Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

Saddam had continuously attached our allies, Israel and Kuwait.

Noriega was running a criminal enterprise, sending massive amounts of illegal drugs to the U.S. Afghanistan harbored the people who launched 9/11.

I could go on and on ...

If England was attacked by Russia tomorrow and the U.S. became involved, the leftist world media would label the situation “American military adventurism” in a war the Americans “have no business sticking their nose in”.

 

What the hell makes you think Russia would attack this effing madhouse? Anyhoo, even if you did come in to 'help' us you'd only make it worse. You have form, you know?

 

yes, American has the tiger by the tail, gonna be ugly when we let go though

 

Continuously eh. May I remind you Saddam was a US ally too. And, in fact, he informed the US, in the form of US Ambassador, April Glaspie, of his intentions to invade Kuwait because he wanted the US to sanction it. And they did (HERE, HERE & HERE).

So that dog of your don't hunt...

Yes he was. on behalf of the CIA. Or have you never heard about the late Barry Seal's drug running operation (HERE)?

Ho hum...

Since you clearly care for fantasy might I recommend Tolkien and his book about the nassie ol' leftist who stole Gollum's precious too. And Disney's story about that poor princess Snow White who ate the nassie ol' poisoned apple prepared by the evil witch.

 

The answer to the problem of Afghanistan is to look to our Constitution.

According to the Constitution, the Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. They effectively did just that right after the 9/11 attacks. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor.

If I were the President right now, I would remind the Congress and the people of these facts. And I would inform Congress that I would give them a month or two to debate the issue and vote on it. I would inform Congress that if they do not vote, I will withdraw all our forces from Afghanistan immediately. And if they vote to remain in Afghanistan then they must support increased military operations and increased cost, for at our current levels, we're losing ground. And, of course, if they vote to end the war, so be it. I would inform the Congress that these are options I would agree to, according to their wishes. And finally, I would inform the Congress that there is one thing I would not agree to, and that is the status quo which means the continuing loss of young Americans lives in Afghanistan for nothing.

Seth

 

The more important matter Seth is why the the US went to war in Afghanistan - not the mechanics of how the war was authorised. I personally have always been pretty much convinced by the facts concerning the oil and gas motive (HERE) and, of course, that would never have played with the US public at the time so other reasons had to be contrived. Out jumped the Taliban in the box and the dastardly Saudi Osama bin Laden.

But I would point out that there is no international legality for the US to have been in Syria for example. The US reverts to international law when it suits its agenda and ignores it when it doesn't --- heads I win, tails you lose. That's power at work.

 

No, I've never bought the idea that we went to Afghanistan for oil, gas, minerals, etc, etc.

I think we can make a "self defense" case for going into Syria strictly to destroy ISIS. Now that that mission is virtually completed, we should get out of Syria. Syria's civil war was never any of our business, and we should never have interjected ourselves into it.

 

No Seth, Congress did NOT declare war. In fact, the last time Congress did that was in 1941.

What history books do you read? Fox News or some other MSM propaganda source.

The Global War On Terror is a fraud perpetrated by war profiteers and other scoundrels. Why do you believe the nonsense?

 

The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. It does not say how the Congress must do that. The form of the declaration is left strictly up to them. In the case of Afghanistan, they called it an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). It doesn't matter what they call it, because the Constitution does not specify what they must call it. In 1941 they called it a Declaration of War. But they could have called it an AUMF, or they could have called it the "Pearl Harbor Resolution". Hell, the title could have been "Mickey Mouse loves Mini Mouse" as long as it authorized the war..

It ... doesn't ... matter. They fulfilled their Constitutional duty by voting for the war and calling it an AUMF.

 

AUMF is pure sophistry Seth. Article II of the Constitution already declares POTUS to be C-in-C. As FDR put it, POTUS cannot declare war, but he can wage war.

If he knew that in the last century, WTF makes the AUMF necessary? Sophistry sir, pure hogwash and I don't buy it.

Congress declared war for WWI and WWII in accordance with Constitutional procedures, why not for the WOT? Because it's deception, that's why.

 

Respectfully Seth, it's a s clear as day that oil and gas was the motivating reason - whether or not you agree.

