quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
We shouldn't ever have gone in the way we did, and failing that, should have been out years ago.

I was ready for everyone to come home the day after OBL was finally killed. I'm not sure how we could have justified leaving before that single goal was realized.

How many of our troops were truly necessary in getting bin Laden when we got him? All the troops that weren't directly going after OBL or al Qaeda should have been pulled as soon as they were no longer going after OBL or AQ. We had 2 main objectives in Afghanistan, and one secondary objective. We had to kill OBL and decimate AQ. In order to do that, we had to topple the Taliban. At no point in time should our mission included fighting to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban. The only reason the Taliban was toppled was because they wouldn't hand over OBL and wouldn't allow us to come in and root him out.
Not sure exactly when it was, but the Afghan strategy diverged wildly from what it was initially. That's when troop reductions should have started.

Who could have ever predicted they would have found OBL where and when they did? Who could have ever predicted exactly how things were going to progress in Afghanistan?
What is it they say about the fog of war and how no plan survives the first day of combat?
I agree that the mission changed along the way but as far as I'm concerned, until AQ was demolished and OBL was dead, it was worth keeping every boot on the ground there. After those objectives were completed, the troops should have left the next day.

The only "boots on the ground" that were necessary were those that were actively going after AQ and OBL. There should have been no other reason for troops over there. Any soldiers not being used for those two things should have been removed from the country.

It wasn't our mission - nor was it our responsibility - to stop the Taliban from regaining power and leadership, once we toppled them and were going after AQ/OBL. It wasn't our responsibility to rebuild the Afghan infrastructure to any degree. It wasn't our responsibility to train the Afghan army. That was my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
I understand your viewpoint, DS. I just disagree with it. I didn't like the fact that we were invading another country in the first place but I didn't see any other option after 9/11. This wasn't a war that was going to be won with just SEAL teams and cruise missiles. AQ was imbedded everywhere. Personally, I would have been happier if we could have put enough troops in Afghanistan to own every square inch of it from day one. Then maybe we wouldn't have been there for 12 years. But after we did the damage, it was only appropriate to try to rebuild some of what we destroyed. We're supposed to be Americans, not Nazis. We shouldn't be doing "scorched earth".
JMO

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I have to disagree with you, RottenJohnny. We don't owe Afghanistan jack shit, now, or when they started this whole mess.
After 9/11, it seemed like I was one of about 3 people in the country who thought going into Afghanistan was a horrible mistake, even though I saw it was inevitable. It is where empires go to die.
Special forces and cruise missiles, yes, and B-52 saturation bombings on top of that. Maybe some AC-130 missions. We should have rained such hell on the Taliban leadership that they would have gone out personally, found bin Laden for us, and delivered him wrapped with pretty pink curling ribbon, to make it stop. The most conventional boots we should have ever put on the ground would be the Marines that secured a couple of airports.
Had we done that, it wouldn't matter one bit if the Taliban resumed control of the country afterward, because they would have understood to never let someone based in their country come fuck with the USA ever again.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I have to disagree with you, RottenJohnny. We don't owe Afghanistan jack shit, now, or when they started this whole mess.

After 9/11, it seemed like I was one of about 3 people in the country who thought going into Afghanistan was a horrible mistake, even though I saw it was inevitable. It is where empires go to die.

Special forces and cruise missiles, yes, and B-52 saturation bombings on top of that. Maybe some AC-130 missions. We should have rained such hell on the Taliban leadership that they would have gone out personally, found bin Laden for us, and delivered him wrapped with pretty pink curling ribbon, to make it stop. The most conventional boots we should have ever put on the ground would be the Marines that secured a couple of airports.

Had we done that, it wouldn't matter one bit if the Taliban resumed control of the country afterward, because they would have understood to never let someone based in their country come fuck with the USA ever again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

We've rebuilt past what we've damaged. It's gone beyond fixing what we broke.

quote:


With tongue firmly in cheek... General Sherman might argue that "scorched earth" is an American thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We've rebuilt past what we've damaged. It's gone beyond fixing what we broke.

I agree that there is a limit to what we should be responsible for. Do we need to build skyscrapers and six-lane highways? Of course not. Should we leave them with a power grid, clean water supplies, schools, and some semblance of an army to defend what we've tried to give them? Yeah, I think we should.

quote:

quote:

With tongue firmly in cheek... General Sherman might argue that "scorched earth" is an American thing.

