Should Bush have left it at Afganistan?

[Francisco Montana]

There are going to be alot of contradiction in the next few sentences. But, please, bare with me here.

I don't think you and I have ever agreed on anything, Templedog. Ever.

But that's beside the point, and more importantly, the principle.

His thread was closed unjustly, I feel.

I know exactly what he was thinking, and frankly alot of us "neo-cons", as you call us, think the same thing sometimes.

My conclusion may differ from Templedogs, but I think it was a very valid question, and worthy of discussion from both sides of the political isle.

With all due respect, I urge the TWC to allow this thread a life.


TYIA and your's sincerly,


Lord Alameda, son of Octavian, grandson of tBP.

[Beetlecat]

Hi Lord Alameda,

I just saw the 'closed' thread of templedog's, and thought the same thing, even though I've only recently started posting around here. In my short time I've noticed that even the ideologically driven arguments remain largely civil. Maybe the moderator feared it would not be the case with that thread.

That being said, I like the wording of your topic better, it has a more 'open ended' feel to it.

I'll make an actual statement to it later on, but I have a paper to work on now and need to save up some critical thinking for that

[Francisco Montana]

I must publically apologize to my good friend and brother Lord Rahl. Not because he's asked me to, or anything (he didn't, in fact). But because it's the right thing to do.

I should have given him a PM 'heads up' but chose to go public instead. My only purpose was to promote free thinking. Templedog's post was a little ambiguous, so I can understant Rahl's fear of it spinning out of control.

Please forgive me Rahl, your friendship with me is too valueable and I should have shown better discretion.
----------------------------


Right after 9-11 I said to myself (and later to my Mum..yes even us old guys talk to Mummy!), but I told myself "we're going to have to go in there and clean out that rat's nest". Then came Afganistan. Yes. Completely justified, all of Europe behind us.

Then comes Iraq. Yikes. This is a biggy.

I knew from the get go it would be ugly. For sure.

But I tried my best to put myself in the President's shoes. A city virtually brought down.

New York!

It could (dont' tell me it isn't a possiblity) go ever further....Nukes on a major US city.

Authors and historians have written about it for decades (shows how some have amazing foresite, doesn't it).

So I said, I trust him. And I do.

George W Bush can be critisized for many things (bad english is irrelivant, it's the no vetos on spending in almost 6 years and the sive like boarder we have that irritates me) But one thing you have to admit, The Man Does Not Waver.

If your country was under attack for a full day and you didn't know what was next.

Wouldn't that be reassuring to you?

He made a judgement call after having made an oath to defend the people of America.

In my opinion, it's too holierthanthou to cast judements on his daunting decision.

Yes it would be nice to have Europe on our side.

But then sometimes the 'right' thing to do isn't always the 'popular' thing to do.

And someone, after all, has to lead.

I take my hat off to the Commander-In-Chief. He's far from perfect. But's he's got fortitude and conviction.

Reminds me of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Two of my favorite characters in history.

[abaris]

Well, the whole world was with the USA in the case of Afghanistan. In fact, most or the countries opposing the war in Iraq, still have troups in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a clear decision. Bin Laden was supposedly hiding out there, the Taliban were the closest you find to a terrorist regime and it was clear, that terrorist training camps were there. Afghanistan would have been a splendid chance to really show the world how nation building could be performed.

The invasion of Iraq on the other hand destroyed that image entirely. Not only was the invasion based upon lies, it was also pretty clear that a situation like we have now would occur and Iraq would become a terrorist playground after Saddam was gone.

So, yes. He should have left it at Afghanistan. Putting all the power and ressoruces there instead of overstretching and lighting another fire whilst ther first one was still burning, was stupid.

[Fenris]

I must publically apologize to my good friend and brother Lord Rahl. Not because he's asked me to, or anything (he didn't, in fact). But because it's the right thing to do.

I should have given him a PM 'heads up' but chose to go public instead. My only purpose was to promote free thinking. Templedog's post was a little ambiguous, so I can understant Rahl's fear of it spinning out of control.

Please forgive me Rahl, your friendship with me is too valueable and I should have shown better discretion.
----------------------------


Right after 9-11 I said to myself (and later to my Mum..yes even us old guys talk to Mummy!), but I told myself "we're going to have to go in there and clean out that rat's nest". Then came Afganistan. Yes. Completely justified, all of Europe behind us.

