You start by drawing a valid connection between events in Iraq and Pakistan. Then you decide to sound the alarm that Afghanistan is in imminent danger and we need more troops there Right Now!
So because all the US troops in Iraq can't always prevent an assasination of Iraqi allies in Baghdad, we need to transfer those troops to Afghanistan in hope that they will prevent an assasination of Taleban commander in Pakistan?
I know that sounds twisted but that's the only logical thread I can trace in your post. Deny that logic and all you are left with is incoherence.
So because all the US troops in Iraq can't always prevent an assasination of Iraqi allies in Baghdad, we need to transfer those troops to Afghanistan in hope that they will prevent an assasination of Taleban commander in Pakistan?
no, the thread between the two events is that Al Qaeda is resurgent and their reach is long, which is why we need to start addressing them at the source, which is Afghanistan. Iraq will improve, all elsebeing equal, if we up the boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Speaking frankly, a troop withdrawal from Iraq is likely (something Im not exactly pleased about) in some form or fashion (though I am skeptical we will ever leave Iraq entirely, no matter which Democrat is elected). If thats the case, then, I think that its even more important to redeploy some of those troopsto Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda is resurgent and their reach is long, which is why we need to start addressing them at the source
That isn't logical, Aziz.
I mean, it sounds correct and all, but if we agree on your first half - that their reach is long - then attacking them at their source just kills off one small bit of it.
Its not like they've got some strict command and control going on. They're closer in description to a cancer that has spread throughout the region. Getting 'the source' is good, yes, but its going to take more than that.
Just looking at the reasoning of the statement I quoted, Aziz. No, I don't disagree that we need more troops or funding or whatnot in Afghanistan - I just disagree that going after the Taliban/Al-Q in Afghani/Pakistan is the only answer to an apparently global-scale problem.
Al Qaeda is resurgent and their reach is long, which is why we need to start addressing them at the source
Don't get me wrong, but I think it's only logical to be more concerned about murder of our allies in Iraq. Apparently, that Taleban commander made a deal with Pakistan gov't. I guess that makes him our ally also, but twice removed so we should defer to Pakistanis in dealing with that situation.
1.7.2008 7:52pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
So because all the US troops in Iraq can't always prevent an assasination of Iraqi allies in Baghdad, we need to transfer those troops to Afghanistan in hope that they will prevent an assasination of Taleban commander in Pakistan?
I know that sounds twisted but that's the only logical thread I can trace in your post. Deny that logic and all you are left with is incoherence.
no, the thread between the two events is that Al Qaeda is resurgent and their reach is long, which is why we need to start addressing them at the source, which is Afghanistan. Iraq will improve, all elsebeing equal, if we up the boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Speaking frankly, a troop withdrawal from Iraq is likely (something Im not exactly pleased about) in some form or fashion (though I am skeptical we will ever leave Iraq entirely, no matter which Democrat is elected). If thats the case, then, I think that its even more important to redeploy some of those troopsto Afghanistan.
I mean, it sounds correct and all, but if we agree on your first half - that their reach is long - then attacking them at their source just kills off one small bit of it.
Its not like they've got some strict command and control going on. They're closer in description to a cancer that has spread throughout the region. Getting 'the source' is good, yes, but its going to take more than that.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.