How long does one continue this fruitless foreign policy? We haven't made one stride in 12 years.
How long does one continue this fruitless foreign policy? We haven't made one stride in 12 years.
There are problems and they number several with any decision, Pete. Inaction and isolation concerning Afghanistan was a decision that had problems and they numbered several, those unleashed on 9-11 if I'm not mistaken. The Taliban could not be allowed to continue 'governing' in Afghanistan. They refused Bush's first demand for obl following the attacks on the US. You, the prince of what we cannot do, the forum's Monday Morning QB. The mission was to unseat the Taliban, not punish. The mission goal wasn't leaving with the Taliban government still in control...correct Pete?
Really Lewis? Have one of the Corps of Discovery run up and grab Captain Clark and send him back here immediately. Not only does Pete's internet contain Google Maps so Pete can regurgitate the first part of that.....but guess what? Captain Obvious has just declared that "Logistics is a $#@!." My God.....the weight...the level of that statement. Going on yer record Pete. Geopolitics is hard. Logistics a $#@!. Next you'll be enlightening us all that war is dangerous or something. Let's talk tomorrow morning about what the QB's should have done today too, Pete, you're probably just as good at that.Afghanistan is land locked and logistics is a $#@!.
So.....you.....Peter1469......Captain Obvious of TPF...want to explain to me in a geopolitically confident manner.....that after we chased al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters into the mountains...and degraded their ability to operate in Afghan territory...we should have withdrawn? Left the Taliban to govern Afghanistan....figuring they "would not have minded" continued operations and/or drone strikes?2. Afghanistan may be a state, but it has never been a nation. A nation is a collection of people with largely compatible goals / culture. You can't build a nation in Afghanistan, and it was foolish to try.
We could have removed conventional forces after Tora Bora - the Afghans would not have minded us staging SoF and Intel there to hunt down the remaining high value targets. What really pissed them off was what looked like an occupation and meddling in their internal politics.
Because if your think that, then go get your no. 2 pencil, your crayons if that's your preference, your notebook and straighten yer necktie co-ed.....Ransom's class is in session and you're about to get some geopolitics inserted where you didn't know places existed. Tighten your seatbelt, Captain.....perhaps get some of the Obvious household members around too....you're all about to get schooled.
September 11th, 2001 scenario;
"President Chloe.....the al-Qaeda Terror Network based in Afghanistan just hijacked 4 airliners, one is down in Pennsylvania, one is inside the Pentagon, and 2 are in each of our World Trade Centers...that have now collapsed........your orders, Ma'am"
"Where is Captain Obvious?"
"Ma'am....with all due respect.....we already understand geopolitics is hard, we know logistics is a $#@!, we know there are many more Monday Morning rather than Sunday Morning quarterbacks on the tpf site you sometimes frequent.....the time for grand statements that have been known to exist since the early dawns of any civilization....aren't necessary to repeat, they're well known...what should we do, what are your orders this am, what does President Chloe propose we actually do?"
You need to tighten up: the Taliban was out of power within months....
Have you really missed the effort and expense of the logistical efforts to support the occupation of Afghanistan?
And you deflect in your second sentence. It is either a deliberate attempt to discredit my point; or it is a failure to understand my point.
Was out of power...because the mission was to destroy...not punish the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Peter.
Peter1469. It is your contention here....yes or no...that following the Tora Bora campaign, where the US 'degraded' the military capacity of the Taliban and al-Qaeda and thus we punished them(your words now..not mine)we then should have withdrawn.....? Pete?
@Contrails
Eric Holder on behalf of the Obama Administration filed suit and on July 17, 2013 Obama won back the right by our out-of-control and partisan judiciary to violate the 4th Amendment like a used $#@!.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96G0XN20130717
Actual case file embedded in this article using SCRIBD
http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/
http://rt.com/usa/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/
ACLU:
“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”
These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.
When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.
Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.
And if we should die tonight
Then we should all die together
Raise a glass of wine for the last time
Calling out father, prepare as we will
Watch the flames burn auburn on the mountain side
Desolation comes upon the sky..