I'd say "scorched earth" is a Roman thing...and maybe even further back than that. Does that mean we should be letting our troops run amok, pillaging whatever they want like Sherman did? Isn't that what the Russians did when they went into Afghanistan? Do you remember how that turned out for them?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We've rebuilt past what we've damaged. It's gone beyond fixing what we broke.

I agree that there is a limit to what we should be responsible for. Do we need to build skyscrapers and six-lane highways? Of course not. Should we leave them with a power grid, clean water supplies, schools, and some semblance of an army to defend what we've tried to give them? Yeah, I think we should.

Fix what we broke. Maybe even upgrade some antiquated infrastructure, but what we've done is well beyond even that. The Taliban isn't looking to destroy Afghanistan. They want to get back into power. Does the Afghan Army really care who is in power, as long as they are defending the Country?

I think we have a disconnect that is little more than semantics, RJ.

quote:

quote:

With tongue firmly in cheek... General Sherman might argue that "scorched earth" is an American thing.

I'd say "scorched earth" is a Roman thing...and maybe even further back than that. Does that mean we should be letting our troops run amok, pillaging whatever they want like Sherman did? Isn't that what the Russians did when they went into Afghanistan? Do you remember how that turned out for them?

Sherman demonstrated that it's not beneath Americans to use "scorched earth" tactics.

The Russians went into Afghanistan at the behest of the Afghan regime. They went in to help defend the regime against Afghan rebels. We armed and trained the rebels. When "help defend" turned into "defend with little Afghan help," the Russians saw that it wasn't worth their blood and treasure. So, the pulled up stakes and left. They didn't invade Afghanistan to take it over. I realize we didn't do that, either. We also didn't go in to defend the Afghan government from rebels. We toppled their government, who then became the rebels. Fighting the rebels isn't our responsibility.

Here's what I'm saying, RJ, the soldiers that weren't being used to complete our mission (get OLB/AQ) shouldn't have been there. If every one of our soldiers there were being used to complete the mission, then none should have been removed. Taking care of the mess made is "aftercare."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
When the Russians went in Afghan, they murdered the leadership, there employees, the domestic help and their Russian whores in a blood bath. The soviets continued their killing in a virtual spree. The very idea that the Russians went in to help the Afghans with their problems should insult your intelligence. There were no Afghan rebels in any meaningful way until after the soviets went in. Whoever assisted the soviets in Afghan, did so to stay alive.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul

quote:

While the massive, lightning-fast military maneuvers and brazenness of Soviet political objectives constituted an “invasion” of Afghanistan, the word “intervention” more accurately describes these events as the culmination of growing Soviet domination going back to 1973.
...
Complicating matters further, this internal strife damaged the Kabul Government’s major national program, namely, to bring the Communist revolution to the Islamic tribal areas beyond Kabul. By the winter of 1978, this program was met by armed revolt throughout the country. In response, Amin and Taraki traveled to Moscow to sign a friendship treaty which included a provision that would allow direct Soviet military assistance should the Islamic insurgency threaten the regime. This insurrection intensified over the next year and it became increasingly obvious to the Soviets that Taraki could not prevent all-out civil war and the prospect of a hostile Islamic government taking control. By mid-1979 Moscow was searching to replace Taraki and Amin, and dispatched combat troops to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul. This move prompted the Carter administration to begin supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan mujahedeen, or Islamic insurgents. In August, a high-ranking Soviet military delegation arrived in Kabul to assess the situation. U.S. officials interpreted this mission as one last Soviet attempt to shore up the Taraki regime, and also an opportunity to devise a military takeover.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
When the Russians went in Afghan, they murdered the leadership, there employees, the domestic help and their Russian whores in a blood bath. The soviets continued their killing in a virtual spree. The very idea that the Russians went in to help the Afghans with their problems should insult your intelligence. There were no Afghan rebels in any meaningful way until after the soviets went in. Whoever assisted the soviets in Afghan, did so to stay alive.

