Really? From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...42.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008072203343&pos= Maybe a little less adventurism in other parts of the world while the Afghan War was still to be won might have meant no one would have needed to be there in 2008 to begin with. But I am sure you will rewrite history somehow to cover that mess up as well
You may or may not have noticed it, but you didn't respond to my points, you just went on a pointless rant about how much oil Iraq has. That has nothing to do with anything I said. We import far more oil from Canada than the relatively tiny amount we get from Iraq. By your logic, the US should have invaded Canada and instituted a civil war between the French and English speaking Canadians.
The problem with staying in Afghanistan is that we have successfully pushed the terrorists............into Pakistan. Frankly I would rather have them running free in Afghanistan which is a (*)(*)(*)(*) hole of a country and not in Pakistan which is unstable and corrupt and has nuclear weapons.
I don't know where people get this rubbish from. Iraq nationalised it's oil and gas as soon at it had an elected government. The US companies were in Iraq to keep the oil support going and keep exporting until a new government was put in place. These US companies made billions in profit from it of course, but the US government gave billions to the Iraqi government to make sure they didn't lose out. So people on the left like TYT say the US went in for oil, it is total rubbish. Really it is like banging you head off a brick wall these people never shutup and never change their mind dispite facts being different. I didn't know any of this until I subscribed to Stratfor, and after reading a few of their articles it blow me away. All I had been listening to in the news was half truth or rubbish, as the news never goes into great detail. Really you should just watch some of these disgrace leftwing shows on Youtube like TYT you will get so annoyed. Also the leftwing Libertarian shows aren't much better on foreign policy or defence.
Sorry my big friend but you are wrong. They are still in Afghanistan, just now they are also in Pakistan, so it calls for them to be crush between Pakistani and Afghan forces then a political settlement between the Pakistan government and their Taliban and the Afghanistan government and their Taliban. So the US could leave, if Afghan forces are upto it, but they aren't. Pakistan doesn't have the political will since the General left office. So ISAF forces should stay in a more mobile role helping the Afghan and Pakistani government with air support and speical operations.
Because it is Obama's war for minerals now. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Really just so happens we have troops there and what a soldier tripped over these billion dollars with of rare minerals? Why do we have people there looking for these minerals if the only reason we are there is to fight terrorism? Please since I'm so stupid educate me.
Let me ask you do we always send mineral experts into battle? Again we most have sent people there looking for this crap. Oil, minerals whatever. If this is all about fighting terrorism then please explain how mineral hunting fight terrorism?
I don't say you were stupid, I said your post was. No the US sent in people to find look for mining areas and found that Afghanistan had a lot of materials. Which it then showed to the Afghanistan government, which then asked for a more detailed mapping operation which was done and found at current price there could be $1 trillion with of minerials. However the mining operation would need to be done over decades and heavy machines would be needed. So the operation wouldn't be cost effective in the current environment in the region and lack of Afghan development. So it wasn't put into effect by the US. Which then means the Afghans are looking for other partners to help them from the Russians, Chinese and Indians. Even the UK is looking at it, using it's mining companies which are the best in the world and supported by Chinese money, but the Afghans didn't agree to it.
Why were we there looking for mining areas? Mining for what? What is America mining there? Why? Obama tells us we are there to fight terrorism. Not to fight the lack of mining areas.
Let's not be hasty and rule this out! After all, we're just the evulest imperialists ever. And Stuff.
- - - Updated - - - Which is exactly what we were doing in the Bush administration and it was working. The kill ratios in the first few years of the war were insanely in favor of our guys. Then Obama and Co. decided to repeat the mistakes that the Soviets did and put a bunch of redundant troops on the ground many of them in stationary positions which are easy to attack. And then to top off this wonderful exercise in stupidity they decided to treat Afghanistan like Iraq and send out highly visible patrols. We were doing fine with Spec Ops and air strikes, why the hell did they mess it up with more soldiers? Stick with sneaking around with a small footprint and bombing the crap out of them when you spot them. That being said there is absolutely no reason to stay their now as Al Queda have long since expanded to North Africa and East Asia. There is nothing of any value in Afghanistan that warrants the amount of resources we had there the last couple of years. What the hell are all those soldiers guarding? Just send over the guys that you need to hunt and kill them and that is it.
