obama on afghanistan - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 07-13-2010, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

How is what I said foggy? We sent troops, obviously we supported it, I come from a military town, I can't remember how many soldiers have been killed from my hometown, just a couple of weeks ago a friend of mine's wife was killed, a month or so ago Col. Geoff Parker was killed who used to be my mothers boss when she worked on the base, and a hell of a nice guy all around, I knew his wife, his kids, all amazingly nice people, but with no results in almost a decade, it's kind of hard to continue to support a fruitless cause, and watch people we know killed for who knows what.

It was just a reference to the logical argument you constructed. sending troops does not necessarily mean that Canada supported the war, in fact I think, as I have read from others and other sources, Canada's motivation may have been more focused on its relationship to the US rather than the underlying issue the US attempted to address in Afghanistan.

aceventura3 · 07-13-2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

There is more to it than that.

Is that too nuanced for you? Maybe read the rest of the speech and come back with some questions.

If really true why a date for withdrawal? Why did it take so long to decide on a surge? Why compromise on the troop request? Why continue the wrong war in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan?

I don't expect you to answer those questions and others, they just illustrate the underlying issue with Obama's nuance on the issue.

Quote:

That isn't "resolvey" enough, don't you think?

I am at a point where I think we bring the troops home, Obama needs to present a compeling argument to stay - he has not. the answer to your question is - no.

Quote:

PNAC's

I am not familiar with them and I doubt they represent anything other than an extreme small minority in this country.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

here's a short version.
your entire cowboy line says nothing, clarifies nothing about afghanistan.
it's entirely about your strange psychological preference for simplistic answers to complex questions.
and the thread isn't about you.

that better?

No, because you confuse issues.

On one level there is an emotional response to war. In a ten year war cycle these emotional responses change. Part of what I posted is related to that and you seem to conflate that with something else.

On another level there is a rational response to Obama's rhetoric regarding the war. Part of what I posted is related to that and you seem to conflate that with something else.

On another level...oh what's the point?

Baraka_Guru · 07-13-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not familiar with them and I doubt they represent anything other than an extreme small minority in this country.

It just so happens this extreme small minority is made up of people in (or previously in) positions of power and/or influence.

aceventura3 · 07-14-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It just so happens this extreme small minority is made up of people in (or previously in) positions of power and/or influence.

In the US? Who are you talking about? Perhaps there is a reason they are no longer in power.

Baraka_Guru · 07-14-2010, 01:05 PM

I'm talking about those who came up with, were signators, or were otherwise involved with the Project for the New American Century.

aceventura3 · 07-14-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm talking about those who came up with, were signators, or were otherwise involved with the Project for the New American Century.

I went to the website and most of the information is old but I found this, and as I read and interpret it, it is not as you describe. I would have signed it, my core belief is that if you don't live in freedom, my freedom is at risk and that freedom can not be taken for granted and requires strength to defend it:

Quote:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Statement of Principles

Baraka_Guru · 07-14-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I went to the website and most of the information is old but I found this, and as I read and interpret it, it is not as you describe. I would have signed it, my core belief is that if you don't live in freedom, my freedom is at risk and that freedom can not be taken for granted and requires strength to defend it

I didn't really do much to describe it; I merely pointed out that what you want and what they wanted are two different things. The goal of the New American Century wasn't to achieve world peace and to have people be free to live as they choose.

aceventura3 · 07-15-2010, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I didn't really do much to describe it; I merely pointed out that what you want and what they wanted are two different things. The goal of the New American Century wasn't to achieve world peace and to have people be free to live as they choose.

I want world peace and people to live in freedom, they do to or did when they where active.

Baraka_Guru · 07-15-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I want world peace and people to live in freedom, they do to or did when they where active.

That's a kind way of putting it. It's all very ends-justify-the-meansy.

Because, you know, American military superiority + American hegemony = world peace and universally free peoples. It's like mathematics. Every time you do the calculations, the same answer comes up.

