Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian Schoeneman
()
Date: May 25, 2011 01:59PM
There are times when I feel as if our enemies remember our own history better than we do. Lately, there has been a loud chorus from both sides of the aisle to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Some of this is partisanship, some of it is simply anti-war nonsense, but I feel that a lot of it is just fatigue. America wrote the book on how to defeat a global superpower by tiring them out. We shouldn’t allow that to happen to us.
With my son’s birthday falling on the same day as Pickett’s Charge and Washington’s taking command of the Continental Army at Cambridge, Massachusetts – and it being one day prior to Independence Day – I’ve found myself reading a lot of history, particularly of the American Revolution. While many claim (erroneously) that Afghanistan is America’s longest war (we fought the Sioux for 36 years, and Vietnam arguably lasted 13, from 1961 – 1973), up until the latter half of the twentieth century, one of our longest wars was the Revolutionary War (lasting from 1775 to 1784 when the Treaty of Paris went into effect).
The Revolution was a turning point in western history. Never before had a colony declared independence from its home country successfully. Never before had a monarchy been replaced by a republican form of government. And never before had a world superpower been defeated by such a relatively weak opponent. How did they do it? Washington and our forefathers adopted an age old strategy first introduced by the Romans in the Second Punic War. Military historians call it the Fabian strategy. For those of us who aren’t channeling Edward Gibbons, the Fabian strategy can be summed up simply: win by not losing.
Washington rarely faced the British on their terms in a set piece battle like Waterloo or Austerlitz. He never gave the British the opportunity to destroy his army. He attacked where he could, retreated when necessary, ignored British capture of major cities like New York and Philadelphia, and recognized that as long as he had an army in the field, the war would continue. And the longer he kept that army in the field, the more likely he would be victorious. And he was. It took 9 years, but we prevailed and the United States won its independence from the world’s greatest military power. The longer the war dragged on, the more unpopular it became in Great Britain and the more hard pressed George III was to continue it.
Lee used the same strategy after Gettysburg, doing his best to maintain his army in the field, and was able to prolong the Civil War for another 2 years. While he was unsuccessful, had the South been able to sustain his army in the field, American history may have turned out far different.
So what does this have to do with Afghanistan? Simple – the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan seem to remember our own history better than we do.
The best and most effective way of defeating a world power is to tire them out. The Afghans know this – they learned it against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. They know it because they know that it worked against us in Vietnam. And they know it because we used it against Britain in 18th century. Force the larger power to expend resources, maintain its army in the field, never give them a decisive victory, and wait for their internal political forces to bring the war to an end, regardless of the cost or the potential for victory. It’s a time proven strategy, and those who are agitating for an end to the war in Afghanistan are playing right into it.
Whether it’s Ron Paul, Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele or the legions of Democrats who don’t seem to recall President Obama’s statements about Afghanistan being the real war that President Bush ignored in favor of Iraq, all of the folks who are being hypercritical of the President, our Afghanistan strategy and demanding we end the war in Afghanistan now are simply playing into the hands of our enemies. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are counting on us getting worn out, tired of spending our time and resources there, and are prepared to simply wait until we decide to leave before working directly to topple the Karzai government.
It’s a great strategy. Why try and fight the most powerful army the world has ever seen on their terms? Isn’t easier to just let the American politicians and talking heads win the war for you? Of course it is. Why defeat the Americans on the battlefield when their own politicians and reporters will do it for you over the airwaves? Why not let them convince the American people and their leaders that the war isn’t worth it, we’re wasting our time and we should just head home? Let them obscure the reasons why the war began. Let them act like victory is impossible. Let them play politics with war. A victory is a victory, regardless of how it is won. And if we give up, that’s a clear-cut victory for the enemies of America. They know it, and they’re right.
