Are you saying that Afghanistan is currently a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world? McCain seems to be saying that Taliban remenants in the Pakistan border regions are still a problem for Afghanistan, which is not optimal but it's still a huge improvement (for us and for the Afghans) over the pre-9/11 situation.
I guess everyone's forgotten that under the Taliban, AQ openly ran training camps for training terrorists, who went forth and carried out terrorists acts.
I think one of those acts was actually here. Something in September, with planes...
hmm. McCain argues we need NATO troops, increased training, etc. Obama and Clinton actyually wantto send US troops in. All three pretty much disagree with Bush's rosy rhetoric about a victory, past tense, for freedom. Yet youre insinuating somehow I have forgotten about 9-11 just for noting the inconsistency.
If Im in denial about terror as you imply, the Mccain is worse. He just wants to train the afghanis and send in NATO, which is even less of a commitmet than the Dems propose.
I havent said anything i am pointingout a difference. As far as
a huge improvement (for us and for the Afghans) over the pre-9/11 situation.
thats just wrong, its practically identical to the pre-9-11 situation. OBL and mullah Omar roam free, there are huge swaths of land controlled by the taliban, the opium crop funds them as before. Explain to me how we are better off than before 9-11 please?
(and talk of thousands of killers being exported from either Afghanistan, or Iraq, is nonsense, I agree).
I think there is a mission in Afghanistan but it's probably not one that a significantly larger number of troops will be much help in accomplishing: denial of territory. We can prevent Al Qaeda (and the Taliban) from setting up shop there again. So long as we're not willing to cross into Pakistan to remove their nests there, that's pretty much the limit of what can be accomplished there. In the present state of Afghanistan that's probably a permanent or near-permanent commitment.
There is at least one reason that forces supplied by countries other than the U. S. would be beneficial in that effort—whatever additional credibility and legitimacy a multilateral force has over a force in which the U. S. supplies all or nearly all of the combat troops. I can think of, perhaps, a half dozen other reasons.
But a large, U. S. dominated force in Afghanistan is not only not particularly useful, it's logistically impossible.
A crushing victory, such as the Battle of the Phillippine Sea (Marianas Turkey Shoot), means that the war is over. Any other meaning is just an idiot babbling.
Dave, i an see a multinational force lending legitmacy to something like a peacekeeping effort, but (correct me if i am wrong) I dont think NATO is going to effective in a hot zone. Afghanistan isnt Kosovo.
I think that the turnaround of afghanistan is possible. you are right about the border zone, because of the pakistan complication. But Karzai has control over only 30% of the country. Thats a lot more than just the border.
Denial of the oium crop, keeping the warlords in line, and broadening the rule of law to most of the country is going to take boots on the ground.
my personal opinion has evolved to the point that I beleve a drawdown in Iraq will be feasible i three years or so, the reports from Yon and Totten give me a lot of hope. Afghanistan however is urgent; i am hoping we don see a repeat of 9-11. But the longer we are distracted in Iraq (unavoidably), the more lkely an attack becomes.
ok. the statements do not contradict one another, despite first impressions.
bush was speaking of the military victory - the toppling of the taliban regime, which was indeed a terrorist factory.
this is not to say the job is finished in all respects, as mccain's remarks show. remember that after any war there are always factions loyal to the old order who try to take advantage of the fragile state of affairs - this was true after our civil war, wwii, hell even napoleonic spain [which originated the term guerilla].
mccain is making good suggestions, imho, and it shows he is conversant with the realities of military science.
The Afghan/NATO situation seems to (to me at least) related to a fundamental flaw of alliances in limited situations.
NATO was founded to bolster defenses in Europe against the USSR. I would say it did.
But the pact members understood that a war triggered by a USSR invasion would be a fight to the death. The stakes were high for all members.
Today NATO's limited military expeditions, like Afghanistan, does not risk all that much. So those contributing the least can share any benefit w/o a price.
It is not possible to rhetorically satisfy partisan ideologues on the opposing side of the speaker. Period. No matter what you say they will snidely snicker and pick at the words like an old scab until they can get it bleeding again.
Nattering Nabobs of Negativism is a perfect description of them. On both sides of the fence.
