Change is actually winning the war against the Taliban

[PBS Poll-435]

We are not at war with Afghanistan. We are at war with the Taliban that reside in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Unlike the previous Administration, who spent 7 years "dithering," our President and his top advisers have a conceived a plan to win.

[knowbody0]

1. yep

[IndianaGreen]

2. Thank you for your input General Westmoreland!

Shall we add LBJ's now infamous "Nail that coonskin to the wall!" exhortation to US troops in South Vietnam?

[PBS Poll-435]

4. Equating war against the Taliban to Vietnam

Is the quintessential "teh stupid."

[IndianaGreen]

9. You might benefit from learning about the Iraq War post-mortem taking place in the UK

By refusing to hold Bush regime accountable for law breaking, Obama is denying the American people the sort of Iraq War post-mortem that the Chilcot Inquiry is doing in the UK.

Iraq invasion legitimacy was in doubt, Chilcot inquiry told

Former British ambassador to the United Nation says he threatened to resign over Iraq war

Andrew Sparrow and James Meikle
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 November 2009 20.50 GMT

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq war, said yesterday that the lack of widespread international support for the invasion meant its legitimacy was in doubt.

He told the Iraq inquiry that he thought the invasion was "legal but of questionable legitimacy" and urged its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to consider the importance of legitimacy in international policy-making in his final report.

"If you do something internally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, then you are taking a risk," he said.

Greenstock said that, although he thought the war was legal, it was impossible to establish in law whether this was the case "finally and conclusively". And he revealed that he had threatened to resign in the autumn of 2002 if Britain went to war without the backing of a resolution from the UN security council.

Greenstock told the inquiry that, in considering its report, it should make a distinction between the legality of the conflict and its legitimacy. "To some extent the UN is a democratic environment. It's a forum of equal states, equally signed up by treaty to the UN charter, and each of those states have an opinion," he said.

"I regarded our invasion of Iraq … as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the UK."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/27/iraq-invasion-legitimacy-doubts

What was that thing about those that don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it?

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Equating Iraq with the war against the Taliban is even worse

Really

[IndianaGreen]

16. Iraqis didn't want us in their country, anymore than the Afghan people do

The only ones that want us there are the warlords and other criminals that are profiting by our presence.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. They also see the same moon at night

So that argument has that going for it too.

[IndianaGreen]

20. I hope you enlist and fight this imperial war you are advocating!

Even if you served before, as I have, you can still enlist in the Guard until you are age 42.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. My "advocacy" is for winning and finishing a war that we didn't start

[IndianaGreen]

47. without getting your ass shot at, I see!

Another chicken hawk!

[PBS Poll-435]

48. ROFL

Nice.

[Kaleva]

54. Why aren't you in prison for protesting against the war?

Lot of brave talk coming from both sides. Unfortunately, it's being done from the comfort of their homes and doesn't accomplish much.

[IndianaGreen]

58. I am a military veteran

and protesting against the war is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.

[ShortnFiery]

30. We are NOT at war with the Taliban. That's Orwellian Mission Creep. It's al Qaeda who ...

attacked us on 9/11 not the NATIVE peoples of the area (originally from Pakistan), The Taliban.

It would make more sense to "declare war" on Pakistan :wtf: because that is precisely where al Qaeda is now. Continuing to occupy Afghanistan for fear that al Qaeda will return is INSANITY. That WHOLE AREA is part of those tribal peoples' native land. :crazy: Finally, there's little love lost between al Qaeda and the present Taliban. NO there's not an icecube's chance in hell that they will take over either Pakistan or Afghanistan if we withdraw our combat troops to the periphery.

[tekisui]

24. 400 US died in the first 8 years of Vietnam. 900+ have died in the

first 8 years of Afghanistan. They are both stupid wars, fought for ambiguous and shifting reasons. And, like Vietnam, we are going to get bogged down for years with no easy way out.

[Kaleva]

59. I don't know where you got your figures from but these differ.

1961-1965 1,864 KIA

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

[tekisui]

61. 1956-1964: 401

http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

[Kaleva]

63. Casualty figures which seem correct as US forces didn't exceed 20k till 1964

[spiritual_gunfighter]

40. Tell that to Bill Moyers, he might know something about that. n/t

[bvar22]

72. When did the "War on Terror"...

...become the WAR on The Taliban?

When did The Taliban threaten the security of the USA?

Tell me again why we are killing people who did not attack us?

[Aramchek]

64. thank you for your lack of output General Kucinich!

[IndianaGreen]

75. The American people don't support this war

They are more concerned about their own economic troubles. You can stay in Afghanistan or you can take care of the American people. You can't do both!

It is the height of foolhardiness for a President to wage a war without the support of the American people!