We can see it happening even today. Afghanistan and Iraq were like failed experiments, and now the U.S. isn't sure how to call them off. It certainly isn't sure on how to take the next step in its crusade for world peace and free peoples. Maybe all it did wrong is make a few mistakes in the math. Maybe it just needs more military and hegemony.

Maybe China has some ideas. But don't let them get too carried away. They aren't American enough. But they're working on it.

aceventura3 · 07-15-2010, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

That's a kind way of putting it. It's all very ends-justify-the-meansy.

Because, you know, American military superiority + American hegemony = world peace and universally free peoples. It's like mathematics. Every time you do the calculations, the same answer comes up.

We can see it happening even today. Afghanistan and Iraq were like failed experiments, and now the U.S. isn't sure how to call them off. It certainly isn't sure on how to take the next step in its crusade for world peace and free peoples. Maybe all it did wrong is make a few mistakes in the math. Maybe it just needs more military and hegemony.

Maybe China has some ideas. But don't let them get too carried away. They aren't American enough. But they're working on it.

It is becoming difficult for me to follow you. What they want and what I want are the same - they elaborated on how to get there, I did not. American greatness does not necessarily mean it comes at the expense of others. Fighting for freedom is a necessary and worthy goal, it requires a strong military. I think you read things into their stated mission that is not there.

Is your argument that strong nations should not fight for the freedoms of oppressed people? I also know the concept of nation building and intervention is controversial, however, I think there is a role for strong nations, do you? And again, using Canada as an example, was your government wrong to use its military in a manner that supported the goals of PNAC in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Slims · 07-17-2010, 06:07 AM

It is a bit of a side topic, but regarding previous statements in this thread about the Northern Alliance:

I have had the pleasure during the past couple of days to speak with a Northern Alliance commander who has continued to work with the Americans following our entry into the conflict. I asked him specifically about the future of the Northern Alliance had we not entered the war when we did. Keep in mind that this is his opinion, but I trust him and do not think he had any reason to claim we were 'necessary.'

Basically it boiled down to this:

He told me the NA was more or less confined to Panshir Province, which was historically their stronghold. They had made inroads else where and had pushed as far south as Bagram with isolated areas of resistance in Laghman, Nangarhar and a few other provinces.

He told me that the progress they had made was going to be short lived. He explained that to be in Panshir at the time was a slow death sentance as the Taliban, having been unable to invade directly had decided to lay seige instead and used their superior numbers to cut off food and water which was depriving the people who supported the Northern Alliance of the bare necessities.

He explained that when Massoud was killed they were basically left leaderless with each element trying to fend for themselves rather than work together for survival. In his opinion, even had Massoud not been killed the NA would have only been able to hold out for another year or so as they simply could not get the resources necessary to sustain resistance.

It isn't hard documented fact, but it is the opinion of someone who was a participant and he definitely did not feel as though they were winning.

I wanted to share this because from his perspective (and that of many other Afghans) had we not gone to war they would have had no hope for any success or (relatively) moderate governance.

I also asked the Afghan Commander who we work with day to day (a different person) and he told me that as bad as things are now they are not nearly as bad as they were during the heyday of the Taliban. He was apparently imprisoned and beaten unconscious because he did not have a five-finger length beard and has no shortage of stories about Taliban Atrocities.

In my opinion this conflict is no longer about 'us' but rather supporting the people who have made a stand against extremism and whose lives depend upon bringing this conflict to a favorable resolution.

silent_jay · 07-17-2010, 10:09 AM

roachboy · 07-17-2010, 10:47 AM

slims: very interesting.

regarding the objective, however: if that's the case then we really are party inside a civil war. the idea is to prevent people who oppose the taliban from being killed or imprisoned or, in some cases, worse. which means that the us has become a patron or a warband inside a patronage or warband-style political system. the us is being looked to for the same kind of protection and/or support.

but that's a situation for folk who are invested in remaining in aghanistan because...well...they live there.

it can't be a comfortable situation for the us military.

but maybe i'm missing something: what is the way out? i assume its a military defeat of the taliban? how is that gonna work? for example, has the scenario changed with the pakistan-afghan border. media coverage kinda dwindled away after the confrontation around the swat valley as if somehow that resolved something--which i suppose it did (the situation around the swat valley)--but it doesn't logically (well, tactically but based on limited information, so logically) extend to any rearrangement of factions within the pakistani military, so any rearrangement of the system that protected the taliban in the border provinces etc etc etc....if that scenario is largely unchanged (in its outline-i imagine its detail moves continually) then how is a military defeat gonna happen? and without that, how can the us possibly get out?