Then cast your mind further back to when the US was helping and using ISIS in Syria as part of its regime change strategy. It's only more recently that this shifted to be, apparently, an anti-ISIS thing.



John McCain meeting al-Baghdai, the Caliph of ISIS (on left) in an illegal visit to Syria in April 2013. Al-Baghdadi was one of the five most wanted terrorists at the time.

Even the US does not have a legal right to enter another country against the wishes of the elected government. And self-defence is not a valid argument. This was always about regime change.



As former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, makes clear we Brits spearheaded the Syrian regime change plan on behalf of Israel. We would not have done that without a nod and a wink sanction from the USA (Obama).

 

The man in the photo is not Baghdadi. That has been debunked.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-meets-isis-leader/

That said, I do think the U.S. fecklessly enabled ISIS, but I don't think they intended to. Neo-cons like McCain, Hillary, and Obama thought the Arab Spring was all about freedom and democracy - likening their struggle to our own revolutionary past. I knew from Day 1 that they were all wrong, and I was right.

And, I'm sorry, but that bit about the oil and gas lines in Afghanistan as being the reason for the invasion is conspiracy theory stuff that I do not believe.

Keep in mind that every country in the world has some sort of natural resource or at least acts as a conduit for the movement of resources. That being the case, any war fought anywhere may be de-legitimized by pointing at that country's natural resources and then concocting some nefarious U.S. connection with those resources. It's like saying we declared war on Japan as an excuse to stop their fishing fleet because we want to have hegemony over fishing in the ocean.

 

To be clear, the decision to wage war belongs to the Congress. The carrying out of a war is given to the President. FDR was right. The POTUS wages the war. But it is the Congress that decides to go to war.

I don't think so. There was no deception about it. Read the Constitution for yourself if don't believe me. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about how Congress "declares war", only that they have the power to do it. There is absolutely no functional difference between a "Declaration of War Against Terror", or a "Declaration of War Against Afghanistan", or a "Declaration of War Against Al Qaeda" and an AUMF that authorizes the President to wage war against Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or "Terror". No functional difference. And Congress voted on it. It's like trying to say the "fall" season isn't "fall" unless you call it "autumn".

The intent of the Framers was to place the decision to go to war into the hands of the People through their elected representatives, not in the hands of one man. As long as Congress and the President abide by that original intent, what they call it simply doesn't matter. If it mattered so much, the Framers would have said more about it, but they didn't. It was the intent that mattered to them.

 

Afghanistan proved to be a disastrous intervention to two world powers before the US became the third.
I believe it was the British who called Afghanistan "The Poisoned Chalice" and the Russians, I believe, called it "The place where Empires go to die."

At any rate, I see absolutely no way for the US to continue to occupy Afghanistan with any positive results in the immediate or distant future while the US continues to sacrifice $ Billions & countless American lives.

I, too don't believe that the US is in Afghanistan for its resources but feel that US Bases in Afghanistan are there for the containment of Iran & possible later use against Iran if & when Israel is successful in, again, getting America to fight another war(1) on Israel's behalf wasting even more American blood and resources (2).

Can you think of any other reason that the US Government has not learned from the lessons of the British & the Russians?


(1) "But few remember what AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003: "Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."

And in a New Yorker profile of Steven Rosen, AIPAC's policy director during the run-up to the war on Iraqi, it was stated that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraqi war".

https://www.sott.net/article/158160-And-the-winner-is-the-Israel-lobby


(2) "Netanyahu & the Lobby Cowboy Up For War With Iran"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/netanyahu-the-lobby-cowbo_b_3611038.html

EXCERPT "But Netanyahu’s fear-mongering has made a difference. The Israel lobby here has made confronting Iran the centerpiece of its activities on Capitol Hill, successfully drafting and easily convincing both Democrats and Republicans to enact sanctions that punish the Iranian people along with resolutions making clear that the U.S. will go to war if Iran doesn’t give up its nuclear program."CONTINUED

 

Isn't it a distinctively LEFT bias for NYT and Washington Post?

 

It was disputed by John McCain's manager who cannot, in a million sunsets, be called a reliable source -it's akin to the gunman holding the smoking pistol looking at the body on the floor in front of him saying I didn't shoot him.

That argument is just not sustainable given the huge amount of information that is now publicly available - and this is also why I posted the French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, speaking of the British background in Syria (the Brits would not dare move unless Obama gave them a nod and a wink). The US assisted and encouraged ISIS early on HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE - before claiming to fight them (although there is lot of evidence that they also continued to protect ISIS, for example HERE).

I accept that you don't care for it, but to call it a conspiracy theory is a bit low, I think. And clearly is unsupported by the evidence: HERE & HERE.

In the case of the US and the Unocal pipeline in Afghanistan the connection between the war and oil is all too obvious, so arguments that it is simply accidental are naive and really don't fly.

 

I think their bias is neocon/neoliberal. Considerations of Left and Right no longer apply to adherent of neoliberal economic ideology.

 

Aren't "conservative" and "liberal" opposites?

 

What changed in the Constitution regarding the Declaration of War between 1941 and 2001?

Nothing.

Congress abdicated its responsibilities, and not for the first time. AUMF was and is pure political sophistry. Many are gullible enough to fall for the hoax, but I'm not one of them.

Of course they might have realized the utter absurdity of declaring war on a tactic or strategy, as opposed to declaring war against a country that had attacked us.

The events of 911 were staged events, and most people including me fell for the deception. I'm glad I eventually overcame my cognitive dissonance.

 

We need to fight an ideological war in addition to a physical one. Part of that is being every bit the hero we claim to be by doing everything in our power to avoid collateral damage, particularly in the form of civilians.

 

I'm afraid that the only way to avoid collateral damage is a complete US Military withdrawal from not just Afghanistan but other distant Mid East - Cent. Asian countries where US Troops are neither wanted nor appreciated.
Not only are US Troops occupying Afghanistan & Syria not wanted, they are strongly resented & serve as excellent recruitment tools for more radical extremist groups.

In other words, the US is not fighting terrorism in these lands so far away, it is nurturing terrorism by our very presence in the region at an enormous cost to the US & its sons & daughters in uniform.

 

You are right. This guy has obviously never been in a war. Especially in a war where the enemy hides among the civilians, collateral damage is unavoidable. I also love this Pollyanna idea that all we need to do is win the "ideological" war. Tell me how we work that. We send a bunch of guys who don't speak your language, are of a religion you hate, they kill your friends and neighbors, they blow up your country, they hit on your women, their cultural values are completely different than yours. However, they are going to win over your heart and mind. Give me a break. Who is the moron who came up with this?

 

It sounds like you've got a pretty good understanding of how American occupiers are perceived in the Islamic lands the occupy.

The argument made by the pro War chicken hawks for continuing to make a bad situation worse is that we can't "Cut and Run" because we would betray our allies.
Firstly, that argument is made almost always by those who are not doing the fighting and, secondly, we have no reliable allies in the region.
As for the "...moron who came up with this?", I suspect that there were several as well as foreign influences who very much want to to keep as many US Troops in the region as long as possible.
An equally compelling question is: "Who will have the guts to confront those foreign & domestic war mongers and withdraw America from these inextricable and distant quagmires?"

Thanks,

 

Let's face the truth, the only ally we have is Great Britain. The rest are only allies when it benefits them. Anyone call the Kurds an ally is an idiot. Arming them guarantees an unstable region. They have been a displaced people for a century and will do anything to regain a homeland.

I am no dove but I learned the hard way in Vietnam that you can't win without a plan. Just fighting to maintain the status quo is a loser. I can not support any conflict without a stated and achievable mission.

Who will pick up the slack when we pull out? I don't know or care. It won't be any of the European countries. They have been on the sidelines so long that other than GB none of them even have a real military anymore. I am more in favor of the regions taking care of themselves and the US selling the hardware to countries that best support our values. That is the key factor in any real conflict. You are either supplied with cheap Russian junk or outfitted by the US. In fact, our involvement in these conflicts is what keeps them going. It is time to let the regional powers settle their own problems.

 

We fight wars wrong. You go in and wipe out all resistance, then quickly leave. Let the country rot. This sends a clear message that fighting us is a very bad thing. Instead we rebuild the place and attempt to make democracies which takes forever and still has mixed results.