Mission Accomplished
Aziz P
''Coalition forces, including many brave Afghans, have brought America, Afghanistan and the free world its first victory in the war on terror,'' Mr. Bush said. ''Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world.''
John McCain's Afghanistan strategy:
Our military recommitment to Afghanistan must begin with greater troop contributions by NATO members and an end to the limitations that hinder their combat operations. We should intensify our training of the Afghan national army, including inviting Afghanistan to join NATO's Partnership for Peace to institutionalize our train and equip programs. We must expand our police training programs, provide greater resources for judicial reforms, and work with our partners to boost reconstruction. The international community should set benchmarks for Afghan governance and hold the government to them. We must also strike a new deal with Pakistan that ends the sanctuaries for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on Pakistani territory. We will not succeed in Afghanistan if our enemies enjoy safe havens, where they will also threaten Pakistan's own ability to ward off an internal Islamist challenge as well as its neighbor's.
Discuss.
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.