[BeFree]

3. And...

...the Taliban is what?

I mean, you must be able to accurately describe just what the Taliban is, pinpoint where they live and how they are financed, eh?

Otherwise its just pissing in the wind.

[sandnsea]

7. The Taliban is a clear group of people

Saying that you can't identify the Taliban is like saying you can't identify the Southern Baptist Convention. Of course you can. They are a powerful political/religious group in the region.

You can't choose your own facts.

[BeFree]

10. Are we at war...

...with the southern baptist convention?

Cuz if we were, we'd need to clearly identify them so that we don't kill any northern baptist.

[sandnsea]

46. When some baptist kills an "abortionist"

it sure does make it difficult to target the extent of the danger because it is difficult to know where worship ends and extremism begins. But there isn't a person on this board that doesn't think we need to be more pro-active in identifying these religious freaks. And if they started blowing things up on a weekly basis, you can damn well bet this board would be screaming for the national guard to act.

[bvar22]

73. ..."we need to be more pro-active in identifying these religious freaks."

That's a long, LONG way from Militarily Occupying the Southern States.

How many innocent civilians (Collateral Damage) would you be willing to tolerate in our Air Strikes on Atlanta.....

OR Los Angeles?
There is a Souther Baptist Seminary in Los Angeles.
Should we call in The Predators?

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. It's settled then: All we have to do is find the see-through people in Afghanistan

and kill them.

Can you tell me with certainty that on any given street corner you could tell a Southern Baptist from an Atheist?

[sandnsea]

60. I didn't say fighting an insurgent war was easy

I said the Taliban is not a secret resistance group with unknown membership. It's a religious/political party that is as pronounced as any political or religious group in the US. They have leadership to negotiate with, organized fighters, military officers, etc. They aren't a tattered little group of 100 outcasts like al qaeda types are.

[sandnsea]

5. We're actually at war with warlords & radicals

Who are sometimes given cover by the Taliban but usually aren't the actual Taliban. The Taliban had eradicated some of these groups, just not al qaeda. Warlords fought the Taliban and helped fight al qaeda, but the violence of many of them are also the reason the Taliban got support in the first place. If Obama can find a clear path in this mess, it's going to be a near miracle.

[bigjohn16]

6. Does their HQ say "Taliban" over the door? nt

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, as a matter of fact n/t

[bigjohn16]

11. Well this will be easy then, and I was all worried for nothing. nt

[treestar]

13. True, at least there is a plan under a competent President

If we have to have these wars, at least let's have that.

I do hope we can contain the Taliban and even track down bin Laden and be done with interfering in the rest of the world's affairs.

[IndianaGreen]

18. The 'Best and the Brightest' also led us into Vietnam

and the collective Beltway wisdom has done more harm to the American people than any terrorist attack.

[avaistheone1]

19. Sure all the killing will be neat, easy and clean now that the Taliban knows

we have a competent President running the show.

Is there a time frame estimated when the Taliban will be throwing rose petals at our feet?

[treestar]

26. So organize a march against it

If you're against the war that's what you have to do.

Obama obviously doesn't believe the majority is against this one.

Were you against it when it started? I certainly hope so. How much protest did you do against in in late 2001?

Are you completely comfortable with the idea that Al Qaeda will never commit a terrorist act in the U.S. again? Or anywhere? And completely comfortable with the situation in Afghanistan if we just pulled out?

[bigjohn16]

27. "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again"

Dick Cheney September 7, 2004

[ShortnFiery]

33. If we STAY, the chances of us being HIT again will rise exponentially.

Reminder: There are al Qaeda cells all over The World.

However, instead of rallying around Obama, the FRIGHTENED American People, once again will turn to the right wing hard liners. Well, unless President Obama starts to strut and "bluster WAR" not unlike LBJ - but again, it did not turn out well for him either.

This will not end well for either Americans or the Afghanis. :(

[bigjohn16]

36. The President is going there to nation build in a country with no national identity.

It's a region that has been dominated by tribalism for thousands of years and 8 years of President Obama won't do anything to change that.

[avaistheone1]

34. Be sure. I will be in the demonstration against the war scheduled in San Francisco Tuesday.

If Obama doesn't believe the majority is against this war, he is out of touch and is acting foolishly. This country is very much divided.

Evidently Obama thinks he is above learning the lessons of history particulary about Vietnam. He will learn the hard way in 2012.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Sir Winston Churchill

I have been against the Afghanistan War since Bush let Osama and Al Qaeda loose after having them under US scopes in Tora Bora in 2001. THAT is WHEN we could have and should have done something. Now is too damn late.

Even if Obama was successful in getting Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. AlQaeda resides in 80 to 100 countries. Are we going to declare war against all of these countries, many of whom are all allies?

