"A former Marine captain who became the first foreign service official to publicly resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan says staying in the country is not in America's interest.

"The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values," Matthew Hoh, who signed on as a foreign service official in Afghanistan after fighting in Iraq."
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287485

There are plenty of people who say “the Commander of Afghanistan says send more troops – so send more troops.”

Here is a man who has been there and done that who says: "The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values."

Think this through, as Mathew Hoh has – does it really make sense to build a nation like Afghanistan while fighting an insurgency against the Taliban who are no direct threat to the United States?

How many years do you think these forces will be fighting in Afghanistan?

How much money will we have to borrow from the Chinese for this war?

All during this war in Afghansitan, won’t al Qaeda be planning and training for the next attack on American from safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen or sleeper cells in Europe and America?

A generation from now when Afghanistan is a free and prosperous nation and we discover that al Qaeda has training bases in Somalia to plan attacks on America, do we then go to war to secure that failed state?

Resignation letter:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

"A former Marine captain who became the first foreign service official to publicly resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan says staying in the country is not in America's interest.

"The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values," Matthew Hoh, who signed on as a foreign service official in Afghanistan after fighting in Iraq."

>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287485

There are plenty of people who say “the Commander of Afghanistan says send more troops – so send more troops.”

Here is a man who has been there and done that who says: "The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values."

Think this through, as Mathew Hoh has – does it really make sense to build a nation like Afghanistan while fighting an insurgency against the Taliban who are no direct threat to the United States?

How many years do you think these forces will be fighting in Afghanistan?

How much money will we have to borrow from the Chinese for this war?

All during this war in Afghansitan, won’t al Qaeda be planning and training for the next attack on American from safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen or sleeper cells in Europe and America?

A generation from now when Afghanistan is a free and prosperous nation and we discover that al Qaeda has training bases in Somalia to plan attacks on America, do we then go to war to secure that failed state?

Resignation letter:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

Isn't that called, "Making The World A Better Place For All To Live. . ."

If being a Warrior was easy . . ., everybody would want some of that "easy" money . . .

A-Stan becoming Free and Prosperous Nation..., that's why our Warriors do what they do . . .their Honorable and Selfless Service maintains our Safety and Freedom.

There is nothing in afstan.
In one hundred years of blood and treasure afstan would still look like it does today.
There is nothing in afstan to win.
It will take mass extermination of the tribes to effect any kind of change.
hearts and minds? I don't think the afstanians have hearts and dang sure ain't got minds.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
Isn't that called, "Making The World A Better Place For All To Live. . ."

If being a Warrior was easy . . ., everybody would want some of that "easy" money . . .

A-Stan becoming Free and Prosperous Nation..., that's why our Warriors do what they do . . .their Honorable and Selfless Service maintains our Safety and Freedom.

With that logic we should also invade Somalia, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and a dozen other countries.

Should we "Making The World A Better Place For All To Live. . ." all at once or one country at a time?

We are trying to save the world. Why not try to save our country.

Afghanistan was as it is today in the days of Alexander the Great. The British empire threw it's best and brightest military at Afganistan in the 19h Century, Russia after that in the 20th Century, now us.

What has changed? Just the weapons have gotten more sophisticated nothing more, nothing less.

Let's save our country from destroying itself instead of trying to save the world.

Let Afghanistan go!

Frustrated Frisco

Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."
Something happened to prove that we should have worried.
Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan? Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

Yeah, sure, we should bring back isolationism. We should hide in the sands and pretend thers is no islamofascism that wants all of us dead. Let's pretend that "fitna" will result in no more than window soaping on All Hallow's Eve.

Maybe you should also pay jizya too and when the balloon goes up, it won't be in you're back yard. Maybe they'll stop being at war with us, yeah, that's likely....not.

Yah, sure.....

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
Isn't that called, "Making The World A Better Place For All To Live. . ."

If being a Warrior was easy . . ., everybody would want some of that "easy" money . . .

A-Stan becoming Free and Prosperous Nation..., that's why our Warriors do what they do . . .their Honorable and Selfless Service maintains our Safety and Freedom.

With that logic we should also invade Somalia, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and a dozen other countries.

Should we "Making The World A Better Place For All To Live. . ." all at once or one country at a time?

You're right, let's go back to Protectionism...,oh BTW, that caused WWII . . .remember

Naw..., we don't learn from our World History, we just repeat it (same mistakes) EVERY Generation . . .