Slims · 07-18-2010, 07:57 PM

Roachboy:

I don't think the goal is a military defeat of the taliban, but rather to simply undermine their power base until they are no longer effective and thus irrelevant.

We are working at this in a number of different directions, but the key avenue is through the local Afghans by empowering them to resist the taliban and deny them sanctuary in their villages...which will drive them into the mountains (where we can fight) or into Pakistan.

The situation with Pakistan is changing, though it remains strange and confusing. We definitely have no love lost with PAKMIL along our section of the border (they have shot at us several times already) and PAKMIL typically at least 'allows' INS activity. We have had a whole host of instances where suicide attacks were filmed from a PAKMIL OP, rockets were launched at us from within easy view of PAKMIL, PAKMIL patrols were used to shield INS rocket teams (we won't mortar when PAKMIL is around), INS 'rocketeers' flee to PAKMIL OP's when we fire upon them, etc.

The wierdness is this: PAKMIL along the Waziristan/Afghanistan border is more or less composed of local militia who are pretty supportive of the Taliban. PAKARMY is not. There seems to be a lot of recent pressure being placed upon PAKMIL to at least give the 'appearance' of cleaning up their act. The solution: Give up the foreign/arab fighters when they attempt to conduct attacks.

PAKMIL still seems unwilling to take any action against the regular Taliban, but has been shooting at/allowing us to shoot at foreign fighters operating near the border. This is probably because the foreign fighters are causing at least as much trouble inside Pakistan as they are in Afghanistan.

It is nowhere near what you would expect from an ally, but it is a big change from the past. This is resulting in foreign fighters being forced to operate out of Afghanistan where we can target them. Additionally, the foreign fighters do not understand the local customs and because they have no family in the country are typically forced to 'tax' and compel the local population to support them which means the locals hate them.

It is pretty telling that in my part of Afghanistan most INS are now foreign fighters fighting as proxies rather than locals who are inspired to take up arms.

aceventura3 · 07-19-2010, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

They were wrong in how they incrementally sent our soldiers to war. We never supported Iraq, which is why we never contributed troops. What are the goals in Afghanistan? Does anyone still know those?

Found this to be a good documentary on what went wrong with the way we sent out soldiers to war.
REVEALED: THE PATH TO WAR

As you know I have a problem with nuance, especially when it involves war. It seems to me Canada played both sides of the issue with the Iraq war.

Quote:

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[1] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[2] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.

Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel. The Prime Minister stated that the Canadian military was not involved in direct combat, while still fulfilling its commitment to NORAD. However, it was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C., openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq;[1] as Stein and Lang put it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."[4][1]

Canada and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

07-14-2010, 01:05 PM	#85 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'm talking about those who came up with, were signators, or were otherwise involved with the Project for the New American Century. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