Ssdly, our own country needs nation building and we are not getting enough of it.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Recently, General "Peaches" Petareus admitted that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan.

Check out this video where he says EXACTLY that within a news conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[ShortnFiery]

14. Hello? Please learn your history: The Taliban did NOT attack us on 9/11 ...

and we are embroiled in the middle of a Civil War (Thug Karzai - The Mayor of Kabul vs. The NATIVES - The Taliban).

Americans will be attacked AGAIN and repeatedly the longer we stay OCCUPYING the sovereign Muslim Nations.

They don't HATE us for our freedoms, THEY HATE US FOR OCCUPYING THEIR NATIVE LAND.

By continuing these quagmires, you'll be ushering in another 10 years of republican rule. And don't you DARE blame us liberals ... you were warned about the real world of Military Science and Politics.

p.s. The native peoples of Afghanistan will COVERTLY support The Taliban who originally emanated from Pakistan. Why, because we don't have the moral courage to either "declare war" or "get the hell out." Think Vietnam Redux. :nuke:

[PBS Poll-435]

15. I disagree with you

And I am going to leave it at that.

Have a nice weekend.

[ShortnFiery]

21. No, don't leave it at that, sacrifice your children to go kill and die for this war.

My family line have served honorably in the US Army since the Civil War (ours! - and on the winning side :evilgrin:) I'd be the first in line to return to active duty if I believed we were truly THREATENED by "the Taliban" (native peoples of the area), but not for this occupation which will actually make us LESS SAFE on American soil.

No, if you are going to bluster for WAR, how about you go "over there" and help WIN this mess?

[PBS Poll-435]

29. After interacting with you for several years here at DU I don't believe that you possess

The ability to judge whether or not we are truly THREATENED by the Taliban.

Have a great day!

[ShortnFiery]

38. Too funny! I actually served in Army Intelligence, but you in your infinite wisdom

judge my intelligence and character by our disagreements within DU? Disagreements where I post valid data via links to reputable sources? :shrug:


"Genius! Pure genius I tells ya!" :silly:

[PBS Poll-435]

41. With all due respect. And I do mean with all due respect ...

I think you are a little nuts. And you really, really enjoy being a contrarian.


That said, have a great day!

[ShortnFiery]

42. LOL, thanks and how republican of you. When all else fails, label your opponent "crazy."

When you call someone you are chatting with "nuts" there's no respect involved.

That's ok by me because I do tend to behave like a smart-ass and my personality does not mesh with everyone. However, I'm providing valuable evidence to support my perspectives. But admittedly, I have little to no patience with ignorance spewing warmongering rhetoric.

Hey, write back to us when you land that Contracting position over in Afghanistan?

Your TALENTS should not go wasted bantering with us useless liberals on DU.

Oh, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT? Back at ya! :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

43. Self-chuckle nt

:eyes:

[boppers]

70. "I do tend to behave like a smart-ass"

You will get the respect you give.

[ShortnFiery]

76. As will you.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

22. I am sure you also believe Saddam was piloting one of the planes that crashed into WTC

Afterall, all you have done in this thread is regurgitate old Dick Cheney's talking points.

[PBS Poll-435]

25. Sure thing

Thank god he ejected so we could hang him later!


I think I made it very clear that the Iraq War should not be equated with the war against the Taliban. Why? Because going into Iraq was fucking stupid.

[ShortnFiery]

28. That's the ENTIRE point: Moral Courage. If he had the courage to withdraw, there would

be some loses in 2010, but AS WE scale down "the beastie" that is the MIC and SPENT the TRILLION dollars slotted for these occupations on DOMESTIC issues, Obama would be handily re-elected in 2012.

However, his cold, calculated pragmatism is going to be his demise. I hope I'm wrong, but when push comes to shove, it appears that Our President is lacking that courage to RISK and do what is MORALLY SOUND. :(

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Moral Courage is not worrying about electoral losses, but doing the right thing. nt

[ShortnFiery]

32. But that's NOT what he's doing. Obama is "playing it safe" politically, but as a result

the situation will blow up in his face and the political control of our Nation will be handed over to the republicans. What he's doing is INSANITY. However, he thinks that he can half-step this occupation.

It. Will. Fail. He's behaving like a coward by sending more troops to kill and die in an UN WINNABLE Occupation and Civil War. He's playing right into the GOP's hand. :(

[knightinwhitesatin]

35. So the Taliban did attack us?

Where is the evidence for that? And anyone that says you can spot a Taliban fighter in a crowd of Afghans is an idiot. We sure couldn't spot insurgents in Iraq in a crowd of detained Iraqis. Hell one time back in 2008 this guy we were trying to capture was standing in a crowd of Iraqis that were listening to my captain ask for the communities help in capturing him. He had shaved his beard and cut all his hair, we did not recognize him. The only way we caught him was that he was cheating on one of his wives with another man and the man got mad when he would not leave the wives so he called our units tip line and told us where we could catch him. The funny part is I had seen that dude for weeks on our patrols............We can't seperate the wheat (taliban) from the chaff (innocent afghans) over there and I dare someone to prove me wrong.