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:
Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."
Something happened to prove that we should have worried.
Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan? Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

Why do most people see only two choices in Afghanistan:
Full scale insurgency warfare
Or
Pull out completely?

Why not keep troops there without trying to defeat the Taliban and building up the entire country?

As long as we have some troops there, al Qaeda will not be able to establish bases there and we can continue to attack them with drones where they are – in Pakistan.

My argument is that winning, in the classic sense of defeating the Taliban insurgency is not necessary.

Defeating al Qaeda would be the right finish.

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
Yeah, sure, we should bring back isolationism. We should hide in the sands and pretend thers is no islamofascism that wants all of us dead. Let's pretend that "fitna" will result in no more than window soaping on All Hallow's Eve.

Maybe you should also pay jizya too and when the balloon goes up, it won't be in you're back yard. Maybe they'll stop being at war with us, yeah, that's likely....not.

Yah, sure.....

and until we in the west learn to leave outher cultures alone - we will be bringing it on ourselves again.

But oh no we are perfect we know what is good for the World we are superior! Bullshyt!

By the way the British thought basically the same way as we in the 19th Century. Afghanistan was the beginning of their end as a major power! It was the USSR's as well, it WILL BE OURS as well if we are not careful!

Our country is falling down around our ears and we are worried about Afghanistan! What about stopping the invasion of Illegal Aliens, rebuilding our economic base, our infastructure, etc., etc., ad infinitum!

Time to start closing our borders, minding mainstreet USA (and in my families case Europe) and dealing with our problems at home!

Frisco

Afghanistan is the cross roads of trade and invasion between Persia/Iran (West), Pakistan/Indian/China (East), and Russia (North). Whoever has influence there has great influence in the whole region. Give it up to either Al-Quaida or the Taliban, and the whole region could fall under their control - -

Pakistan and India with their nuclear weapons? Not good - -

Frisco, are you being scarcastic as I was, and do you too stand fully and firmly behind the Declaration of In dependence and Constitution?

To me, these two documents ARE FAR AND AWAY superior to ANYTHING I've seen comming out on the mid-east. WE ARE BETTER1

BTW, go look up where the Muslim religion says about where the Sun goes at night.....

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
Frisco, are you being scarcastic as I was, and do you too stand fully and firmly behind the Declaration of In dependence and Constitution?

To me, these two documents ARE FAR AND AWAY superior to ANYTHING I've seen comming out on the mid-east. WE ARE BETTER1

BTW, go look up where the Muslim religion says about where the Sun goes at night.....

I was being sarcastic and serious at the same time.

Yes most everything that has come out of Western Civilization is superior to the Middle East. From the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

But if we are not careful in our efforts to save the world we are going to destroy ourselves and our society. Losing our greatness and reducing ourselves to their level.

That is what I was trying to say. Guess I did not come off to well on that point.

Frisco

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:
Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."
Something happened to prove that we should have worried.
Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan? Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

Why do most people see only two choices in Afghanistan:
Full scale insurgency warfare
Or
Pull out completely?

Why not keep troops there without trying to defeat the Taliban and building up the entire country?

As long as we have some troops there, al Qaeda will not be able to establish bases there and we can continue to attack them with drones where they are – in Pakistan.

My argument is that winning, in the classic sense of defeating the Taliban insurgency is not necessary.

Defeating al Qaeda would be the right finish.

While our troops are there, the Taliban will go after them. Fight them on our terms, or theirs?
There may be several options to end the operations in Afghanistan. As a counterinsurgency, not enough troops yet. Security with the protection of the population is essential.
As a war, the ROE as well as that pesky border between Afghanistan and Pakistan hinder our defeat of the Taliban into surrender. Without the surrender of the Taliban, there will be no healthy central government in Afghanistan.
Defeating al Qaeda won't be enough. The Taliban would have to give up their war as well and, in addition, not export terrorism in any form.
There still aren't enough troops to establish a true COIN. So why has the ROE changed?
Right now, with no decision on strategy by the CinC, what necessary objectives can possibly be achieved?

Wrong ROE for the troop numbers. Wrong troop numbers for a COIN. The CinC's compass must be spinning because he still hasn't set course.

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:
Afghanistan is the cross roads of trade and invasion between Persia/Iran (West), Pakistan/Indian/China (East), and Russia (North). Whoever has influence there has great influence in the whole region. Give it up to either Al-Quaida or the Taliban, and the whole region could fall under their control - -

Pakistan and India with their nuclear weapons? Not good - -

At the height of the Taliban’s power in Afghanistan, they never controlled the entire country. No one has ever controlled the entire country.

