Against More Troops in Afghanistan
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Discussions
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/30/afghan.strategy.backlash/index.html" target="_blank">Full article.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, says he has concerns about sending more troops to Afghanistan, given the cost.
"I've got a real problem about expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting around and saying, isn't it a nice thing that the taxpayers of the United States and the U.S. military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?" he said on ABC's "This Week."
"So what I want to see is some real international cooperation, not just from Europe but from Russia and from China," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Politicians aside, let's hear what actual people think. Citizens of <strike>Oceania</strike> the U.S. and UK, do you have the impression that the rest of the world supports the war but simply doesn't want to get their hands dirty? And are you pissed off that you have to shoulder the cost alone? Citizens of the rest of the world, do you support the war, and do you think your troops should participate?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, says he has concerns about sending more troops to Afghanistan, given the cost.
"I've got a real problem about expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting around and saying, isn't it a nice thing that the taxpayers of the United States and the U.S. military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?" he said on ABC's "This Week."
"So what I want to see is some real international cooperation, not just from Europe but from Russia and from China," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Politicians aside, let's hear what actual people think. Citizens of <strike>Oceania</strike> the U.S. and UK, do you have the impression that the rest of the world supports the war but simply doesn't want to get their hands dirty? And are you pissed off that you have to shoulder the cost alone? Citizens of the rest of the world, do you support the war, and do you think your troops should participate?
Comments
And I for one don't appreciate antagonizing allies about it. I fully support both wars - I always have. If other countries don't want to get involved, it's better not to try and make them. Even if you brow beat them into it, any forces they commit will probably come with political strings attached which means they won't be as effective as they should be. Maybe they'll even just get in the way, especially when they create logistical nightmares about who has command of what units, where those units are supposed to be, and whether they are actually there at all. The next thing you know, some A-10 piloted by a guy in the National Guard comes rolling in and wipes out a whole friendly column and now you have an international incident.
I think I got off on a tangent, but you get my point, I hope.
I think the big risk here, though the term isn't used much these days, is the 'domino effect'. If the Taliban take Afghanistan then they are likely to take Pakistan too ( large parts of Pakistan are already heavily under Taliban subjugation ) and unfortunately, the harder the US pushes the more likely that will occur. The average south-east Asian was fighting with their enemy's enemy, and didn't give a rats about communism as a system of politics or economics.
PS: you're use of 'oceana' is double plusgood.
It'd be grand if other nations would help out but unless they supported the war in the first place I don't see why they should in the sense that they would be obligated to.
Same goes for iraq, more or less.
But at the same time you could list another 20 countries with horrible dictators in charge who routinely jail, beat, torture, and kill their own citizens. Should we be invading those countries too?
Hm, but you're talking about the numbers games that even people like we engineers play. Resources versus needs but you don't have enough resources to cover everything. So, you list the needs in priority and do what you can. I'm <b>not</b> saying that Afghanistan and Iraq are the higher priorities by any means - for that, you'd have to know the objectives (the real objectives) and other variables involved (capabilities on both sides, strategic advantages, likelihood of success, etc).
But, whether or not you subscribe to the theory that the US is out for the good of these nations, you have to concede that we can't do everything. We'll have to pick battles. In that way, "why this country and not that one," isn't really a fair argument.
Usually, the term <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->noninterventionist<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> is used to describe military-only isolationism. If you support free travel, trade, diplomacy, sharing of ideas, etc, then you're not an isolationist. Isolationism is about closing borders, closing diplomatic channels, ceasing trade, and making a little box for yourself to hide in. Interventionism means sending troops overseas and building bases in other countries. Ironically, interventionism sometimes turns out to be more "isolationist" in nature, because you sever ties and lose respect around the world by actions of war like bombing or economic sanctions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But that is neither here nor there in the case of Afghanistan. I'm for the troop surge in so far as stabilizing the region enough to leave Afghanistan with hope of getting out of the stone age they've been repeatedly bombed into by the U.S. and others. I have doubt's Obama will be able to get out of there before his first term is up, but if we do get out of Iraq in the next year he might have a chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, to leave Afghanistan, we have to send more troops there? Doesn't make much sense. But since people are more attached to the idea of Barack Obama than they are to the idea of peace, they're going to have to become more pro-war in the near future. His speeches are already directed at grooming his anti-war constituents to be "understanding" of his pro-war actions. I already hear this transition occuring when I listen to NPR's guests. The old pro-war left is rearing its ugly head.
<!--quoteo(post=1742804:date=Dec 7 2009, 04:09 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Dec 7 2009, 04:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1742804"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the big risk here, though the term isn't used much these days, is the 'domino effect'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason the term isn't used much these days is because it was the old failed argument for war against the REDS. The idea was that the Commies will take over Vietnam, and it will spread all over the world. It was the excuse for other unnecessary wars we've gotten into, which ended in a huge cost of American lives, loss of respect, and financial burden. All we needed, they said, is more troops, more time, stay the course. History repeats.
And since the left is now pro-war, and the right is pro-war, what room is there for peace?
The OP's article plays a <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->dirty trick<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->: the main question posed already assumes the legitimacy of the war. That point is apparently not up for discussion. We must involve our discourse only in who should pay for it, what the best deployment strategy is, or how Obama can better "sell" the idea.
Yeah, right.
