Obama risks another Vietnam

[BlackPirate]

US officials say that Obama plans to withdraw the majority of US troops in three years.I honestly dont believe that in 3 years Taliban are going to be defeated or that the Afghan army will reach a point were he could face them.If he does this Taliban will claim victory.Honestly i am very worried.I think that Obama wants to deliver some hard blows to Taliban and then withdraw the army but leave the business unfinished.If i was an Afghan villager right now i would knew that whatever happens Americans will leave and Taliban will return.Whats your opinion?

[danzig]

This is why while Bush was wrong on so many things he was right about one thing, you dont set artificial dates for when something has to be achieved. You focus on solving the problem, how to solve it then solve it THEN you talk about dates. I dont believe however that is what is shaping up to be Jimmy Carter's 2nd term is going to turn into the 2nd term of LBJ.

[Stavroforos]

I think giving a date by which point certain criteria have to be met is not a bad thing, as it encourages those criteria to be met. However, the date of withdrawal from Afghanistan should be flexible and contingent upon how well the Afghans can govern themselves and protect themselves. The US military will not all be gone from Afghanistan the day after the withdrawal date, but we can't expect them to stay there forever especially if the country is not going to improve.

[hellheaven1987]

Withdraw from Afghanistan in three years?? Don't make me laugh, even counter-gureilla expert Great Britain spent 10+ years in Malaya Emergency, which was already an unpopular and very small insurgency at beginning.

[Exarch]

Withdraw from Afghanistan in three years?? Don't make me laugh, even counter-gureilla expert Great Britain spent 10+ years in Malaya Emergency, which was already an unpopular and very small insurgency at beginning.

not to mention the way the british did it would be considered today as inhumane and violating human rights

[Pious Agnost]

Withdraw from Afghanistan in three years?? Don't make me laugh, even counter-gureilla expert Great Britain spent 10+ years in Malaya Emergency, which was already an unpopular and very small insurgency at beginning.

With way less technology.

Technology has advanced for both sides, certainly.

But has it advanced more for the Coalition of the Taliban?

[danzig]

I think giving a date by which point certain criteria have to be met is not a bad thing, as it encourages those criteria to be met. However, the date of withdrawal from Afghanistan should be flexible and contingent upon how well the Afghans can govern themselves and protect themselves. The US military will not all be gone from Afghanistan the day after the withdrawal date, but we can't expect them to stay there forever especially if the country is not going to improve.

Well if want to set a date internally as a goal that is fine but publicly? Huge mistake imo by saying 3 years will he explain but if Afghan still cant govern themselves will date then be changed? I just dont think should attempt to lock oneself into a set timeframe. Guess we'll see with the actual speech.

[Stavroforos]

Well if want to set a date internally as a goal that is fine but publicly? Huge mistake imo by saying 3 years will he explain but if Afghan still cant govern themselves will date then be changed? I just dont think should attempt to lock oneself into a set timeframe. Guess we'll see with the actual speech.

Well, hasn't getting the Afghans to meet the set goals of the allies been one of the problems so far with rebuilding Afghanistan? Perhaps they need more motivation to meet their requirements.

[Jabberwock]

This is another "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" for Obama.

If he doesn't set a date people are going to think Obama and the military are achieving nothing leading people to call for a too soon withdrawal. Going this route will definitely become a Vietnam.

If he does set a date... well this thread is a testament of it.

[danzig]

Well, hasn't getting the Afghans to meet the set goals of the allies been one of the problems so far with rebuilding Afghanistan? Perhaps they need more motivation to meet their requirements.

Definitely but you dont do that by simply setting a deadline, if anything its going to weaken the ability to motivate since people will think well why bother they will be gone soon anyway.

[Platon]

The war is lost already. The question is how long the ocupation will continue until they realize they have to get the hell out of there. The US continues to support Karzais corrupt Gov. (based on gangsters and druglords) - and the president will get the Nobel peace price next week..? - We live in a sick world

[Pickle_mole]

victory is not impossible, it can be done, we just need a strong will. Keep in mind they are just people.

[Cougar109]

victory is not impossible, it can be done, we just need a strong will. Keep in mind they are just people.

Victory? This isn't a conventional war, there is no "clear" enemy out there, there is no nation to break. It's a mindset, a thought and belief that drives these people to do what they do and it's almost impossible to completely root that out and break it in half. The best that can be done is suppression by us until we can trust Afghanistan to continue the suppression at a similar level, victory by definition is not an obtainable goal in this situation though simply because that enemy and the fighting will always be there.

As for the topic at hand, I can see regular withdrawals starting in 3 years such as we're doing in Iraq, depending on whose sitting in office obviously. The majority of troops gone in 3 years, not unless everything is perfect from here on out. Not an impossible goal, unlikely but not impossible. It'll be easier to get a more accurate idea in about 6-9 months since McCrystal now has his troops.