Since there are no plans for American forces to leave the region there is no chance for the Taliban to take over the county now, and al Qaeda would be attacked if they tried to set up anything more than a safe house in the country.

So, for real world, how would anyone answer these questions?

How many years do you think these forces will be fighting in Afghanistan?

How much money will we have to borrow from the Chinese for this war?

All during this war in Afghansitan, won’t al Qaeda be planning and training for the next attack on American from safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen or sleeper cells in Europe and America?

A generation from now when Afghanistan is a free and prosperous nation and we discover that al Qaeda has training bases in Somalia to plan attacks on America, do we then go to war to secure that failed state?

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:
Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."
Something happened to prove that we should have worried.
Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan? Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

Why do most people see only two choices in Afghanistan:
Full scale insurgency warfare
Or
Pull out completely?

Why not keep troops there without trying to defeat the Taliban and building up the entire country?

As long as we have some troops there, al Qaeda will not be able to establish bases there and we can continue to attack them with drones where they are – in Pakistan.

My argument is that winning, in the classic sense of defeating the Taliban insurgency is not necessary.

Defeating al Qaeda would be the right finish.

While our troops are there, the Taliban will go after them. Fight them on our terms, or theirs?
There may be several options to end the operations in Afghanistan. As a counterinsurgency, not enough troops yet. Security with the protection of the population is essential.
As a war, the ROE as well as that pesky border between Afghanistan and Pakistan hinder our defeat of the Taliban into surrender. Without the surrender of the Taliban, there will be no healthy central government in Afghanistan.
Defeating al Qaeda won't be enough. The Taliban would have to give up their war as well and, in addition, not export terrorism in any form.
There still aren't enough troops to establish a true COIN. So why has the ROE changed?
Right now, with no decision on strategy by the CinC, what necessary objectives can possibly be achieved?

Wrong ROE for the troop numbers. Wrong troop numbers for a COIN. The CinC's compass must be spinning because he still hasn't set course.

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

quote:

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

The fight goes on. When we give up, we are defeated.

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

The fight goes on. When we give up, we are defeated.

The fight can only go on so long - all American forces have to leave Iraq by 12-31-11, per an agreement signed by President Bush, then passed as law by the Iraqi Parliament.

The fight by American forces will not go past that date. Between now and then, the insurgency in Iraq will not be defeated. Once we are gone, the Iraqis will not be able to do what American forces could not do.

What make you think COIN in Afghanistan will be any successful than it was in Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:
Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."
Something happened to prove that we should have worried.
Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan? Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

"Something happened to prove that we should have worried."

Right.........on September 11, 2000 we were attacked by 14 Saudi Arabian citizens and 5 Kuwaiti citizens.......so we attacked Iraq. The last administration went so far as to proclaim:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Afghanistan is just another s***hole and we shouldn't be worried about their becoming anything other than what they are, a feudalistic, warlord ruled, drug financed 14th century society. That's all they'll ever be.

quote:

Originally posted by ThumperNM:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

Once upon a time Americans said, "We don't have to worry about Afghanistan. They are a primitive tribal region."

Something happened to prove that we should have worried.

Now, unless there is another way to keep from going back to "Once upon a time" we should leave when there is no longer a threat and no chance to repeat a past mistake.

If Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, should soldiers leave Afghanistan?

Even then the threat will still return unless we finish this right.

"Something happened to prove that we should have worried."

Right.........on September 11, 2000 we were attacked by 14 Saudi Arabian citizens and 5 Kuwaiti citizens.......so we attacked Iraq.

The last administration went so far as to proclaim:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Afghanistan is just another s***hole and we shouldn't be worried about their becoming anything other than what they are, a feudalistic, warlord ruled, drug financed 14th century society. That's all they'll ever be.

Aw yes..., let's see:

Pull out of Iraq and A-Stan, eliminate DADT, reduce the military what 50%...60%...70%..., conduct Isolationism/Protectionism OPNS, and then, and then proclaim a PEACE DIVIDEND to fund ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS desired ! ! !

Yes, boys and girls..., that is the perfect World of our esteemed LIBs . . .

What a perfect world it could be . . . If only the clear minded, realist Conservatives would relent . . .NOT

Thats the thing we were attacked by terrorist from Saudi Arabia,we got rid of Saddam,and by showing our presence in other countries ,those people are wondering what we are doing there and when there is a explosion we get blamed for the very fact that they are wondering what we are doing in their country..