Nice thinking there. Wrong, but nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Background

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul

The USSR invaded Afghanistan, when? December 1979, a year after the regime with "close relations with the Soviet Union" took control.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan

quote:

While the massive, lightning-fast military maneuvers and brazenness of Soviet political objectives constituted an “invasion” of Afghanistan, the word “intervention” more accurately describes these events as the culmination of growing Soviet domination going back to 1973.
...
Complicating matters further, this internal strife damaged the Kabul Government’s major national program, namely, to bring the Communist revolution to the Islamic tribal areas beyond Kabul. By the winter of 1978, this program was met by armed revolt throughout the country. In response, Amin and Taraki traveled to Moscow to sign a friendship treaty which included a provision that would allow direct Soviet military assistance should the Islamic insurgency threaten the regime. This insurrection intensified over the next year and it became increasingly obvious to the Soviets that Taraki could not prevent all-out civil war and the prospect of a hostile Islamic government taking control. By mid-1979 Moscow was searching to replace Taraki and Amin, and dispatched combat troops to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul. This move prompted the Carter administration to begin supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan mujahedeen, or Islamic insurgents. In August, a high-ranking Soviet military delegation arrived in Kabul to assess the situation. U.S. officials interpreted this mission as one last Soviet attempt to shore up the Taraki regime, and also an opportunity to devise a military takeover.

Amin had Taraki killed, which didn't sit well with the Soviets. The Soviets killed Amin and put a puppet in place. There was already an Islamic insurgency going on in Afghanistan when the Soviets came a-rolling in; an insurgency the US was funding and supporting. That insurgency led to the mujahadeen, the Taliban, and, even, OBL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I'm not sure where the idea that the world would have come rushing to defend the Taliban is coming from. They were a pariah state, lopping off heads, stoning women in the soccer stadiums, and blowing up ancient statues of the Budda. Pakistan were the only ones left talking to them at all, and we were in full "with us or against us" mode.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
When the Russians went in Afghan, they murdered the leadership, there employees, the domestic help and their Russian whores in a blood bath. The soviets continued their killing in a virtual spree. The very idea that the Russians went in to help the Afghans with their problems should insult your intelligence. There were no Afghan rebels in any meaningful way until after the soviets went in. Whoever assisted the soviets in Afghan, did so to stay alive.

Nice thinking there. Wrong, but nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Background

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul

The USSR invaded Afghanistan, when? December 1979, a year after the regime with "close relations with the Soviet Union" took control.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan

quote:

While the massive, lightning-fast military maneuvers and brazenness of Soviet political objectives constituted an “invasion” of Afghanistan, the word “intervention” more accurately describes these events as the culmination of growing Soviet domination going back to 1973.
...
Complicating matters further, this internal strife damaged the Kabul Government’s major national program, namely, to bring the Communist revolution to the Islamic tribal areas beyond Kabul. By the winter of 1978, this program was met by armed revolt throughout the country. In response, Amin and Taraki traveled to Moscow to sign a friendship treaty which included a provision that would allow direct Soviet military assistance should the Islamic insurgency threaten the regime. This insurrection intensified over the next year and it became increasingly obvious to the Soviets that Taraki could not prevent all-out civil war and the prospect of a hostile Islamic government taking control. By mid-1979 Moscow was searching to replace Taraki and Amin, and dispatched combat troops to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul. This move prompted the Carter administration to begin supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan mujahedeen, or Islamic insurgents. In August, a high-ranking Soviet military delegation arrived in Kabul to assess the situation. U.S. officials interpreted this mission as one last Soviet attempt to shore up the Taraki regime, and also an opportunity to devise a military takeover.

Amin had Taraki killed, which didn't sit well with the Soviets. The Soviets killed Amin and put a puppet in place. There was already an Islamic insurgency going on in Afghanistan when the Soviets came a-rolling in; an insurgency the US was funding and supporting. That insurgency led to the mujahadeen, the Taliban, and, even, OBL.

You can believe that if you wish but one could just as easily argue that this was a soviet inspired coup that began as early as 1973 and through operatives in the KGB and the Afghan communist party. (PDPA) The very idea that after years of struggle to keep the communists from taking over in Afghan that once there was a coup, that the soviets had to be 'invited' in is like saying the CIA was invited into Iran and Iraq in the 1950's. The soviets were going in no matter what to solidify and maintain the PDPA and their political control.
Suffice it to say that the Afghan opposition was out to prevent a soviet take over and became the seed of the mujaheddin that formed the western backed opposition backed by the CIA circa 1979-80 and the CIA to this day denies it all and we know just how trustworthy the CIA is. Anyone who believes the CIA...will believe anything.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)