Then comes Iraq. Yikes. This is a biggy.

I knew from the get go it would be ugly. For sure.

But I tried my best to put myself in the President's shoes. A city virtually brought down.

New York!

It could (dont' tell me it isn't a possiblity) go ever further....Nukes on a major US city.

Authors and historians have written about it for decades (shows how some have amazing foresite, doesn't it).

So I said, I trust him. And I do.

George W Bush can be critisized for many things (bad english is irrelivant, it's the no vetos on spending in almost 6 years and the sive like boarder we have that irritates me) But one thing you have to admit, The Man Does Not Waver.

If your country was under attack for a full day and you didn't know what was next.

Wouldn't that be reassuring to you?

He made a judgement call after having made an oath to defend the people of America.

In my opinion, it's too holierthanthou to cast judements on his daunting decision.

Yes it would be nice to have Europe on our side.

But then sometimes the 'right' thing to do isn't always the 'popular' thing to do.

And someone, after all, has to lead.

I take my hat off to the Commander-In-Chief. He's far from perfect. But's he's got fortitude and conviction.

Reminds me of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Two of my favorite characters in history.

Our country was under attack for 1 day! Let's go attack a country which has nothing to do with the attack and put it under siege for a few years!

I mean, we've been attacked, it's reassuring and completely justified to attack a country who has nothing to do with the attacks. Wow, I'm starting to reflect a bit too much here, my nose's starting to bleed. Oh well, I guess I'll just trust the government it'll be much easier, they must know better than I and probably do it for everyone's good.

This is no victory until the half culture of Islamic radicalism is wiped from the planet. This philosophy cannot be allowed to control countries or nations, and it may even be allowed to threaten to do so.

I agree with you here, but you should also look at yourself in the mirror, your president is a Christian radical, and it is not better.

[Amur_Tiger]

This is no victory until the half culture of Islamic radicalism is wiped from the planet. This philosophy cannot be allowed to control countries or nations, and it may even be allowed to threaten to do so.

Too bad Iraq wasen't a place where that philosophy prevailed, until after the U.S. attack.

Are you for certain predispostions that would consider wiping out radilcalism as a whole, in most religions, that cause many of the woes to our society?

The problem with this philosophy is that in most contexts the effort to wipe out radicalism in any particular religion will only make it more virulent in adjacent areas. I do not believe it to be the case that Islam predisposed to radicalism any more then Christianity, Judaism or any other religion it just happens to exist in an area of the world that has been and continues to be more violent and oppressive then much of the rest of the world. Christian radicalism happened in a similar context with the violence and oppression of the middle ages and this waned only as the feudal system gave way to more nation based politics. Making war on all radical elements of a religion will only encourage surviors and those neaby to radicalize, sometimes brute force will not solve problems but make them worse. What needs to be done is to first is to make war on the isolated radicals while trying to undermine sympathy for them and other radical groups, then actions will have to be taken to address the reasons for the radicalsim in the first place.

[Pra]

Too bad Iraq wasen't a place where that philosophy prevailed, until after the U.S. attack.


The problem with this philosophy is that in most contexts the effort to wipe out radicalism in any particular religion will only make it more virulent in adjacent areas. I do not believe it to be the case that Islam predisposed to radicalism any more then Christianity, Judaism or any other religion it just happens to exist in an area of the world that has been and continues to be more violent and oppressive then much of the rest of the world. Christian radicalism happened in a similar context with the violence and oppression of the middle ages and this waned only as the feudal system gave way to more nation based politics. Making war on all radical elements of a religion will only encourage surviors and those neaby to radicalize, sometimes brute force will not solve problems but make them worse. What needs to be done is to first is to make war on the isolated radicals while trying to undermine sympathy for them and other radical groups, then actions will have to be taken to address the reasons for the radicalsim in the first place.

Conveyed my point in all of its rhetoric. Word.