We have our little brother we cannot trust in the middle east.Whom are doing the same thing years ago,building a wall no wonder we are needed in that area..

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
Aw yes..., let's see:

Pull out of Iraq and A-Stan, eliminate DADT, reduce the military what 50%...60%...70%..., conduct Isolationism/Protectionism OPNS, and then, and then proclaim a PEACE DIVIDEND to fund ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS desired ! ! !

Yes, boys and girls..., that is the perfect World of our esteemed LIBs . . .

What a perfect world it could be . . . If only the clear minded, realist Conservatives would relent . . .NOT

Do you have it in you to make a coherent comment on the topic of this thread - from a "clear minded, realist Conservative" pointed of view?


"A former Marine captain who became the first foreign service official to publicly resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan says staying in the country is not in America's interest.

"The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values," Matthew Hoh, who signed on as a foreign service official in Afghanistan after fighting in Iraq."
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287485

There are plenty of people who say “the Commander of Afghanistan says send more troops – so send more troops.”

Here is a man who has been there and done that who says: "The losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values."

Think this through, as Mathew Hoh has – does it really make sense to build a nation like Afghanistan while fighting an insurgency against the Taliban who are no direct threat to the United States?

How many years do you think these forces will be fighting in Afghanistan?

How much money will we have to borrow from the Chinese for this war?

All during this war in Afghansitan, won’t al Qaeda be planning and training for the next attack on American from safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen or sleeper cells in Europe and America?

A generation from now when Afghanistan is a free and prosperous nation and we discover that al Qaeda has training bases in Somalia to plan attacks on America, do we then go to war to secure that failed state?

Resignation letter:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

Yeah X-man, give it up, STACK...ARMS!!!

Okay, Moh sez, "All is Lost!"

You're right, if only we didn't attempt a Surge in Iraq and were SUCCESSFUL . . . I wouldn't be "a moth barrelling toward the (Surge) light . . ."

Yepper, X-man, We just Can't, cause Can't is in the LIB lexicon.

Thus..., We Can't, Cause Anything Worth Having...Is Hard.

Damn, the candy arse have taken over, All Is Lost.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

The fight goes on. When we give up, we are defeated.

The fight can only go on so long - all American forces have to leave Iraq by 12-31-11, per an agreement signed by President Bush, then passed as law by the Iraqi Parliament.

The fight by American forces will not go past that date. Between now and then, the insurgency in Iraq will not be defeated. Once we are gone, the Iraqis will not be able to do what American forces could not do.

What make you think COIN in Afghanistan will be any successful than it was in Iraq?

When American forces leave Iraq, unless the Iraqi government and forces give up, the fight against terrorists goes on. They might even kiss=kiss. If necessary, we'll probably end up back there again...

In Afghanistan, at some point we will leave that same fight in the hands of their government and their soldiers and their people. Afghanistan still has quite a while yet to develop their government, their army, and somewhat of an economy besides poppies.

Eventually, they will both have to fight with the Army they have, not the Army they want. And we'll probably have "advisers" there too.

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

The fight goes on. When we give up, we are defeated.

The fight can only go on so long - all American forces have to leave Iraq by 12-31-11, per an agreement signed by President Bush, then passed as law by the Iraqi Parliament.

The fight by American forces will not go past that date. Between now and then, the insurgency in Iraq will not be defeated. Once we are gone, the Iraqis will not be able to do what American forces could not do.

What make you think COIN in Afghanistan will be any successful than it was in Iraq?

When American forces leave Iraq, unless the Iraqi government and forces give up, the fight against terrorists goes on. They might even kiss=kiss. If necessary, we'll probably end up back there again...

In Afghanistan, at some point we will leave that same fight in the hands of their government and their soldiers and their people. Afghanistan still has quite a while yet to develop their government, their army, and somewhat of an economy besides poppies.

Eventually, they will both have to fight with the Army they have, not the Army they want. And we'll probably have "advisers" there too.

Precisely catahoulagill. . .

Yo, X-man (Xerello)

How long have WE been in South Korea to keep Peace . . .

How long were WE in Germany to keep peace . . .

How long have WE been in the Sinai, you know that little area between Egypt and Israel..., to keep peace . . .

How long have WE been in the Balkans (formally known as Yugoslavia) to keep peace . . .

Are you tired yet, of the facts there Xerello . . .

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
Yeah X-man, give it up, STACK...ARMS!!!

Okay, Moh sez, "All is Lost!"