If we, the American people, lose our resolve and let these short-sighted and even shorter-memoried talking heads and politicians compel the President to end this war before we’ve achieved a complete victory we’ll be handing a complete victory to our enemies. An American victory will only be achieved when we have nullified Al Qaeda in the region (including in Pakistan), nullified the Taliban as a political and military force and enabled a self-sufficient and self-governing Afghanistan to emerge – in whatever form it takes. I am confident that General Petraeus will be successful, and I am hopefully optimistic that President Obama recognizes, as his predecessor did, that this war is too important to let politics interfere.
Politicians have never won a war, but they have lost quite a few. We can’t afford to let Afghanistan become one of the latter. If Afghanistan becomes a failed state, we’ll be back in the same position we were pre-9/11, with Afghanistan being a haven for terrorists of a variety of flavors, including Al Qaeda. We can’t afford to let that happen.
While I am often critical of the Obama Administration, this is one area where I support it – we must achieve victory in Afghanistan. The price of failure is too high. Let’s remember our history and not allow lessons we taught the world to be retaught to us.
With my son’s birthday falling on the same day as Pickett’s Charge and Washington’s taking command of the Continental Army at Cambridge, Massachusetts – and it being one day prior to Independence Day – I’ve found myself reading a lot of history, particularly of the American Revolution. While many claim (erroneously) that Afghanistan is America’s longest war (we fought the Sioux for 36 years, and Vietnam arguably lasted 13, from 1961 – 1973), up until the latter half of the twentieth century, one of our longest wars was the Revolutionary War (lasting from 1775 to 1784 when the Treaty of Paris went into effect).
The Revolution was a turning point in western history. Never before had a colony declared independence from its home country successfully. Never before had a monarchy been replaced by a republican form of government. And never before had a world superpower been defeated by such a relatively weak opponent. How did they do it? Washington and our forefathers adopted an age old strategy first introduced by the Romans in the Second Punic War. Military historians call it the Fabian strategy. For those of us who aren’t channeling Edward Gibbons, the Fabian strategy can be summed up simply: win by not losing.
Washington rarely faced the British on their terms in a set piece battle like Waterloo or Austerlitz. He never gave the British the opportunity to destroy his army. He attacked where he could, retreated when necessary, ignored British capture of major cities like New York and Philadelphia, and recognized that as long as he had an army in the field, the war would continue. And the longer he kept that army in the field, the more likely he would be victorious. And he was. It took 9 years, but we prevailed and the United States won its independence from the world’s greatest military power. The longer the war dragged on, the more unpopular it became in Great Britain and the more hard pressed George III was to continue it.
Lee used the same strategy after Gettysburg, doing his best to maintain his army in the field, and was able to prolong the Civil War for another 2 years. While he was unsuccessful, had the South been able to sustain his army in the field, American history may have turned out far different.
So what does this have to do with Afghanistan? Simple – the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan seem to remember our own history better than we do.
The best and most effective way of defeating a world power is to tire them out. The Afghans know this – they learned it against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. They know it because they know that it worked against us in Vietnam. And they know it because we used it against Britain in 18th century. Force the larger power to expend resources, maintain its army in the field, never give them a decisive victory, and wait for their internal political forces to bring the war to an end, regardless of the cost or the potential for victory. It’s a time proven strategy, and those who are agitating for an end to the war in Afghanistan are playing right into it.
Whether it’s Ron Paul, Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele or the legions of Democrats who don’t seem to recall President Obama’s statements about Afghanistan being the real war that President Bush ignored in favor of Iraq, all of the folks who are being hypercritical of the President, our Afghanistan strategy and demanding we end the war in Afghanistan now are simply playing into the hands of our enemies. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are counting on us getting worn out, tired of spending our time and resources there, and are prepared to simply wait until we decide to leave before working directly to topple the Karzai government.
