Political posterizing redux.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

No, it isn't the way "it is," it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Feel free to back it up.

Presently, the insurgency in Afghanistan is able to basically strike at will throughout the country. In mid-September, there was assault on a coalition base in southern Afghanistan that killed two U.S. troops and destroyed six coalition fighter jets, and a suicide attack in Kabul by an insurgent group that killed 12 people. In September, senior combat leader in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, said insurgent violence has not gone down a "statistically significant" amount. The insurgency remains alive and well, and attacking more than ever, despite what you want to pretend the reality is. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... didnt-work

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.

You're not getting it. Whether it took a back seat or not does not change the fact that obama's afghanistan policy and the surge really has not worked.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You won't own Dubya, your bitching about Obama is just lame.

[Ian]

You're not getting it. Whether it took a back seat or not does not change the fact that obama's afghanistan policy and the surge really has not worked.

2008: NATO intelligence estimates Taliban has grown to 25,000 dedicated Taliban fighters, more than at any time since the Nov. 2001 invasion.
2010: U.S. policy called for boosting the Afghan National Army to 134,000 soldiers by October. Goals met in May
2010: NATO special forces begin concentrating on surgical operations to capture or kill specific Taliban leaders. Well over 2000 low and mid-level Taliban commanders killed to date, not counting an unknown number of foot-soldiers.
2011: Afghan Army on track to reach its ultimate number of 171,000 by 2011. This increase in Afghan troops was intended to allow the U.S. to begin withdrawing American forces in July 2011.
2011: Northern Alliance (anti-Taliban) re-forms.
2012: NATO ISAF leaders endorse an exit strategy during the May NATO summit in Chicago.
Summer 2012: Violent incidents at their lowest level since 2007 (peak was summer 2010).
2009-Present: Eight years after the start of the war, Republicans gripe over Obama's failed Afghanistan policies and the increase in US casualties.

So, I think Afghanistan is a mess but the progress is demonstrably headed in the right direction. Nobody will be celebrating with ticker-tape parades when the last troops come out, but the potential of the Taliban's remnants returning to power (i.e. the reason for the war in the first place) will be much diminished. However, the potential of Pakistan going kaput before the decade is out may be higher.

[Coito ergo sum]

You won't own Dubya, your bitching about Obama is just lame.

All your juvenile silliness aside, it doesn't change the fact that the surge didn't achieve any real results, and dramatically increased the body count. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, even by pointing to another sow.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian - Whether they "endorse an exit strategy" says nothing about whether the surge worked. Why do you insist on obfuscating? Did you read the link I provided -- certainly NOT some sort of right wing source -- and nothing you typed changes that. Sure -- we're leaving. But we're leaving with Afghanistan in roughly the same condition it was in 2009.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You won't own Dubya, your bitching about Obama is just lame.

All your juvenile silliness aside, it doesn't change the fact that the surge didn't achieve any real results, and dramatically increased the body count. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, even by pointing to another sow.

Are you too cowardly to own Dubya?

[Ian]

Ian - Whether they "endorse an exit strategy" says nothing about whether the surge worked. Why do you insist on obfuscating? Did you read the link I provided -- certainly NOT some sort of right wing source -- and nothing you typed changes that. Sure -- we're leaving. But we're leaving with Afghanistan in roughly the same condition it was in 2009.

Perhaps you didn't read the line below that one.

It's better than it was in 2009. The summer fighting season in 2010 was the peak of violence in Afghanistan. Summer 2011 was lower than 2010. Summer 2012 has been lower than any year since 2008 (EDIT: 2012 was slightly above 2008). Meanwhile, the Afghan army continues to grow.

Maybe we should revisit this post in a year and see if the trend suddenly reverses itself and you're proven to be correct, that the summer 2013 will see an upswing in the violence. Until then, I'm "obfuscating" with some facts to show that the surge does, in fact, seem to have produced good results. Insurgent attacks have dropped for two years now. Nothing you type is going to change the statistics.

[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.

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.

Earlier this year I read a summary of psychological profiles of conservatives and liberals. One of the things it showed is that conservatives place a much, much higher importance on loyalty. Liberals barely value it at all, and instead value objectivity much more.

Both tendencies have their utility in different situations, but it certainly does explain much of my interactions with conservatives, most recently in this forum.

[Gerald McGrew]

So what exactly is Mitt Romney's plan for Afghanistan?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So what exactly is Mitt Romney's plan for Afghanistan?

"...and they all lived happily ever after." The rest is secret.

[kiki5711]

United Nations organization set to monitor US polling places on Election Day



http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/21/unite ... ction-day/

[Gerald McGrew]

Now back to the fun...

[Gerald McGrew]

[kiki5711]

[Kristie]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it seriously made me LOL.

552387_363374707085331_1580276366_n.jpg (34.15 KiB) Viewed 246 times