Well, to start with the comments came three years apart, it would be a surprise if any situation stayed static over that time period. This is even more pronounces when said situation is an attempt to bring a third world nation like Afghanistan into modernity.
Then again, maybe it was Bush's audacity of hope for Afghanistan shining through in 2004?
hmm. McCain argues we need NATO troops, increased training, etc. Obama and Clinton actyually wantto send US troops in. All three pretty much disagree with Bush's rosy rhetoric about a victory, past tense, for freedom.
No they don't. The Battle of Midway was clearly a victory, yet just as clearly we needed to continue fighting anyway.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was a great victory for freedom, but lots of people were still unfree.
No one has said we have had an absolute final victory for freedom that totally precludes the need for any more effort.
But the longer we are distracted in Iraq (unavoidably), the more lkely an attack becomes.
We are not "distracted" in Iraq, we are winning a crushing military and propaganda victory. Have you noticed that Iraqi Sunnis now hate AQ, whereas a few years ago they welcomed them? Have you noticed support for suicide bombings has dropped all over the Mideast?
And the longer AQ focuses on Iraq rather than America, the less likely we are to be attacked.
Here's a fun littlec couple of factoids for anyone who thinks Iraq is a distraction from the fight against AQ:
11 of the 15 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
50% of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis.
Every idiot who blows himself up in Iraq is an idiot who isn't blowing himself up in America. Not so great for the Iraqis, but they're so much better off than they were under Saddam they're coming out way ahead anyway. Everyone wins (except AQ).
Oh, I get it.
You're trying to be argumentative and controversial on the internet. Very sneaky Aziz.
Very sneaky.
I'm not sure you'll make any converts but you will drum up business.
The Afghan/NATO situation seems to (to me at least) related to a fundamental flaw of alliances in limited situations.
Today NATO's limited military expeditions, like Afghanistan, does not risk all that much. So those contributing the least can share any benefit w/o a price.
An astute set of observations, both psychologically and militarily.
The system of the limited alliance is always a little like the system of the limited impregnation. Hope springs eternal that the odds will favor your cause at the point of intercourse but the realities of the actual situation do little to foster real confidence in any long term sense of mutual responsibilities. And modern Europe does tend to distinctly favor Iago in complexion, far more so than say, Churchill.
But then again Europe has always been a bit like Iago at heart. And a great deal like Iago in outlook.
In the 1940's the USA had military forces in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, South Pacific, North Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, North Sea, Barrant's Sea. In Northwestern Europe, Southern Europe, North America, South America, Southwest Pacific, Central Pacific, Aleutians, Africa, the Middle East, Asia.
The USA was able to supply and keep all of those forces in all of those areas operating. I think that over sixty years later we can handle two small war theaters without breaking a sweat, and the evidence is that we haven't broken a sweat doing so for the last six years. We have used our regular and reserve forces without any great expansion, in fact we have decommissioned older equipment during this fight and not kept them active.
It really isn't a fair fight - the jihadis brought a hot-cross bun; we brought a tank. Without our scruples they would have been dust five years ago.
When the best you can do is mine a road or incinerate a market, you've really got nothin'. Doesn't mean they all don't deserve to die, it means that this fight is Omdurman to another level or twenty of magnitude.
And our casualties - dead and wounded - have been so low that the USA now has the most experienced military on this world. Global reach, and experience, and the technology, and the training.
The US military is now arguing about fights that haven't even occured, and how to meet them. The planning and decision cycle is so far in advance of any one else that it is scary.
"If Im in denial about terror as you imply, the Mccain is worse."
No, you're just in denial about the plain meaning of what Bush said.
Whereas McCain isn't.
3.1.2008 5:59pm
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.
I think one of those acts was actually here. Something in September, with planes...
If Im in denial about terror as you imply, the Mccain is worse. He just wants to train the afghanis and send in NATO, which is even less of a commitmet than the Dems propose.
a huge improvement (for us and for the Afghans) over the pre-9/11 situation.
thats just wrong, its practically identical to the pre-9-11 situation. OBL and mullah Omar roam free, there are huge swaths of land controlled by the taliban, the opium crop funds them as before. Explain to me how we are better off than before 9-11 please?
(and talk of thousands of killers being exported from either Afghanistan, or Iraq, is nonsense, I agree).