[Valiant Champion]

Victory? This isn't a conventional war, there is no "clear" enemy out there, there is no nation to break. It's a mindset, a thought and belief that drives these people to do what they do and it's almost impossible to completely root that out and break it in half. The best that can be done is suppression by us until we can trust Afghanistan to continue the suppression at a similar level, victory by definition is not an obtainable goal in this situation though simply because that enemy and the fighting will always be there.

As for the topic at hand, I can see regular withdrawals starting in 3 years such as we're doing in Iraq, depending on whose sitting in office obviously. The majority of troops gone in 3 years, not unless everything is perfect from here on out. Not an impossible goal, unlikely but not impossible. It'll be easier to get a more accurate idea in about 6-9 months since McCrystal now has his troops.

What is victory? To crush an insurgency or to leave Afganistan in peace? Or to leave Afganistan in pieces?

If victory cannot be achieved it will be both a failure not only in military strategy but in political strategy. Victory can only be achieved if the Afgans roll up their sleeves and do their part. If they dont want to than we cant win.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

[Colonel Cleg McLeg]

It's not Obama that risks another Vietnam. He inherited another Vietnam from Bush. Personally, I don't see this as a winnable war. Sooner or later, NATO will have to get around the table with the Taliban, or leave a country in anarchy.

If we hadn't gone gallivanting off to Iraq when we should have been sorting out Afghanistan, then maybe things would have been different.

[danzig]

It's not Obama that risks another Vietnam. He inherited another Vietnam from Bush. Personally, I don't see this as a winnable war. Sooner or later, NATO will have to get around the table with the Taliban, or leave a country in anarchy.

If we hadn't gone gallivanting off to Iraq when we should have been sorting out Afghanistan, then maybe things would have been different.

lala people kept claiming it was Iraq that was Vietnam I love how the shift to the new vietnam took hold after the whole Iraq thing failed to "live up" to it. I swear I think some people see vietnam in their dreams or something that every conflict is going to be the next nam! Poor forgotten Korean no one ever says Afganistan or Iraq was going to be the next Korea. And of course insert the mandatory if it goes wrong it has to be Bush's fault.

[Colonel Cleg McLeg]

lala people kept claiming it was Iraq that was Vietnam I love how the shift to the new vietnam took hold after the whole Iraq thing failed to "live up" to it. I swear I think some people see vietnam in their dreams or something that every conflict is going to be the next nam! Poor forgotten Korean no one ever says Afganistan or Iraq was going to be the next Korea. And of course insert the mandatory if it goes wrong it has to be Bush's fault.

I'm afraid your argument fails on every level. If you read my post again, you'll see I posted that he inherited another Vietnam from Bush. This implies that I have always seen the war as hopeless. I did not "shift" my argument, as you put it, to Afghanistan after Iraq calmed down somewhat. I was against both wars from the very beginning.

Second, I don't find myself thinking about Vietnam very much at all, to tell the truth. I'm not American, I'm Welsh. I still have a valid interest in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't find myself thinking about American history too much. Regardless of that, comparing Iraq to Vietnam is inevitable because, put simply, you're fighting the same kind of war.

And to answer your last sentence I ask this: how could the war not be Bush's fault? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not America under the Bush Administration that, leading the coalition, invaded Afghanistan in the first place and therefore started the war? It was?

[danzig]

I'm afraid your argument fails on every level.
If you read my post again, you'll see I posted that he inherited another Vietnam from Bush. This implies that I have always seen the war as hopeless. I did not "shift" my argument, as you put it, to Afghanistan after Iraq calmed down somewhat. I was against both wars from the very beginning.

And you were against Afghanistan initially why exactly? Afghanistan was completely justified, with an actual goal for an actual offense committed by people allowed by the so called government of Afghanistan a safe haven to do so. So fail on every level? Please you provided nothing to suggest why Afghanistan=Vietnam, Vietnam was some conflict based on the vague notion of stoppping communism while Afghanistan was based on punishment for an act committed by people in the country who killed thousands. Where exactly is the similarity? Now you can argue whether Afganistan has been fought wisely with perfectly valid backing but all that suggest is that US/NATO need to adjust and improve how they are going about it not that it is a pointless, futile conflict for nothing of value like Vietnam was. So how is it like vietnam? Please explain to me.

And to answer your last sentence I ask this: how could the war not be Bush's fault? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not America under the Bush Administration that, leading the coalition, invaded Afghanistan in the first place and therefore started the war? It was?

You are aware why Afghanistan was invaded were you not? I mean surely you read a newspaper or saw the news or something. You make it sound like it just magically happened for no reason or logic or that someone was just itching to do it...in that regard Afganistan is most certainly not Vietnam or Iraq for that matter.

I mean in the view of the way the war is fought. In Afghanistan, we are and will be bogged down in a conflict that it is impossible to win because the opposition use guerilla tactics as opposed to the way our armies like to fight their battles. They can outmanoeuvre us and retreat into friendly villages when the odds aren't in their favour.