I blame the US generals for asking him to give them more troops. More troops are useless in a lightly populated country like Afghanistan, as you would need way more than you had in Iraq. It was a case of fighting the last war like always. However even this surge wasn't what the Generals had asked for, it was 60% what they asked for. My MP called Rory Stewart advised the US government and Obama himself not to increase troops numbers, but rather change the way the numbers already their operated as the Afghan force number and capabilities improved. My MP was also in the British army, the Black Watch regiment, so had some military experience, which Obama didn't have. I have talked to my MP about it and his basically said what you have said in military terms. He also goes into the cultural side of Afghanistan and how you are hurting the cause by sending more troops in which there has never been a government. My MP was also in Iraq for a time. If all you wanted to do was get rid of Al Queda then you could have bought off the Taliban and get them to kick out Al Queda, but the US wanted to destroy Al Queda and any future Islamic state in Afghanistan. So Bush sent in forces and lifted aid to Pakistan. The strategy as you say was working, but the General in Pakistan was removed from power and it stop working, it isn't Obama or Bush that stop it from working, it was what happened in Pakistan politics. You also could have used help from Iran on the eastern side of Pakistan, I am sure they have been helping the Taliban aswell, or rather Al Queda in Iran has been.
They were looking for better building materials and found minerals all over the place. They talking the Afghan government which asked them to do mapping of the minerials. The US isn't doing the mining because it isn't cost effective and the Afghan government wanted to keep the profits. So the US pays to setup a mining operation costing tens of billions of dollars then as soon as it is up and running the Afghan government takes it over taking all the profits so the US gains nothing. The profits go to the people in the government and the people of Afghanistan are left poorer than before.
LOL I read that whole thing with the voice of Mr Bean in my head since he is British like you are apparently. I don't know how much of a difference a change in Pakistani military leadership would actually make. Remember way early on when they thought they had Bin Laden cornered in that region with the caves, forgot what it was called, yet he somehow mysteriously passed through Pakistani checkpoints unscathed? Many people figured that they were bribed and it makes sense because years later where do we find Bin Laden.....in Pakistan of course. You are correct about it mostly being anyone who requested the additional troops but the fact of the matter is that the President is the Commander in Chief and the buck stops with him. I have never served in the military and yet from what little I read it seemed that we were kicking ass over there with the original plan. Why change it? OT: I think this might have been one of the reasons for underestimating the number of troops needed in Iraq early on, they probably figured they could use a similar strategy that worked so well in Afghanistan not realizing that just because they are in the same region that doesn't mean that either theater is even remotely similar to the other one. Man I should be Emper......I mean President of the United States. I know for a fact that I would not have made these idiotic mistakes.
It's not really coming from a particular source, it's more like an article of faith among those on the left that anything the US or other Western nations do in the middle east that they don't like is all about oil. Currently the US is on it's way to energy independence, but if those loons think that the US interest and involvement in the ME will end when we are finally independent of middle east oil, they are going to be profoundly disappointed. Oh I've subscribed to Stratfor in the past and it's surprising how the view of the middle east is different from what regular Print and TV journalism shows. Case in point, the Syrian boy Marwan was all over the US news as a boy walking alone in the desert trying to flee the country. That wasn't the case at all, but of course the corrections are tiny and the initial story is huge. What are most people going to remember?
So we are there to mine? To help them mine building materials? How is this a war on terror. Sounds like nation building
I hoped you would get the point, Mike, that with soooo much oil flying around in Iraq, the United States would certainly as the Number ONE take whatever it wants. After all, 4100 young American men and women lay down their lives for this precious commodity to keep America's hegemony intact for a while longer! Anyway, I searched around to find a better answer for you, since you seem to be unconvinced. "It's The Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig "Its the Oil" by Jim Holt Who will get Iraqs oil? One of the Bush administrations benchmarks for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraqs 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest including all yet to be discovered oil under foreign corporate control for 30 years. The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. They could even ride out Iraqs current instability by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush. How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By their permanent military bases in Iraq. One such facility, the Balad Air Base, lies forty miles north of Baghdad. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi. The runway at the base is one of the worlds busiest. But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as al-Qaida is exterminated. As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure. Read all here: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/oil.html ------------------------ This article dates from the time of the Bush administration. You, an American, can probably tell me, if and what of these oil-related statements has changed under Obama. You are welcome! My pleasure!!
I'm sorry, but in this particular section I'm used to discussing issues with more serious people. I suggest you seek out the conspiracy section for the like minded.