It’s a great strategy. Why try and fight the most powerful army the world has ever seen on their terms? Isn’t easier to just let the American politicians and talking heads win the war for you? Of course it is. Why defeat the Americans on the battlefield when their own politicians and reporters will do it for you over the airwaves? Why not let them convince the American people and their leaders that the war isn’t worth it, we’re wasting our time and we should just head home? Let them obscure the reasons why the war began. Let them act like victory is impossible. Let them play politics with war. A victory is a victory, regardless of how it is won. And if we give up, that’s a clear-cut victory for the enemies of America. They know it, and they’re right.
If we, the American people, lose our resolve and let these short-sighted and even shorter-memoried talking heads and politicians compel the President to end this war before we’ve achieved a complete victory we’ll be handing a complete victory to our enemies. An American victory will only be achieved when we have nullified Al Qaeda in the region (including in Pakistan), nullified the Taliban as a political and military force and enabled a self-sufficient and self-governing Afghanistan to emerge – in whatever form it takes. I am confident that General Petraeus will be successful, and I am hopefully optimistic that President Obama recognizes, as his predecessor did, that this war is too important to let politics interfere.
Politicians have never won a war, but they have lost quite a few. We can’t afford to let Afghanistan become one of the latter. If Afghanistan becomes a failed state, we’ll be back in the same position we were pre-9/11, with Afghanistan being a haven for terrorists of a variety of flavors, including Al Qaeda. We can’t afford to let that happen.
While I am often critical of the Obama Administration, this is one area where I support it – we must achieve victory in Afghanistan. The price of failure is too high. Let’s remember our history and not allow lessons we taught the world to be retaught to us.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:00PM
JACK DALE MUST GO
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Dr. Bomaby
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:02PM
Respectfully, Afghanistan would have to be a “state” prior to being a failed one. And while this is one point that you and I tend to agree on, I just wonder what “victory” really looks like? Civil society of a form significant enough to marginalize the Taliban (mark them as the religious cooks they are) took about 400 years to develop in the West. Are we going to let the gates of the Temple of Janus stay open that long?
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Bert Lancaster
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:02PM
The United States should have been out of Afghanistan two years ago.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Tom Paine
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:03PM
It is one thing when you are fighting for your own freedom (Revolutionary War and War of 1812, the preservation of the Union (Civil War), or the preservation of other nations (WWI, WWII, and Korean War or even the first Gulf War)but it takes a lot of hubris to support wars of territorial acquisition (Mexican War and Spanish American War) or wars based upon political ideology or phony threats (Vietnam War and the Iraq War) and wars to preserve corrupt dictatorships (Afghanistan War).
But since I am only a veteran grunt from the Korean War, who am I to judge the superior wisdom of the American people or my political/ideological superiors, particularly those who never served but who obviously know better than me!
But since I am only a veteran grunt from the Korean War, who am I to judge the superior wisdom of the American people or my political/ideological superiors, particularly those who never served but who obviously know better than me!
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:03PM
TP, I can understand why you’d be critical of President Obama and Vice President Biden not having served in the military, but at the same time, having served is not a prerequisite to being elected to those positions.
As von Clausewitz said, war and politics are two sides of the same coin. It has always been the politicians who decide when to go to war, and the military determines how to win it – and when we’ve lost, it’s been because the politicians took over the military’s role, not vice versa.
I disagree with your characterizations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam and Iraq were preemptive strikes against nations that had the potential of undermining US national security – Vietnam by allowing a spread of communism throughout southeast asia, thus threatening Japan and South Korea, and Iraq because of the incorrect belief that Saddam had WMDs and could give them too terrorists.
Afghanistan was originally fought to oust the Taliban, capture bin Laden, and eradicate Al Qaeda. Now we’re trying to ensure that our ouster of the Taliban and suppression of Al Qaeda doesn’t leave a power vacuum that can be exploited by those same groups as soon as we leave. It makes no sense to spend the time, money and blood we’ve spent in Afghanistan, then simply walk away and let the place revert to the state it was in before we got there.
We can’t afford to do that, and thus we’re in this for the long haul. Obama is right to keep us there.
As von Clausewitz said, war and politics are two sides of the same coin. It has always been the politicians who decide when to go to war, and the military determines how to win it – and when we’ve lost, it’s been because the politicians took over the military’s role, not vice versa.
I disagree with your characterizations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam and Iraq were preemptive strikes against nations that had the potential of undermining US national security – Vietnam by allowing a spread of communism throughout southeast asia, thus threatening Japan and South Korea, and Iraq because of the incorrect belief that Saddam had WMDs and could give them too terrorists.
Afghanistan was originally fought to oust the Taliban, capture bin Laden, and eradicate Al Qaeda. Now we’re trying to ensure that our ouster of the Taliban and suppression of Al Qaeda doesn’t leave a power vacuum that can be exploited by those same groups as soon as we leave. It makes no sense to spend the time, money and blood we’ve spent in Afghanistan, then simply walk away and let the place revert to the state it was in before we got there.
We can’t afford to do that, and thus we’re in this for the long haul. Obama is right to keep us there.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Tom Paine
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:04PM
Brian:
Nice try. no cigar!
I know thagt I come from a quaint generation (i. e. old-fashioned) where if you believed in and supported a war, the patriotic thing to do (also old-fashioned) was to man up and put your body where your mouth was.
Now I supported the Korean War (because I was young and foolish and belived in the domino theory). After I got out of the Navy in four years and went to college, my U. S. foreign policy professor (Foster Rhea Dulles — cousin of John Foster Dulles) made me aware of my misconception about the domino theory.
I also supported the war in Afghanistan (in spite of my knowledge of the sad history of Western nations making war in that country) because that was were the Taliban-led government had given haven to Al Queada to plan and lead the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, the Bush
administration took their eyes off the ball and decided that the priority was to bring democracy to Iraq and their oil to the U. S. And we all know how that worked out; we got rid of Saddam, inherited a largely ungovernable country with a civil war and got no oil. Hardly a rousing success!
But the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, messing around in Iraq, and (according to many sources) possibly about to take over Pakistan with its store of nuclear weapons. Another rousing success!
When we finally leave Afghanistan, it will still be ruled by warlords and the so-called central government of Hamid
Karzai will be hanging by a slender thread in Kabul until the Taliban drives him into exile where he can live a luxurious lifestyle on all the money he, his brother and friends scammed from the U. S. taxpayers.
Hopefully, by that time I will be sitting in an urn in Arlington National Cemetery and laughing at all you Republicans who oppose government spending on the welfare of American citizens but are willing to bankrupt the nation for foolish wars on foreign soil. Good luck on the domino theory as a continuing guide to conduct foreign affairs and military policy; you may find yourself in unform serving on the front line (if there is a sp;ecific front line).
Until then, If we keep “winning” wars like this, we will all wind up speaking Arabic and attending our local mosques every morning, mid-day, afternoon, and evening. I’m already trying to orient my prayer postion towards Mecca.
Nice try. no cigar!
I know thagt I come from a quaint generation (i. e. old-fashioned) where if you believed in and supported a war, the patriotic thing to do (also old-fashioned) was to man up and put your body where your mouth was.
Now I supported the Korean War (because I was young and foolish and belived in the domino theory). After I got out of the Navy in four years and went to college, my U. S. foreign policy professor (Foster Rhea Dulles — cousin of John Foster Dulles) made me aware of my misconception about the domino theory.
I also supported the war in Afghanistan (in spite of my knowledge of the sad history of Western nations making war in that country) because that was were the Taliban-led government had given haven to Al Queada to plan and lead the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, the Bush
administration took their eyes off the ball and decided that the priority was to bring democracy to Iraq and their oil to the U. S. And we all know how that worked out; we got rid of Saddam, inherited a largely ungovernable country with a civil war and got no oil. Hardly a rousing success!
But the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, messing around in Iraq, and (according to many sources) possibly about to take over Pakistan with its store of nuclear weapons. Another rousing success!