[crazyhorse]

Well, I think we did nearly as much as we could do in Afghanistan. To call it a country is like calling the HRE an empire. Its been completely divided for more or less its entire history because of geographical, political, cultural reasons. We could do more to stop the opium growing but thats about it. Though our soldiers are still dying there, it takes years to pacify such regions and you need to appeal to the people through an strong central government of Afghanis in order to unite the country. Not through military power.

If Osama did escape into Pakistan it is wise not to disrespect the soveriegnty of another nation no to mention it would stir up another radical hornet's nest in the northwestern area of that country. Right now, if he isn't dead already, he's probably just sitting around in stone age splendor with his AK propped up against a wall waiting for his runners to bring him another video tape so he can encourage people to fight the infidel. I think the fact that we're not hunting him so hard anymore sends the right message. Basically telling him and his followers that they're insignificant right now.

[Francisco Montana]

Our country was under attack for 1 day! Let's go attack a country which has nothing to do with the attack and put it under siege for a few years!

I mean, we've been attacked, it's reassuring and completely justified to attack a country who has nothing to do with the attacks.

That's why I don't vote for Libs. They just don't get it.

[Templedog]

I don't like the money spent on the Iraq war, I don't like the dead troops, I don't like the many civillians killed, I don't like halliburton and other US companies moving in and building the schools, hospitals, roads and gouging the US government on the bill, I don't like how we are building one of the biggest US military bases of all time there, I don't like how we have treated some of the prisoners we have captured, I don't like the US iggnoring the UN and then expect other countries to obeyed by it, I don't like the exit strategy (no exit strat at all,Condi Rice said might be 10 years) I don't like the fact we found no WMDS and some of my friends that were in the National guard had to go there to find nothing. I don't like the LIES on Joe Wilson and ignoring him on the yellow cake uranium from Africa, the whole NY Times scandal. I don't like the fact that George Bush did buisness with the Bin Laden family and Dick Cheney while the president of Haliburton sold supplies to Saddam Hussein while Saddam was turning away weapon inspectors....

One thing I did like was that G.W. went into afganistan, but even Ralph Nader would of done that.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Ummon]

Probably Iraq was an ill-thought move, yes.

[Big War Bird]

This is my sincerest heartfelt belief on this issue.

After 9/11 it was clear to me that Osama Bin Laden, Al-Queda and the Taliban were not isolated problems. It was not nineteen guys with a bone to pick that hijacked those planes. It was half a culture that had done this.

It would have been easy to stop at Afghanistan, Michael Moore and amnesic liberals notwithstanding, everybody considered it a fair response to 9/11. But I knew and I think everyone knew that Afghanistan was not the end but only a beginning.

Shortly after 9/11 President said in a speech to Congress:

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

There was a huge round of appluase after this. When the President said, 'expect a lengthy campaign,' what did he mean? I knew exactly what it meant. The USA was going to take the offensive, not merely to redress a wrong, but to drive events herself. We would not wait and play a tit for tat. As Lord Alameda said we were going to clean out the rats nest. Changing the face of the Middle East was an objective from the very beginning.

I am willing to entertain criticism that the invasion of Iraq was not the most strategically wise course of action. Perhaps it would have been better to go after Iran next after Afghanistan, or maybe Syria. But I cannot accept the notion that the hunt of for Osama was the end game for the War on Terror. There is no final victory in his capture. The half culture that made up his supporters would continue.

This is no victory until the half culture of Islamic radicalism is wiped from the planet. This philosophy cannot be allowed to control countries or nations, and it may even be allowed to threaten to do so.


As a side note

covert operations, secret even in success

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly foresaw rendition flights, CIA kidnappings and secret prisons. I was cool with it then and I'm cool with it now.

[Pra]

This is my sincerest heartfelt belief on this issue.

After 9/11 it was clear to me that Osama Bin Laden, Al-Queda and the Taliban were not isolated problems. It was not nineteen guys with a bone to pick that hijacked those planes. It was half a culture that had done this.

It would have been easy to stop at Afghanistan, Michael Moore and amnesic liberals notwithstanding, everybody considered it a fair response to 9/11. But I knew and I think everyone knew that Afghanistan was not the end but only a beginning.

Shortly after 9/11 President said in a speech to Congress:


Quote:
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.



There was a huge round of appluase after this. When the President said, 'expect a lengthy campaign,' what did he mean? I knew exactly what it meant. The USA was going to take the offensive, not merely to redress a wrong, but to drive events herself. We would not wait and play a tit for tat. As Lord Alameda said we were going to clean out the rats nest. Changing the face of the Middle East was an objective from the very beginning.

I am willing to entertain criticism that the invasion of Iraq was not the most strategically wise course of action. Perhaps it would have been better to go after Iran next after Afghanistan, or maybe Syria. But I cannot accept the notion that the hunt of for Osama was the end game for the War on Terror. There is no final victory in his capture. The half culture that made up his supporters would continue.

This is no victory until the half culture of Islamic radicalism is wiped from the planet. This philosophy cannot be allowed to control countries or nations, and it may even be allowed to threaten to do so.


As a side note


Quote:
covert operations, secret even in success



I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly foresaw rendition flights, CIA kidnappings and secret prisons. I was cool with it then and I'm cool with it now.

Are you for certain predispostions that would consider wiping out radilcalism as a whole, in most religions, that cause many of the woes to our society?

On the note of a lengthy campaign, I am not opposed to it, as long as this was the message that had been displayed to us constantly. If you notice, we did have mixed messages coming to us from our leaders, and with signs flamboyantly displaying 'Mission Accoplished' in patriotic drab, I was not sure which side I was to believe.

[PacSubCom]

It may be a case of liberal amnesia, but this "lengthy campaign" has already destroyed more lives than Islamic terrorism ever has. And we are just 4 years into it now. More to come. And that "half a culture" you want to wipe out hasn't started this war.

The Rest ... is Racism.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The Rest ... is Racism.

The radical muslims kill mostly Muslims. Racism indeed.

[PacSubCom]

The radical muslims kill mostly Muslims. Racism indeed.

Who the **** is talking about radical muslims?

[Rapax]

I keep wondering what exactly we're doing in afghanistan. The americans keep hunting some folks in the mountains, which seems to be an endless task, while ISAF spends their days patrolling Kabul, happily waving at the population, acting like everything is under control. Most of the country belongs to warlords who mercifully allow ISAF to pass through their territory, so long as they don't disturb their business, which is growing opium.
So what exactly have we accomplished in afghanistan and what exactly are we still doing there?

@war bird:
So you believe that waging decades of war against muslim countries is the best course of action after 9/11 ?

[Big War Bird]

It may be a case of liberal amnesia, but this "lengthy campaign" has already destroyed more lives than Islamic terrorism ever has. And we are just 4 years into it now. More to come. And that "half a culture" you want to wipe out hasn't started this war.

The Rest ... is Racism.

That radicalsim did start this war, decades ago.

And are you calling me a racist? If you are then you are sad little man.

So you believe that waging decades of war against muslim countries is the best course of action after 9/11 ?

I am up for whatever it takes to change the Middle East to a place where people enjoy a wealth of opportunity and live in abundance.

[Erik]

I don;t think the Us should hare restricted their war on terror to Afghanistan but:
But they should hare restricted it to TERROR, it a war on terror, not a war on "liberating oil rich nation to make them more McDomands friendly"
And Afghanistan should been the primary target, the situation had to be stabalized there before spending the vast majority of resources in other places.
Afghanistan is currently in the control of warlords, sore of them still supporting terrorism (according to Dutch soldiers who claim to lack the resources to attack those warlords).

About the Bush speech:

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

Souds promising but...

We will starve terrorists of funding,

Didn't happen.

turn them one against another,

The opposite happened: Sunni terrorists working WITH Shia Al-Qaida now?

drive them from place to place,

The opposite happened: they PULLED them from Afghanistan to Iraq, Jordan, Madrid, etc. etc.

until there is no refuge or no rest.

Even Afghanistan is still a refuge for them.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

They never came round to doing this because Afghanistan isn't even secured.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Here he does have a point:
He turned a lot of nations against the US.

The speech sounded promising at first, even I supported it.
But words have never been turned into actions.
Too bad because a global war on terror would be a good thing IMO.
I guess my country now has to do it without any serious level of US support, and we can't handle it on our own because, lets be honest, our army sucks.
Stop wasting time in Iraq and help us with the real war on Terror, you Americans!