07-17-2010, 06:07 AM	#91 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It is a bit of a side topic, but regarding previous statements in this thread about the Northern Alliance: I have had the pleasure during the past couple of days to speak with a Northern Alliance commander who has continued to work with the Americans following our entry into the conflict. I asked him specifically about the future of the Northern Alliance had we not entered the war when we did. Keep in mind that this is his opinion, but I trust him and do not think he had any reason to claim we were 'necessary.' Basically it boiled down to this: He told me the NA was more or less confined to Panshir Province, which was historically their stronghold. They had made inroads else where and had pushed as far south as Bagram with isolated areas of resistance in Laghman, Nangarhar and a few other provinces. He told me that the progress they had made was going to be short lived. He explained that to be in Panshir at the time was a slow death sentance as the Taliban, having been unable to invade directly had decided to lay seige instead and used their superior numbers to cut off food and water which was depriving the people who supported the Northern Alliance of the bare necessities. He explained that when Massoud was killed they were basically left leaderless with each element trying to fend for themselves rather than work together for survival. In his opinion, even had Massoud not been killed the NA would have only been able to hold out for another year or so as they simply could not get the resources necessary to sustain resistance. It isn't hard documented fact, but it is the opinion of someone who was a participant and he definitely did not feel as though they were winning. I wanted to share this because from his perspective (and that of many other Afghans) had we not gone to war they would have had no hope for any success or (relatively) moderate governance. I also asked the Afghan Commander who we work with day to day (a different person) and he told me that as bad as things are now they are not nearly as bad as they were during the heyday of the Taliban. He was apparently imprisoned and beaten unconscious because he did not have a five-finger length beard and has no shortage of stories about Taliban Atrocities. In my opinion this conflict is no longer about 'us' but rather supporting the people who have made a stand against extremism and whose lives depend upon bringing this conflict to a favorable resolution. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

07-17-2010, 10:09 AM	#92 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	... Last edited by silent_jay; 02-13-2011 at 11:06 AM..

07-17-2010, 10:47 AM	#93 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	slims: very interesting. regarding the objective, however: if that's the case then we really are party inside a civil war. the idea is to prevent people who oppose the taliban from being killed or imprisoned or, in some cases, worse. which means that the us has become a patron or a warband inside a patronage or warband-style political system. the us is being looked to for the same kind of protection and/or support. but that's a situation for folk who are invested in remaining in aghanistan because...well...they live there. it can't be a comfortable situation for the us military. but maybe i'm missing something: what is the way out? i assume its a military defeat of the taliban? how is that gonna work? for example, has the scenario changed with the pakistan-afghan border. media coverage kinda dwindled away after the confrontation around the swat valley as if somehow that resolved something--which i suppose it did (the situation around the swat valley)--but it doesn't logically (well, tactically but based on limited information, so logically) extend to any rearrangement of factions within the pakistani military, so any rearrangement of the system that protected the taliban in the border provinces etc etc etc....if that scenario is largely unchanged (in its outline-i imagine its detail moves continually) then how is a military defeat gonna happen? and without that, how can the us possibly get out? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-18-2010, 07:57 PM	#94 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Roachboy: I don't think the goal is a military defeat of the taliban, but rather to simply undermine their power base until they are no longer effective and thus irrelevant. We are working at this in a number of different directions, but the key avenue is through the local Afghans by empowering them to resist the taliban and deny them sanctuary in their villages...which will drive them into the mountains (where we can fight) or into Pakistan. The situation with Pakistan is changing, though it remains strange and confusing. We definitely have no love lost with PAKMIL along our section of the border (they have shot at us several times already) and PAKMIL typically at least 'allows' INS activity. We have had a whole host of instances where suicide attacks were filmed from a PAKMIL OP, rockets were launched at us from within easy view of PAKMIL, PAKMIL patrols were used to shield INS rocket teams (we won't mortar when PAKMIL is around), INS 'rocketeers' flee to PAKMIL OP's when we fire upon them, etc. The wierdness is this: PAKMIL along the Waziristan/Afghanistan border is more or less composed of local militia who are pretty supportive of the Taliban. PAKARMY is not. There seems to be a lot of recent pressure being placed upon PAKMIL to at least give the 'appearance' of cleaning up their act. The solution: Give up the foreign/arab fighters when they attempt to conduct attacks. PAKMIL still seems unwilling to take any action against the regular Taliban, but has been shooting at/allowing us to shoot at foreign fighters operating near the border. This is probably because the foreign fighters are causing at least as much trouble inside Pakistan as they are in Afghanistan. It is nowhere near what you would expect from an ally, but it is a big change from the past. This is resulting in foreign fighters being forced to operate out of Afghanistan where we can target them. Additionally, the foreign fighters do not understand the local customs and because they have no family in the country are typically forced to 'tax' and compel the local population to support them which means the locals hate them. It is pretty telling that in my part of Afghanistan most INS are now foreign fighters fighting as proxies rather than locals who are inspired to take up arms. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence