Political posterizing redux.

[Svartalf]

Well, I'm not sure if Aghanistan did anything much to bother AQ ops, but Iraq sure did none, and did more harm than good, and if W had a mandate from DoG to eliminate dictators, I notice a whole lot of them that were left unbothered, starting with Kim (NK) and Lukashenko (Belarus)... or the Cuban commies

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, I'm not sure if Aghanistan did anything much to bother AQ ops, but Iraq sure did none, and did more harm than good, and if W had a mandate from DoG to eliminate dictators, I notice a whole lot of them that were left unbothered, starting with Kim (NK) and Lukashenko (Belarus).

[Ian]

Coito - You're missing the point of the analogy. The point is that both wars had been going on for some time before the REAL fighting started - at least as far as the US is concerned. The difference between them lies in the military judgement of the Presidents at the time. Roosevelt knew a western front against Germany was impossible in 1942 and 1943. Bush, however, knew that more decisive action in Afghanistan was possible in the early years, could've sent in more troops, but chose to put his available forces somewhere else and let Afghanistan simmer for a while instead.

It's your opinion that very little has been achieved in the last couple years. I consider that debateable.

It's my opinion that the surge should have happened back in 2002, which should have prohibited the Iraq War from happening at all. Had that been the case, we might not be talking about Afghanistan at all today, let alone Iraq.

No, your point is incorrect, as there was real fighting by American forces in Afghanistan beginning in October, 2011. The real fighting didn't just begin in 2009. What a ridiculous thing for you to say...

It's not ridiculous at all. Afghanistan was a lower priority for the Bush administration from mid-2002 onwards. You either know it and just can't own up to it, or else you don't know that, which makes you ignorant. I think it's the former, since no discussion of the history of the Afghan war can be complete without talking about how it took a back seat to Iraq for seven years, and in any discussion where Iraq comes up, it works out terribly for you.

The reason why additional troops in Afghanistan were not put in originally is the same reason they didn't work this time. More American troops didn't accomplish anything in the past 3 years, Ian, except more American dead.

That's really weak reasoning. No doubt you were in favor of a surge in Iraq, right? Despite the lower priority that Afghanistan received for all those years, the troop levels did slowly rise. What they did not do was surge to a level where they could make any real difference to the war's status quo until after Obama came into office.

If you think nothing much has been accomplished in the past 3 years except more Americans killed, then I'm going to respectfully disagree. We're on track to withdraw and hand over security to Afghan forces within two years, maybe sooner. There was no such end date set when Obama assumed office as far as I can recall. On the other hand, I think the Afghanistan conflict has, perhaps inevitably, adversely affected Pakistan in ways that we aren't even feeling yet. Continued destabilization of that country is not likely to work out well in any scenario.

However, I'm also going to disrespectfully disagree with you for having the nerve to make such an argument while at the same time remaining defiant that you supported the Iraq War all the way through. Your opinions on these conflicts only show that you care about supporting a Republican President and criticizing a Democratic one. You're welcome to throw the reverse charge at me, but I'm fine with it because 1) the wars are completely different, and 2) my never supporting the Iraq War in the first place had nothing to do with Bush being a Republican; it had everything to do with him being a geo-strategic imbecile.

[Svartalf]

Well, I'm not sure if Aghanistan did anything much to bother AQ ops, but Iraq sure did none, and did more harm than good, and if W had a mandate from DoG to eliminate dictators, I notice a whole lot of them that were left unbothered, starting with Kim (NK) and Lukashenko (Belarus).

irony.jpg

I know that... just was trying to keep the conversation at a level that might not demand he answer from deep lalaland.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, I'm not sure if Aghanistan did anything much to bother AQ ops, but Iraq sure did none, and did more harm than good, and if W had a mandate from DoG to eliminate dictators, I notice a whole lot of them that were left unbothered, starting with Kim (NK) and Lukashenko (Belarus).

irony.jpg

I know that... just was trying to keep the conversation at a level that might not demand he answer from deep lalaland.

DeNile runs right through the Republic of Republican.

(Ah, another poster! )

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - You're missing the point of the analogy. The point is that both wars had been going on for some time before the REAL fighting started - at least as far as the US is concerned. The difference between them lies in the military judgement of the Presidents at the time. Roosevelt knew a western front against Germany was impossible in 1942 and 1943. Bush, however, knew that more decisive action in Afghanistan was possible in the early years, could've sent in more troops, but chose to put his available forces somewhere else and let Afghanistan simmer for a while instead.

It's your opinion that very little has been achieved in the last couple years. I consider that debateable.

It's my opinion that the surge should have happened back in 2002, which should have prohibited the Iraq War from happening at all. Had that been the case, we might not be talking about Afghanistan at all today, let alone Iraq.

No, your point is incorrect, as there was real fighting by American forces in Afghanistan beginning in October, 2011. The real fighting didn't just begin in 2009. What a ridiculous thing for you to say...

It's not ridiculous at all. Afghanistan was a lower priority for the Bush administration from mid-2002 onwards. You either know it and just can't own up to it, or else you don't know that, which makes you ignorant. I think it's the former, since no discussion of the history of the Afghan war can be complete without talking about how it took a back seat to Iraq for seven years, and in any discussion where Iraq comes up, it works out terribly for you.

Whatever "back seat" you think it took doesn't change the fact that Obama added to the troop levels, and the death count, without any measurable result. if you take issue with that -- and apparently you do -- you'll have to explain what the achievements were.

