked like before the

collapse. Rotting from the inside, overextended.

You are right for once Dino! But the rot is a moral and spiritual rot that is caused almost exclusively by the Left and by activist perverse homosexuals. We are imploding because we kicked God out of the public square and every pervert, drug addict and fool came to the surface demanding special rights they were not entitled to have. Liberalism is the social, moral and spiritual cancer inside America and unless we have the guts to cut it out and attack it directly, it will destroy us! Thanks for seeing the light!

I agree with you there. In the Army if you call the strike, you own it. You also have to have eye’s on.

Yes, that is correct with one caveat: Even if civilians are killed, because the enemy hides among them and uses them for shields, they should not be criticised at home for doing their job!
2Hotel9

That is a point the left is using as their primary tactic. Taliban has learned that killing civilians can ALWAYS be blamed on the coalition, even when those dead civilians are days dead when a coalition strike hits.

As for the other, sanni, woofie, dinothefakehomo are the rot. They hate America, they despise individual freedom(for anyone other than themselves), they are absolutely terrified as the watch Americans throwing their socialistic shit in the trash. That is why they are here, spreading their racist shit.
SigFan

Win or leave. If we leave, be prepared for the consequences, as the left will use this to their advantage and the terrorists will be emboldened.

I was too young to be drafted into service during Viet Nam, not by much but still too young. My older brother enlisted, as did many of his and my friends. They all came back alive thankfully, and they all said the same thing. The RoE’s hampered their ability to take it to the enemy in a way that would have ended the conflict much sooner, victoriously and at a much lower cost of life and treasure. I am one of those that wish that war was never necessary, but realistic enough to know that will never be true. My dad, a WWII Ranger, taught my brother and I a very valuable lesson early in life. Avoid conflict when you can, but if it comes your way, kick ass and keep on kicking until your enemy can’t or gives up. Anything else is just foolishness. We are engaged in foolishness now in Afghanistan. Take the gloves off and kick ass, or pack up and go home. Those are the only choices and the latter is unacceptable.
richNJ

I am going agaisnt my first stand on Afghanistan. With Obama in the Presidency, I vote to get our troops out of there before anymore are killed. Lets face it. He does not have what it takes to properly do the job in Afghanistan. He is another McNamara. I do not want to see another person in the military lose their life because Obama does not have the guts to fight a war and win. So why waste more American lifes. In 1,222 days he will be gone and we can then start the process of getting this Country back in order. Until then, I cannot see wasting one American soldiers life for this Con Artist.
WOOFX

You saw Red Dawn
You loved it
Yet

you did not understand the lesson.
Invaders lose.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

The Afghans are not going accept us as their masters.

We’re not trying to be their masters, moron.
WOOFX

SIx years of futility.
The Afghans are not going accept us as their masters.

We can pay other mercenaries to advance our interests.
That’s how we beat the Russians there.
WOOFX

That’s what the Czechoslovakians, Austrians and Poles were told.

the difference between a people fighting for their liberty and an army fighting to liberate an oppressed people.

Were going to wipe out the Afghans G I A?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I think we had more justification to be in Afghanistan than Iraq, though I think both were entirely justified.

Seems to me as if hacks like robert108 are against Afghanistan now because a Dem is commander-in-chief.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Ha, Brent, way to stay mature buddy.

My foreign policy views having nothing to do with anything that happened to me in high school, or with any desire to appear tough.

I simply recognize that in an age of push-button warfare we can’t afford not to, at times, put boots on the ground. Sometimes to head off threats.

Better to fight at a time of our choosing than only when we’re forced to.

And your cliched “big government” argument is nonsense as well. I am for limited government, not anarchy. By saying that I can’t be for limited government and a necessary war is like liberals saying we can’t cut spending without eliminating fire departments.

One major thing that has always kept me away from the libertarian movement (and Ron Paul specifically) is their foolish notions about foreign policy.

SayAnythingBlog.com

What Do We Do About Afghanistan?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments