This paragraph is pretty key IMO:

"The escalation of violence and wasting billions more cannot change that. It is history. The quicker the Obama administration recognises its misfortunes, minimises its losses and convenes a regional conference over the future of Afghanistan under UN auspices, the easier it will be to evacuate without humiliation."

Unfortunately I think this would cost him the election. Tea baggers, RWWJs, etc., would jump on him in an instant an accuse him of being weak, unpatriotic, America-hating, etc., etc. It would work and then Rudy Giuliani would become prez.

To most Americans the war in Afghanistan is going well because of biased reports. Additionally it is a far more *just* war than Iraq. It would be hard for any president to justify bailing when victory is in sight...





... or so we're told.

The reason we are struggling over there is we get worried about killing 9 childern. Listen to the brother of the killed man. He instantly says he has no choice but to kill americans. No, he could actually point out where the insurgents are living. The truth is, they are protecting the terrorists, the same one that did attack us on 911 and would be back here agian if they had the choice. Look at the population in the main parts of the county. Before our invasion, 5000 afghani girls were enrolled in school, now the number is 2.1 million and would be probably be higher if the Taliban did not inflict its will in many areas.

The worst thing we could do would be to leave. It will embolden those that hate us and leave those who embraced us at risk. People can try to say that they will hate us, but look at history. Do the Germans or Janpenese hate us. No. But the North Koreans still are a thorn in our side. We left Veitnam and watched the the killing of millions in bordering Cambodia.

My father was one of the children in Germany who watched many of his freinds and family die in WWII. He watched people starve to death in front of him. He also remembers when the Nazi party hung the mayor in his town for being Jewish. The price of war is exactly what is needed to keep people from embracing it. When we try to fight without a price, we fail. Do it fast and strongly, like the pulling off of a bandage. Trying to fight on terms that protect everyone protects noone. It is why we lost in Vietnam and why we are struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Liberals love to embrace the Wiki leak documents while still questioning why we went into Iraq. The truth of many actions are hidden from us to keep diplomatic peace. The wiki leaks indicate we went on the bidding of Saudi Arabia, but I think we can add Isreal and other middle Eastern Countries to into the mix. On the same note, if we had hit hard the first time and turned the capital of Iraq into dust, we would see a different mood in the country. Pussy footing around has cost millions of lives that could have been saved. People will always question the dropping of A bombs on Hirosaki, but in the end they saved many more lives then they cost. Until people realize that war is not pretty and not fair, we will continue to loose more than we actually save.

When I see a young man from our valley come home with a leg amputated at the hip, the other leg amputated above the knee and a hand blown off, I have to ask why? Is there a strategic value to either Afghanistan or Pakistan? Personally, I think I'd let India have at Pakistan. There's a lot more Indian's than there are Paki's. There is never going to be any semblance of normal for either Pakistan or Afghanistan. They've proven over centuries that they are incapable of what we would call normal behavior. Nothing's going to change.

Maybe we need one well placed bomb, and rename that part of the world Lake Afghanistan.....

So your solution is to kill more civilians? 90% of the deaths in these 2 wars are civilians. That's a higher rate of civilian casualties than any other war the U.S. has been in, including WW2. Almost 1 million civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a lot of people. Viet Nam was an even bigger catastrophe of civilian deaths because our soldiers and marines were intentionally targeting them at times.

Don't you understand this is why we can't win in Afghanistan? If China invaded the U.S., wiped out our military and infrastructure, dropped a bomb on my house and killed my family because they thought they were insurgents, you're god damn right I'd start blowing their heads of with reckless intention. I would not care if I lived or died.

Therein lies the problem.

game.. set.. match
Well put!

It's a sh!thole. Nobody is going to win, no matter what. Get out and let them kill each other.....

Someone remind me why it's not a good idea to cut the military budget in half again? I think it's in our national security interests to have a smaller military. Both economically, and internationally/politically because we won't be able/tempted to be in places like this.

Yet somehow military spending is "untouchable?"

WTF?

The problem with military spending is that it is THE biggest pork barrel in the entire US budget.

It's the opposite of NIMBY...everyone's for saving money, just don't close the base in my district, or reduce the billions spent on fighter jets in my district, or the billions spent on guidance systems in my district, or the billions spent on naval ships in my district...blah, blah, blah...

It's just like the current entitlement debate...everyone wants to reduce spending on entitlements, so long as it's not MY entitlement that gets cut.

"No Gubmint Takeover of Health Care! But Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare!!"

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,
A couple of things to consider.

First, my opinion is that the high rate of civilians is result of many reasons. One, the insurgents are using human shields. Two, the insurgents are also targeting civilian targets. And three, it is often hard to distinguish between civilian and military casualtyies. Often you will have the family claiming one thing while the military is claiming the other.

More importantly though, is that it is my opinion that the high civilian casualty rate is a dirrect result of the type of war we are killing. Rather than just going hard and letting the civilians know that a war is going on, we walk in slowly, poke around and then leave again. The local polutation sticks around providing cover for the insurgents, and the rate of civilians involved goes up. In a way, it gets back to your China question. What would I do. I would do what my fathers family did in WWII. They fled as far away from the fighting as possible. From what I can tell they were all over Europe fleeing the fighting. During the war my dad learned close to 5 languages they moved so much. At the same time, other members of his family were fighting.

So that is what I would do if China invaded us. I would send my family as far away from the fighting as possible, regardless of which side or where that was. Depending on how I felt about what was going on I would join the fighting on which ever side I felt was right, or leave with my family to where they are going. In no case would I sit there and expect that war could go on all around me and walk away unscathed. The way we are trying to this war hints of the belief that it is possible. In no way is it. Kind of reminds me of how Israel sent out warnings of targets only to see the target over run with civilians. I guaranty that they were not there because they believed the bombs were going to fall, they were there to prevent it.

I will say it again. Let people know you intend to hit hard. Hit hard, avoid civilians but don't put yourself or targets at risk and finish your objective. This baloney about sitting in the middle of a conflict and then crying about it has no standing with me. There is no reason what so ever for it.

One last point, I really am not arguing for the validity of why we went as much as for the fact that we are not fighting correctly and could take care of this much more effectively and humanely fighting under traditional rules of war then we are with limited conflict. Had we done this right we would have declared war, then after an initial waiting period to allow civilain removal, carpet bombed every inch of every military target. No applogies, no pussy footing. Go in efficeintly and devestating. The shock and awe with no stopping until every target is gone. Then immediate relief for the civilian casualties and immediate aid to those in need. We are fighting the war to look good for the media and public opinion. It can't be done.

You say this in the context of discussing how 9 kids were killed out on the open collecting firewood. Same thing with the killed journalists gunned down. How you can watch some of the footage and then say, "Well, the family says one thing and the military says another" and make it seem like a "who knows?" question is absurd. "Hey, the government says 9/11 was bad. OBL says it was good. So, who knows?"

Really?

It is a straight-up no-win situation. The only way to not lose as much is to get out as fast as possible.

Our "objective" was to "bring democracy", "remove the dictator", and to "win the hearts and minds of the populace".

We can argue all day about how much BS those "objectives" actually were, but you don't do any of our stated objectives by killing civilians...you directly 100% act counter to your stated objectives.

Period.

Gun barrel democracy has never worked, and never will work...

If we had been honest and said "this is about oil and money, here we come, get the fukk out of the way if you don't want to die", then your arguments would hold water.

The only honest objectives in war are to kill people, and take things...any other objective is unachievable, and shouldn't even be entertained as a realistic objective, no matter what the politicos are telling us.

Fish on...

Todd

Gun barrel democracy would indicate we are forcing democracy and that the populace does not want it. That is something that is being show to be untrue through out the middle east in the last few weeks. To say war is only to kill people is a farce. The short term objective of war is to neutralize those opposing you. Rarely killing people the true objective. Some are about land, some are about freedom to choose, some are about stopping killing, it all depends.

You keep talking about oil and money but ignore the question of stability. The wiki leak documents hint towards one of the main things that the liberals want to deny. If we are to believe them, then we would accept the fact that the Saudis precieved Sadaam as a threat to the area. That would to a degree also indicate that they felt he had the weapons to validate that threat.

So, did we achieve the objectives we set out to achieve. Well, first of all Sadaam is gone. Two, there is a resemblence of democracy in the area, and three, the seeing as how the rest of the arab world seems to be crying for our help in there ongoing revolutions, we did win the hearts of a percentage of the populace, something we did not have before entering the area.

There's nothing approaching Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan...where we shoved it down their throats, complete with oil proceeds already divvied up, and millions of dead civilians.

Egypt, Tunisia, perhaps even Libya...doing it on their own, their people choosing a different government.

I suppose you're going to tell me next that their doing it because of the Bush Doctrine, right?

"Hey, look! The US blew the schit out of two countries, stole their resources, shot the hell out of their civilians, and are still there fighting today, making more terrorists than have ever existed on the planet...I think that they are doing such a great job that we should have a popular uprising! Viva Bush!"

Anyone who thinks that should have their heads examined.

Fish on...

Todd

Well I have been in Afghanistan for 4 months now and have 4 to go. I can tell you from my first hand experience in the area we operate that the Taliban/insurgents kill/injure Afghani civilians almost daily (not sure if your documentary talks about that but I doubt it). I have seen children badly injured by IEDs that were placed to target the Afghani people in that area (usually in brush piles since they tend to gather fire wood nonstop), usually done to deter them from working with the US forces. We have also had Afghani civilians that were employed doing various jobs that quit after being threatened with torture (seems cutting off ears or the nose is popular) and in a few cases some were ambushed and killed on the way home. I have also seen a farmer (looked like any of the

And how many of those IED's would be planted in the roads blowing up civilians if we weren't there right now?

We at least had a good reason to go into Afghanistan...I wish we wouldn't have taken our eye off the ball and fukked around in Iraq at all, and just finished the job in Afghanistan and got the hell out.

Royal fuckin screwup, that.

Fish on...

Todd

+1

Thanks for your service and get home SAFE!

"Hopefully my generation can accomplish this over time."

Your generation just started multiple wars with Facebook and Twitter in the ME is that the sort of accomplishment you were referencing? Do you read? If you do history is full of wars that accomplished a variety of goals. War is in the nature of man and you cannot hope and wish that nature away. You cannot back up any of your statements and I doubt I am off far if I said you are completely unqualified to pass any judgment on anything related to war and should not mistake your opinions for facts. Your generations music still sucks.

Pretty hard to compare what happened in Tunisia and Egypt with Iraq and Afghanistan, or to even call them "wars", even in the losest sense.

Libya might be a different story...but it wasn't the rebels who started shooting and strafing with gunships.

Fish on...

Todd

What if "the Bush doctrine" that tripped up Palins response to perkys question (you know the clip..the one that liberals still jerk off to) became the impetus for change in the Middle East?

Chiity phuckin' countries falling for the idea of Democracy....