I don't know how many have heard of Sir Robert Thompson, if not I'll enlighten you. He passed away in 1992, but he was a British military officer and counter-insurgency expert. Most who study these sort of asymmetrical conflicts regard him as the world's leading expert on countering techniques of rural guerrilla insurgency. While this may have been more applicable to the Vietnam conflict, before his guidelines are dismissed as irrelevant to the situation in Afghanistan, let me break Thompson's elements down one by one. 1. The people are the key base to be secured and defended rather than territory won or enemy bodies counted. 2. There must be a clear political counter-vision that can overshadow, match or neutralize the guerrilla vision. 3. Practical action must be taken at the lower levels to match the competitive political vision. 4. Economy of force.("boots on the ground" are even more important than technological prowess and massive firepower) 5. Big unit action may sometimes be necessary 6. Aggressive mobility. 7. Ground level embedding and integration. 8. Cultural sensitivity. 9. Systematic intelligence effort. 10. Methodical clear and hold. 11. Careful deployment of mass popular forces and special units. 12. The limits of foreign assistance must be clearly defined and carefully used. 13. Time. I'm going to focus on #13. Time Sir Robert Thompson made it clear, that it is equally important to recognize when a cause is lost and the guerrillas have won. I'm just a sideline armchair general, without access to the intel and situation reports which might enable a reasonable assessment over the latter...have the insurgents in Afghanistan won? The goal is to train and support the Afghan security forces, and allow Afghanistan to control it's own fate...but even with that it's likely Afghanistan will forever be a loosely organized, predominantly tribal based structure. However success is to be measured it must take into account a tribal strategy. Ordinary Afghans tend to trust their tribal shuras aka councils, to solve their problems. I'd be very interested to know what Sir Robert Thompson thinks of all this, and what the best course of action is after 12 years 4 months have passed since Operation Enduring freedom was launched...but alas...he is no longer with us. He has seen the end of war...the rest of us...well Plato said it best. Only the dead have seen the end of war. Opinion of course.
I and others had a plan.....that would have just about ended the vast majority of our issues in Afghanistan. The Taliban and what is left of Al-Qaeda cross over the Afghan border into Waziristan....the Stone Age Tribal regions of Pakistan every late Fall and stay there through the winter and come back over to Afghanistan in Spring as no one want's to spend a Winter in Afghanistan. They come back every year in spring and do so at a very predictable time and method and use very well known routes and do this in mass. With our Satellite and Drone capabilities we can watch then cross back over into Afghanistan in REAL TIME and I and a few others had this plan where we would track them and using a massive force of B-52's...B-1's and some B-2's.....and using a wide variety of smart munitions....completely OBLITERATE their entire force crossing in spring across a 300 to 400 mile border. We would need to get the authorization from Pakistan to obliterate a 10 mile wide into Pakistan by 300 to 400 mile long length of the Pakistan side of the border and as well we would also bomb the same length 300 to 400 miles long but up to 30 miles inland into Afghanistan and this would basically END VIA ATTRITION....the problems attributed in Afghanistan specific to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We could certainly do this and I would not have to go through holding the Mother of a friend who died in Afghanistan in my arms again while she cried all because of some STUPID POLICY of winning hearts and minds!!! WAR IS WAR!!! We either FIGHT....or we make Political Decisions. The U.S. Military is more than capable of doing what I have just detailed and a hell of a lot more....but as they always cross mostly at the same time and since this crossing is mostly concentrated along the distances I have described...along with U.S. Military Drone and Satellite Data....we could END THEM!!! This should be done. AboveAlpha
Are you aware that 7 million tons of bombs were dropped by the U.S. during the Vietnam conflict? In comparison, 2 million tons of bombs were dropped during WW2. I do not believe overwhelming force is the solution, the insurgents will simply adapt. Simply put, there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan. The fantasy of firepower solutions to complex political problems is a time tested failure for these sorts of asymmetrical wars. In 2009, the U.S.top commander in Afghanistan at the time....General Stanley McChrystal, warned that overwhelming firepower from the United States is not the way forward in winning the Afghan war because the damage done to civilians is ultimately detrimental to our strategic goals. Much like the NVA and Viet Cong, the Taliban are losing the battles... but they are winning the war. I do not envision a dramatic increase in tonnage of bombs dropped on to a desolate and remote area, achieving much beyond smoking holes in the ground.
None of which has the slightest relevance to your claim that we had no cause to enter the war against Germany, despite the fact that they declared war on us. So I'll take this as a tacit admission that you're just making this crap up as you go. As for your ridiculous link, it seems to be one long whine about the fact that Roosevelt allowed Jews to serve in the government. No where does it address how Roosevelt might have induced Hitler to invade Poland, which was the actual start of the war.
Not carpet bombing....using VERY SPECIAL NEW Smart Munitions that air burst and sent Sub Munitions to IR-Signatures. Attrition works!! AboveAlpha
