newyorker.com— There are no good options for the United States in Afghanistan. That has been the conventional wisdom for some years now, and this time the conventional wisdom—the reigning cliché—happens to be true.
Dec 7, 2009View in Crawl 4
Anyone who doubts the virtual impossibility of "winning" in Afghanistan need only ask the British Empire and Soviet Union about that. Oh, wait, nevermind.
He is setting us up to be in Afghanistan for a very very long time with this failure of a strategy. He is doing almost a bad a job on foreign policy as Bush did. I guess you can say at least Obama eventually brought in more troops when the Generals wanted more, Bush just ignored the request for 20,000 more troops last year.I am completely against these two wars, but if they really want to fight these wars then give the generals the troops they need.
If you really want to understand America's foreign policy during the last century, I recommend reading Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. As I have recently been honorably discharged from the armed forces, I do not support our occupation of Afghanistan nor the numerous other countries we maintain bases in.However, when it comes to competing global powers, Afghanistan's location is essential in maintaining a strategic advantage. The occupation of Afghanistan has little to do with fighting terrorism.
Does that argument deduce from your previous statement, or are you challenging the opposition now?In objection to position number two (which I assume you support), there are many questions I would like answered:Who are we fighting? Is it an idea or an organization?Will our presence in Afghanistan provide rebels with sympathetic supporters as in our previous conflicts?What will be the end result? Can we root out terrorism and live happily ever after, or are we destined to fight forever?While I don't approve of Republican foreign policy, in accordance with your desires, it proved to be successful. The foreign policy of George W. Bush successfully halted further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. That's what we all wanted, right?As for me, I support position number one.
Well, if the US was not fighting two completely different wars on two completely different fronts in two completely disconnected non-geographically connected countries - we would be able to muster the extra 10,000 from within existing ranks.Obama has a shortage of troops but it is not his fault he does.There is a Major shortage now, pun intended. A lot of trained, experienced officers decided not to reenlist this decade. You heard about the "stop-loss" policy, right? So you realize the implicatoins in terms of what a lot of the service wanted to do and the fact that tehy were not going to stay in, once they were allowed to get out after their contracts had expired. Bear in mind that their contracts had expired and they did not renew them, they were just not being allowed out.It is absurd to call this Obama's fault. Iraq did not prepare the US for Afghanistan either. Just the opposite. If you read the news this week, then you know that the US is abandoning a phenomenal amount of expensive vehicles & weaponry in Iraq. You know, that stuff that was so expensive we could not even afford to armor the vehicles but finally managed to scrape up the dollars to enhance a bunch? All gone.We are leaving that materiel in the hands of the country we invaded, trusting them to put it to good, peaceful use while a frontless, sectarian, civil war rages on. Up to $30 million dollars worth of equipment per location in Iraq will be left behind. For Afghanistan, new vehicles will be bought from our busted treasury or US troops will ride vehicles that are decades old. But they will not be riding the new ones we bought this decade to use in Iraq.Bush and Obama are not similar. The only thing that is similar was the conditions on Bush's last day in office and on Obama's first day in office. Don't forget that.
amyvernonDec 7, 2009
Anyone who doubts the virtual impossibility of "winning" in Afghanistan need only ask the British Empire and Soviet Union about that. Oh, wait, nevermind.
northmassDec 7, 2009
He is setting us up to be in Afghanistan for a very very long time with this failure of a strategy. He is doing almost a bad a job on foreign policy as Bush did. I guess you can say at least Obama eventually brought in more troops when the Generals wanted more, Bush just ignored the request for 20,000 more troops last year.I am completely against these two wars, but if they really want to fight these wars then give the generals the troops they need.
jbwagesDec 8, 2009
If you really want to understand America's foreign policy during the last century, I recommend reading Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. As I have recently been honorably discharged from the armed forces, I do not support our occupation of Afghanistan nor the numerous other countries we maintain bases in.However, when it comes to competing global powers, Afghanistan's location is essential in maintaining a strategic advantage. The occupation of Afghanistan has little to do with fighting terrorism.
jbwagesDec 8, 2009
Does that argument deduce from your previous statement, or are you challenging the opposition now?In objection to position number two (which I assume you support), there are many questions I would like answered:Who are we fighting? Is it an idea or an organization?Will our presence in Afghanistan provide rebels with sympathetic supporters as in our previous conflicts?What will be the end result? Can we root out terrorism and live happily ever after, or are we destined to fight forever?While I don't approve of Republican foreign policy, in accordance with your desires, it proved to be successful. The foreign policy of George W. Bush successfully halted further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. That's what we all wanted, right?As for me, I support position number one.
johnnysoftwareDec 12, 2009
Name any recent predecessor that has a better record as a community organizer.
johnnysoftwareDec 12, 2009
Well, if the US was not fighting two completely different wars on two completely different fronts in two completely disconnected non-geographically connected countries - we would be able to muster the extra 10,000 from within existing ranks.Obama has a shortage of troops but it is not his fault he does.There is a Major shortage now, pun intended. A lot of trained, experienced officers decided not to reenlist this decade. You heard about the "stop-loss" policy, right? So you realize the implicatoins in terms of what a lot of the service wanted to do and the fact that tehy were not going to stay in, once they were allowed to get out after their contracts had expired. Bear in mind that their contracts had expired and they did not renew them, they were just not being allowed out.It is absurd to call this Obama's fault. Iraq did not prepare the US for Afghanistan either. Just the opposite. If you read the news this week, then you know that the US is abandoning a phenomenal amount of expensive vehicles & weaponry in Iraq. You know, that stuff that was so expensive we could not even afford to armor the vehicles but finally managed to scrape up the dollars to enhance a bunch? All gone.We are leaving that materiel in the hands of the country we invaded, trusting them to put it to good, peaceful use while a frontless, sectarian, civil war rages on. Up to $30 million dollars worth of equipment per location in Iraq will be left behind. For Afghanistan, new vehicles will be bought from our busted treasury or US troops will ride vehicles that are decades old. But they will not be riding the new ones we bought this decade to use in Iraq.Bush and Obama are not similar. The only thing that is similar was the conditions on Bush's last day in office and on Obama's first day in office. Don't forget that.