[paulk]

50. you need to explain why you disagree

this is a discussion board, discuss the issue.

[PBS Poll-435]

53. It's tough to have a rational discussion when your opponent only throws poo at the wall

Really.

[paulk]

65. I've disagreed with that poster more often than not

but I think she makes some valid points in the post you responded to with your non response.

I mean, really - you started this thread, you should be prepared make a better argument than you've made.

IMHO

[PBS Poll-435]

68. Democratic President Formulates Meaningful Plan

Yeah. I am gonna stick with that.

[Odin2005]

56. The poster he responded to cannot be engaed in a rational discussion when it comes to Afghanistan.

She is a one trick pony when it comes to the issue and regurgitates the same "The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11" simplistic nonsense over and over again.

[ShortnFiery]

77. That's only because the information I provide happens to be TRUE.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

23. Except for the Taliban we are paying and offering jobs to.

And, the Taliban that Karzai made deals with to remain in power.

And, the Taliban that is protected by people inside the Pakistani government, ISI and military---which we give a lot of money to.

We aren't at war with the Taliban. We are being fought as occupiers by various tribal groups, some of whom overlap with the Taliban.

[Matariki]

39. +1

The OP needs to read more about the situation and not just rely on Fox News.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. As I recall, BushCo had any number of plans to win...

They problem is that the question is not whether we can win. Given enough troops and a long time scale we can depopulate the region and win.

What will a "win" cost in lives, tax money, and other sacrifices?
What does a win mean for foreign policy in the region and globally?

What will a loss cost in lives, tax money, and other sacrifices?
What does a loss mean for foreign policy in the region and globally?

And, from the reports I see out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are not winning against the Taliban yet.

[PBS Poll-435]

49. Sad thing is that we were before those bastards shifted focus to Iraq nt

[LWolf]

51. Change is recognizing that war is not an appropriate instrument

of international policy.

Change is acknowledging that the "war on terror" was a mistake from the beginning, and bringing it to an end.

Change is investing in domestic health instead of empire building.

[polichick]

52. +1

[Orsino]

78. +0.9

War may not be appropriate, but it sure as hell is inevitable when policy fails.

Right now, war is in the way of intelligent policy.

[Odin2005]

55. K&R

[NYC_SKP]

62. K and friggin' R. I don't care How Many Haters wanna unrec this post, the poster is right.

:loveya:

[dflprincess]

66. If we're at war with the Taliban

why is the administration willing to "work with" and bribe them?

Toronto Star: Embracing the Taliban

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/731403--emb...

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Cuz they are mostly poor people, tortured by their government

Cash is king.

[burning rain]

67. There is no winning in Afghanistan.

There is only controlling militants at some level of activity deemed acceptable, and thwarting the establishment of serious militant infrastructure. Our folly in thinking we can win, rather than establish an acceptable level of control, is somewhat similar to Israel's folly in invading Lebanon under Begin and Olmert (Operations Peace for Galilee and Litani, respectively). Whatever the other differences, two salient ones are that Afghans generally aren't as eager to cooperate with infidel occupiers as Lebanese, and aren't as hesitant to mix it up with them. Our force advantage over the Afghans is much greater than Israelis' over the Lebanese, though, so I'm sure Afghanistan will turn out at least as well for us as occupying southern Lebanon did for Israel.

[NYC_SKP]

71. Previous Administration vis-a-vis Afghanistan: LIHOP.

Then we get the man who speaks the truth, then do what he said he'd do, and some on the left have nothing good to say about him.

Great post!

:hi:

PS: Ginny got three play mice yesterday.

[IndianaGreen]

74. The Left says end this war. The Right says this is an unaffordable war. The polls say...

The polls say that the American people are weary of this war.

Several DUers have said that you can stay in Afghanistan or you can take care of the American people. You can't do both!

Then there was this today:

Lugar: Let's Put Health Care On Hold To Deal With Afghanistan

One of President Barack Obama's closest Republican allies in the Senate urged him to put health care reform on the backburner and focus on Afghanistan.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a trusted GOP voice on foreign policy matters, told CNN's "State of the Union" that in light of a forthcoming increase in troops to Afghanistan, Democrats should turn their attention to matters of war and money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/lugar-lets-put-health-car_n_373019.html