You're right, if only we didn't attempt a Surge in Iraq and were SUCCESSFUL . . . I wouldn't be "a moth barrelling toward the (Surge) light . . ."

Yepper, X-man, We just Can't, cause Can't is in the LIB lexicon.

Thus..., We Can't, Cause Anything Worth Having...Is Hard.

Damn, the candy arse have taken over, All Is Lost.

That is why we should fight in Afghanistan for another decade – to be “SUCCESSFUL?”

On 12-31-11 all American forces will leave Iraq, but the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq will still be on the battlefield.

Only someone who supported the Bush Administration for years and had to keep lowering their expectations still think that 12-11-31 will be a day to celebrate “SUCCESS.”

If being “SUCCESSFUL” in Afghanistan is the best we can hope for, then the question is answered – “SUCCESS” in Afghanistan is not worth the price.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

Yeah X-man, give it up, STACK...ARMS!!!

Okay, Moh sez, "All is Lost!"

You're right, if only we didn't attempt a Surge in Iraq and were SUCCESSFUL . . . I wouldn't be "a moth barrelling toward the (Surge) light . . ."

Yepper, X-man, We just Can't, cause Can't is in the LIB lexicon.

Thus..., We Can't, Cause Anything Worth Having...Is Hard.

Damn, the candy arse have taken over, All Is Lost.

That is why we should fight in Afghanistan for another decade – to be “SUCCESSFUL?”

On 12-31-11 all American forces will leave Iraq, but the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq will still be on the battlefield.

Only someone who supported the Bush Administration for years and had to keep lowering their expectations still think that 12-11-31 will be a day to celebrate “SUCCESS.”

If being “SUCCESSFUL” in Afghanistan is the best we can hope for, then the question is answered – “SUCCESS” in Afghanistan is not worth the price.

I say again, STACK... ARMS ! ! !

It's just too damn hard . . . You don't like the word, "successful," so be it . . .

STACK those damn ARMS, everybody go home... We need a PEACE DIVIDEND anyway . . .

I didn't realize that "successful" was not in the LIB lexicon, pardon the hell out of me . . .

As you can see, I'm not tuned to all the proper P C words.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by catahoulagill:

quote:

The insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were never defeated in Iraq. What makes you think the insurgency could be defeated in A-stan?

The fight goes on. When we give up, we are defeated.

The fight can only go on so long - all American forces have to leave Iraq by 12-31-11, per an agreement signed by President Bush, then passed as law by the Iraqi Parliament.

The fight by American forces will not go past that date. Between now and then, the insurgency in Iraq will not be defeated. Once we are gone, the Iraqis will not be able to do what American forces could not do.

What make you think COIN in Afghanistan will be any successful than it was in Iraq?

When American forces leave Iraq, unless the Iraqi government and forces give up, the fight against terrorists goes on. They might even kiss=kiss. If necessary, we'll probably end up back there again...

In Afghanistan, at some point we will leave that same fight in the hands of their government and their soldiers and their people. Afghanistan still has quite a while yet to develop their government, their army, and somewhat of an economy besides poppies.

Eventually, they will both have to fight with the Army they have, not the Army they want. And we'll probably have "advisers" there too.

Precisely catahoulagill. . .

Yo, X-man (Xerello)

How long have WE been in South Korea to keep Peace . . .

How long were WE in Germany to keep peace . . .

How long have WE been in the Sinai, you know that little area between Egypt and Israel..., to keep peace . . .

How long have WE been in the Balkans (formally known as Yugoslavia) to keep peace . . .

Are you tired yet, of the facts there Xerello . . .

Try this fact – we are not in Iraq to keep the peace, there is no peace. The insurgency and al Qaeda kill people everyday.

When we leave Iraq, there is a much better chance that the place will go to $h!t rather than becoming a shining beacon of democracy. But no matter, according to catahoulagill, “we'll probably end up back there again...”

You are helping me make the point that a full counter insurgency in A-stan is not worth the price, thanks.

Another fact - comparing Germany where we had bases in a peaceful country to keep the Soviet Union from invading to Iraq where an insurgency continues makes no sense. You’re just reaching for straws.

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
I say again, STACK... ARMS ! ! !

It's just too damn hard . . . You don't like the word, "successful," so be it . . .

STACK those damn ARMS, everybody go home... We need a PEACE DIVIDEND anyway . . .

I didn't realize that "successful" was not in the LIB lexicon, pardon the hell out of me . . .

As you can see, I'm not tuned to all the proper P C words.

I prefer the word Victory when it comes to sending Americans to war.