The reason why additional troops in Afghanistan were not put in originally is the same reason they didn't work this time. More American troops didn't accomplish anything in the past 3 years, Ian, except more American dead.

That's really weak reasoning. No doubt you were in favor of a surge in Iraq, right? Despite the lower priority that Afghanistan received for all those years, the troop levels did slowly rise. What they did not do was surge to a level where they could make any real difference to the war's status quo until after Obama came into office.

And, apparently, they haven't surged to a level to make a difference, yet, since they haven't made a difference to the status quo there now.

If you think nothing much has been accomplished in the past 3 years except more Americans killed, then I'm going to respectfully disagree. We're on track to withdraw and hand over security to Afghan forces within two years, maybe sooner. There was no such end date set when Obama assumed office as far as I can recall. On the other hand, I think the Afghanistan conflict has, perhaps inevitably, adversely affected Pakistan in ways that we aren't even feeling yet. Continued destabilization of that country is not likely to work out well in any scenario.

Being on track to withdraw in two years is not an accomplishment. The situation there is not demonstrably different than it was in 2009. obama declaring an "end date" didn't require the surge.

However, I'm also going to disrespectfully disagree with you for having the nerve to make such an argument while at the same time remaining defiant that you supported the Iraq War all the way through. Your opinions on these conflicts only show that you care about supporting a Republican President and criticizing a Democratic one. You're welcome to throw the reverse charge at me, but I'm fine with it because 1) the wars are completely different, and 2) my never supporting the Iraq War in the first place had nothing to do with Bush being a Republican; it had everything to do with him being a geo-strategic imbecile.

The only argument I made, Ian, is that Obama hasn't accomplished anything with the surge. And, if your "he declared an end date," and "we're poised to leave in two years" are the two main examples you have of accomplishments, then i rest my case.

I NEVER supported a large contingent of forces in Afghanistan, and i have always thought that more troops in Afghanistan really meant more targets, with very little to accomplish. iraq was a relatively modern country, with big cities, infrastructure, and much more that needed to be brought under control. They had a more educated populace, and a lot more trained military personnel. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was best dealt with with special forces, smaller contingents, working with local forces like the northern alliance, because there is nothing much there to control except countryside, mountains, and small villages. Even their big cities like Kabul are worse than third world style.

I don't think that having smaller military forces in place X means that X is being given a back seat. Different theaters of war require different strategies. It's the same reason why Biden's answer to the question in the debate regarding Libya vs Syria is a good one, in principle. You won't use the same strategy in Syria as you will in Libya because they are different countries with different situations, demographics, geographies, economies, and the whole nine yards.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You empowered that regime. Suck it up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

You empowered that regime. Suck it up.

Better that on one than this one. Obama has really outdone himself...

[Ian]

The only argument I made, Ian, is that Obama hasn't accomplished anything with the surge. And, if your "he declared an end date," and "we're poised to leave in two years" are the two main examples you have of accomplishments, then i rest my case.

I NEVER supported a large contingent of forces in Afghanistan, and i have always thought that more troops in Afghanistan really meant more targets, with very little to accomplish. iraq was a relatively modern country, with big cities, infrastructure, and much more that needed to be brought under control. They had a more educated populace, and a lot more trained military personnel. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was best dealt with with special forces, smaller contingents, working with local forces like the northern alliance, because there is nothing much there to control except countryside, mountains, and small villages. Even their big cities like Kabul are worse than third world style.

I don't think that having smaller military forces in place X means that X is being given a back seat. Different theaters of war require different strategies. It's the same reason why Biden's answer to the question in the debate regarding Libya vs Syria is a good one, in principle. You won't use the same strategy in Syria as you will in Libya because they are different countries with different situations, demographics, geographies, economies, and the whole nine yards.

Withdrawing on schedule is not exactly worth a victory parade down Broadway, but it's an accomplishment. Being able to do so without leaving Kabul and the government there to the mercy of the Taliban is good enough - and no, I don't think it would have been possible without a surge in troops. You're welcome to disagree, but that's the way it is.

However, YES, Afghanistan did take a back seat to Iraq. It wasn't just a matter of one strategy being different from the other, although the countries were quite different. Even ignoring the issue of how many troops were in one place vice another, other resources going to one campaign vice the other (most notably intelligence) seals that case. Iraq had the higher priority, not merely a different priority. I'm actually going to play the ethos card here: I was in the military through all that time and you were not, and I have zero doubt whatsoever that Iraq was the top priority between 2002 and 2009. Ignore that if you like, I don't care.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You empowered that regime. Suck it up.

Better that on one than this one. Obama has really outdone himself...

Yep, sure, okay, you got it, right, well done.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still waiting for that apology.

[Gerald McGrew]

You empowered that regime. Suck it up.

Better that on one than this one. Obama has really outdone himself...

There ya' have it...the President who wrecked the country in so many ways is better than the one who's been trying to clean up the mess. Why? Simply because the former is a Republican and the latter is a Democrat.

Simplistic tribalism at its very worst.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You empowered that regime. Suck it up.

Better that on one than this one. Obama has really outdone himself...

There ya' have it...the President who wrecked the country in so many ways is better than the one who's been trying to clean up the mess. Why? Simply because the former is a Republican and the latter is a Democrat.

Simplistic tribalism at its very worst.

I do lots of documents from the '30s and '40s, including speeches. The mindset you note hasn't changed in all that time. Republicans' first job is to sabotage any Democratic government, regardless of what it does to the country. Selfish and sick, but the scary part is it's voluntary. You don't have to be a Republican, and you can ask for help to get over it if you are one.