There is at least one reason that forces supplied by countries other than the U. S. would be beneficial in that effort—whatever additional credibility and legitimacy a multilateral force has over a force in which the U. S. supplies all or nearly all of the combat troops. I can think of, perhaps, a half dozen other reasons.
But a large, U. S. dominated force in Afghanistan is not only not particularly useful, it's logistically impossible.
Got it.
I think that the turnaround of afghanistan is possible. you are right about the border zone, because of the pakistan complication. But Karzai has control over only 30% of the country. Thats a lot more than just the border.
Denial of the oium crop, keeping the warlords in line, and broadening the rule of law to most of the country is going to take boots on the ground.
my personal opinion has evolved to the point that I beleve a drawdown in Iraq will be feasible i three years or so, the reports from Yon and Totten give me a lot of hope. Afghanistan however is urgent; i am hoping we don see a repeat of 9-11. But the longer we are distracted in Iraq (unavoidably), the more lkely an attack becomes.
Al Qaeda lives, in Afghanistan.
ok. the statements do not contradict one another, despite first impressions.
bush was speaking of the military victory - the toppling of the taliban regime, which was indeed a terrorist factory.
this is not to say the job is finished in all respects, as mccain's remarks show. remember that after any war there are always factions loyal to the old order who try to take advantage of the fragile state of affairs - this was true after our civil war, wwii, hell even napoleonic spain [which originated the term guerilla].
mccain is making good suggestions, imho, and it shows he is conversant with the realities of military science.
NATO was founded to bolster defenses in Europe against the USSR. I would say it did.
But the pact members understood that a war triggered by a USSR invasion would be a fight to the death. The stakes were high for all members.
Today NATO's limited military expeditions, like Afghanistan, does not risk all that much. So those contributing the least can share any benefit w/o a price.
Nattering Nabobs of Negativism is a perfect description of them. On both sides of the fence.
Then again, maybe it was Bush's audacity of hope for Afghanistan shining through in 2004?
No they don't. The Battle of Midway was clearly a victory, yet just as clearly we needed to continue fighting anyway.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was a great victory for freedom, but lots of people were still unfree.
No one has said we have had an absolute final victory for freedom that totally precludes the need for any more effort.
We are not "distracted" in Iraq, we are winning a crushing military and propaganda victory. Have you noticed that Iraqi Sunnis now hate AQ, whereas a few years ago they welcomed them? Have you noticed support for suicide bombings has dropped all over the Mideast?
And the longer AQ focuses on Iraq rather than America, the less likely we are to be attacked.
11 of the 15 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
50% of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis.
Every idiot who blows himself up in Iraq is an idiot who isn't blowing himself up in America. Not so great for the Iraqis, but they're so much better off than they were under Saddam they're coming out way ahead anyway. Everyone wins (except AQ).
Oh, I get it.
You're trying to be argumentative and controversial on the internet. Very sneaky Aziz.
Very sneaky.
I'm not sure you'll make any converts but you will drum up business.
An astute set of observations, both psychologically and militarily.
The system of the limited alliance is always a little like the system of the limited impregnation. Hope springs eternal that the odds will favor your cause at the point of intercourse but the realities of the actual situation do little to foster real confidence in any long term sense of mutual responsibilities. And modern Europe does tend to distinctly favor Iago in complexion, far more so than say, Churchill.
But then again Europe has always been a bit like Iago at heart. And a great deal like Iago in outlook.
The USA was able to supply and keep all of those forces in all of those areas operating. I think that over sixty years later we can handle two small war theaters without breaking a sweat, and the evidence is that we haven't broken a sweat doing so for the last six years. We have used our regular and reserve forces without any great expansion, in fact we have decommissioned older equipment during this fight and not kept them active.
It really isn't a fair fight - the jihadis brought a hot-cross bun; we brought a tank. Without our scruples they would have been dust five years ago.
When the best you can do is mine a road or incinerate a market, you've really got nothin'. Doesn't mean they all don't deserve to die, it means that this fight is Omdurman to another level or twenty of magnitude.
The US military is now arguing about fights that haven't even occured, and how to meet them. The planning and decision cycle is so far in advance of any one else that it is scary.
Glad they're on our side.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
No, you're just in denial about the plain meaning of what Bush said.
Whereas McCain isn't.
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.