Politicians aside, let's hear what actual people think. Citizens of <strike>Oceania</strike> the U.S. and UK, do you have the impression that the rest of the world supports the war but simply doesn't want to get their hands dirty? And are you pissed off that you have to shoulder the cost alone? Citizens of the rest of the world, do you support the war, and do you think your troops should participate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that ###### might want to re-check his facts.
Also. I hope the next country the US invades is us, Denmark. That way, we could pull our troops out of Afghanistan and maybe, just frackin MAYBE, I could get myself a damn <a href="http://www.motorola.com/consumers/US-EN/Motorola-DROID-US-EN.do?vgnextoid=256875f95f2c3210VgnVCM1000008406b00aRCRD" target="_blank">Droid</a>
I think that sentence could do with some elaboration. What facts are you referring to?
(And no, the U.S. are not going to invade Denmark. That's silly.)
As if the US and the UK are the only ones fighting. His facts are just not in order...
How doesn't extra manpower make sense? If they don't want to get anything done there, they should just pack their luggage and head home. If they actually want to achieve something, extra manpower is going to make things a lot quicker, if not possible in the first place.
Begging your pardon, but a similar argument was used to legitimize Bush's troop surge in Iraq. The left didn't like it so well.
Obiviously they're nagging at each other whenever they can. Such is politics. The polarized two-party system isn't helping out much either.
Without knowing the details, extra troops in Iraq sounds like a good idea too. Nobody can claim things are running as they should. They'll have to invest big time right now or end up paying way more than the investment in the longer run.
Well, pro-war support is bipartisan now. So war is one thing they agree on. That, and the bailouts.
True, but the troop surge did help stabilize Iraq, which is why Obama's using it now. I don't think they'd be looking at having elections soon if there hadn't been one.
1) Pre-9\11 interventionism in this region:
a) Funding of and arming both sides in Iran-Iraq war, including chemical weapons.
b) Propping up of unpopular Saudi royal family to maintain cheap access to oil, and extensive Saudi investment in our country.
c) Unlimited support for Israel, even when it doesn't always serve our national interest.
d) Repelling of Sadamn in Kuwait to protect Saudi oil supplies with former military bases on Muslim holy land. This is followed by 10 years of bombing and bitter sanctions on Iraq.
e) Inviting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to give them their "Vietnam", during the Cold War era. The country is ravished under Soviet occupation and war. U.S. funds mujaheddin to repel Soviets. After war is over, the U.S. vanishes and warlords fill the power vacuum, and remnants of the 'freedom fighters' form the Taliban.
2) 9\11 happens. U.S. military involvement is unavoidable. Taliban barely survives invasion onslaught over the Pakistani border to relative safety. Bin Laden is nearly captured\killed in Tora Bora. Decision is made to not send in troops due to 'light footprint' strategy.
3) Formerly corrupt warlords are promoted to positions of power in Afghan central government, and have limited influence in rural areas. Al-Qaeda remains in relative safety in Pakistani tribal areas with supportive local populace.
4) Unpopular opium poppy eradication program, poor farmers encouraged to grow much less profitable food grains. Heavy prohibitionist policies in western countries, particularly in U.S, encourage and perpetuate high profit margin for international opium trade.
5) War in Iraq begins. Perception in Afghanistan is that we are once again not committed to staying (or will become unable to). Taliban have time to wait us out, as they are among their homes.
6) Predator drones strategy emphasized, moderate gains against Al-Qaeda. Destabilization of nuclear armed Pakistani state by Taliban.
7) U.S. economy tanks. Deep recession, along with concern about exploding national debt, and the possibility of a default in the not to distant future. Federal Reserve nearly doubles money supply in 2008-2009. The specter of 1930s level of hyper-inflation is looming on the horizon.
8) 30,000 more troops being sent to Afghanistan to emphasize successful Iraqi "hold and build strategy". Different terrain, history, and ethnic makeup presents many problems. "Withdrawal" set for 2011 pending conditions.
9) International bodies seeking new reserve currency, oil-rich gulf countries seek to trade in non-dollar denominated oil transactions, cautious allies providing minor role with help in Afghanistan. China is seeming uneasy about our excessive debt with them, and our hard assets are being bought and owned by businesses in creditor nations in the meantime.
In my opinion, they're simply too many variables working against us for this mission to be successful. It seems this 'surge' is merely to save face and the last hurrah before coming home.
Couple of points: China is delighted with your national debt to them (it gives them leverage). What they are unhappy about is the rate at which the fed prints money, effectively depreciating their holdings in real value.
Also, this is at play in the region: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline</a> but is nothing more than a pipe dream in the current political climate.
The point about economic hegemony via the petrodollar is very valid and also relavent to the Iraq story. Europe was very much in support of the oil-for-food program as all oil was valued in Euros. One of the first thing Bush did after the Iraq invasion was to convert Iraqi oil transactions back to US dollars. Venezuala also landed itself in a mess for breaking away from the petrodollar. The petrodollar creates a huge market for US dollar reserves - countries need to maintain massive reserves in order to budget for energy.
Until there is an indepent currency for international trade, then countries will have a vested interest in controlling the market for a commodity and not just the commodity itself.
1) Pre-9\11 interventionism in this region:
...etc Russians etc...
In my opinion, they're simply too many variables working against us for this mission to be successful. It seems this 'surge' is merely to save face and the last hurrah before coming home.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Russians' "hurrah" in Afghanistan lasted, what, 7, 8 years? Before they realized they were making a big mistake. We're coming up on that timeframe about now.
So we'll be moving on to Pakistan any time...