This seems to go under the assumption that "guerilla" warfare is something you cant combat, which is nonsense it can be and just because something is difficult doesnt mean it isnt worth doing if it is worth doing. I mean you are aware fighting that type of conflict was one of the major reasons Petratus was put in charge of Iraq to fight THAT type of conflict and why he brought in people like David Kilcullen, McMaster guys who have spent their lives writing on the topic of fighting these types of conflicts. Now however Obama admin seems to be repeating a Bush era mistake of being too involved in the conflict from a political pov of managing it (though Bush used rumsfeld for it). Once it became ok let the guys who know how to do this do this and simply support them, what happened in Iraq? The moment war becomes COMPLETELY political is when it is lost, on that regard you are right in similarity to Vietnam but that would be a failure on Obama's fault if he goes down that route.

[Colonel Cleg McLeg]

And you were against Afghanistan initially why exactly? Afghanistan was completely justified, with an actual goal for an actual offense committed by people allowed by the so called government of Afghanistan a safe haven to do so. So fail on every level? Please you provided nothing to suggest why Afghanistan=Vietnam, Vietnam was some conflict based on the vague notion of stoppping communism while Afghanistan was based on punishment for an act committed by people in the country who killed thousands. Where exactly is the similarity? Now you can argue whether Afganistan has been fought wisely with perfectly valid backing but all that suggest is that US/NATO need to adjust and improve how they are going about it not that it is a pointless, futile conflict for nothing of value like Vietnam was. So how is it like vietnam? Please explain to me.

It fails on every level because it assumes I took the views you outlined in your post. I have explained to you that that is not the case.

Afghanistan was legal war, yes, which is more than can be said for its successor. Does that make it justified? I don't think so. If we went into Afghanistan for revenge, as you seem to believe, that hundreds of Americans and Brits, not to mention thousands of Afghans, have died so America could exact punishment on the Taliban, then no, it certainly wasn't justified. We achieve nothing by being in Afghanistan. We've already tightened our borders since 9/11, and in my view, we should be focusing on stopping home-grown terror, not ineffectually fighting for our safety halfway around the world.

In any case, it wasn't me but the topic starter that originally drew the parallel between Afghanistan and Vietnam. I have agreed with that comparison in essence because I see both wars as being unwinnable. We've lost the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan, and once that's lost, I don't think there's any chance of ever pacifying the Taliban, no mater how many troops we throw at them. Its also similar in the respect of the guerilla tactics utilised by the Taliban. That does not mean that Afghanistan and Vietnam are the same, and nor have I said so. But there is, I believe, a parallel that can be drawn between them.

You are aware why Afghanistan was invaded were you not? I mean surely you read a newspaper or saw the news or something. You make it sound like it just magically happened for no reason or logic or that someone was just itching to do it...in that regard Afganistan is most certainly not Vietnam or Iraq for that matter.

So you're saying to me the reason that this war was started, and the reason why thousands upon thousands have died, was to exact revenge then? If so, then I find that thoroughly distasteful. Still, it's nice to find someone who is assured of the reason why we're there. We've had so many conflicting arguments from the British government it's hard to tell why, for us Brits. First we were after Bin Laden. Okay. Then we were there to root out the Taliban. Fine. Then we were there to introduce democracy. Then to protect women's rights. Now it's to keep our streets safe. It sounds to me like the British government doesn't even know why we're there. Why should I, a mere British Citizen?

This seems to go under the assumption that "guerilla" warfare is something you cant combat, which is nonsense it can be and just because something is difficult doesnt mean it isnt worth doing if it is worth doing. I mean you are aware fighting that type of conflict was one of the major reasons Petratus was put in charge of Iraq to fight THAT type of conflict and why he brought in people like David Kilcullen, McMaster guys who have spent their lives writing on the topic of fighting these types of conflicts. Now however Obama admin seems to be repeating a Bush era mistake of being too involved in the conflict from a political pov of managing it (though Bush used rumsfeld for it). Once it became ok let the guys who know how to do this do this and simply support them, what happened in Iraq? The moment war becomes COMPLETELY political is when it is lost, on that regard you are right in similarity to Vietnam but that would be a failure on Obama's fault if he goes down that route.

Of course you can combat it, but that doesn't mean it's easy. You can pour men and resources into an area only for the Taliban to melt away and reappear elsewhere. All the Taliban have to do to win this war, in the end, is wait as public opinion turns against the war on both sides of the Atlantic, while it is down to us to eradicate the entire country of the Taliban. I have to say that they have already succeeded over here. Besides, the situation in Iraq a few years ago and Afghanistan is not the same. Afghanistan has suffered years of neglect since the invasion for Iraq. Iraq had a strong sense of being a coherent nation, whereas Afganistan has effectively been in a state of anarchy ever since the Soviets withdrew. Iraq was a secular nation, whereas the population in Afghanistan was and is far more susceptible to Islamism.

[Ænema]

Change my ass.

Blah blah blah. Just like Bush, Same , different idiot.