When we finally leave Afghanistan, it will still be ruled by warlords and the so-called central government of Hamid
Karzai will be hanging by a slender thread in Kabul until the Taliban drives him into exile where he can live a luxurious lifestyle on all the money he, his brother and friends scammed from the U. S. taxpayers.
Hopefully, by that time I will be sitting in an urn in Arlington National Cemetery and laughing at all you Republicans who oppose government spending on the welfare of American citizens but are willing to bankrupt the nation for foolish wars on foreign soil. Good luck on the domino theory as a continuing guide to conduct foreign affairs and military policy; you may find yourself in unform serving on the front line (if there is a sp;ecific front line).
Until then, If we keep “winning” wars like this, we will all wind up speaking Arabic and attending our local mosques every morning, mid-day, afternoon, and evening. I’m already trying to orient my prayer postion towards Mecca.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:04PM
TP, I don’t think it’s quaint or old fashioned for folks to serve if they’re called to service, as my grandfather was. He served in World War II in the Navy even though he had five children and could have gotten a deferment. I never knew him, but his example is what led me to join the NROTC when I was in college. Unfortunately, I was a better politician than I was a mathematician and the Navy wasn’t interested in politicians at the time. Oh well.
It was a different time before the all-volunteer military. When you were growing up, it was common – as you noted – for those who supported the war to go fight it. And for those that didn’t, they got drafted – except for the rich or the well connected.
Iraq did result in one major success – there is now a viable democracy in the heart of the middle east that does not support terror and is a US ally. Sounds like a victory to me.
We’re not going to lose in Afghanistan, and the Taliban isn’t going to become resurgent there or in Pakistan – assuming that President Obama maintains his backbone and doesn’t allow politics to force us from the region before we’ve stabilized it. Unlike the Persians, British and Soviets before us, we’re not in Afghanistan to take it over. We’re there protect ourselves from what happens when the bad guys take it over. There’s a difference.
When we finally leave – and it may be quite a long time – we should leave the people of the region better off than when we found them.
It was a different time before the all-volunteer military. When you were growing up, it was common – as you noted – for those who supported the war to go fight it. And for those that didn’t, they got drafted – except for the rich or the well connected.
Iraq did result in one major success – there is now a viable democracy in the heart of the middle east that does not support terror and is a US ally. Sounds like a victory to me.
We’re not going to lose in Afghanistan, and the Taliban isn’t going to become resurgent there or in Pakistan – assuming that President Obama maintains his backbone and doesn’t allow politics to force us from the region before we’ve stabilized it. Unlike the Persians, British and Soviets before us, we’re not in Afghanistan to take it over. We’re there protect ourselves from what happens when the bad guys take it over. There’s a difference.
When we finally leave – and it may be quite a long time – we should leave the people of the region better off than when we found them.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Tom Paine
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:05PM
“Iraq did result in one major success – there is now a viable democracy in the heart of the middle east that does not support terror and is a US ally. Sounds like a victory to me.”
My standards for a viable democracy and a victory in Iraq are not quite as low as yours.
I’m glad to hear that your grandfather was
a real patriot; I knew a lot of political science majors in the U. S. Navy, even a few political ones. Perhaps you contacted the wrong navy; McHale’s navy never did exist!
“Unlike the Persians, British and Soviets before us, we’re not in Afghanistan to take it over.”
The Afghans do not believe that, but as long as Karzai can continue to helicopter a few million U. S. dollars out Kabul each day, he should be able to survive until the U. S. goes bankrupt or the U. S. troops pull out, whichever comes first!
By the way, you forgot to mention the Macedonians and Alexander the Great. History did not start in the 19th century or even with the Persians!
Politics will not force the U. S. out of Afghanistan; money and troop deaths will do the job; of course if we can get some of the right wing war mongers (not you) to
join up and fight, the war could last a few more days. Good luck on that, the right
just starts the wars and leaves the poor and desperate to actually do the fighting.
My standards for a viable democracy and a victory in Iraq are not quite as low as yours.
I’m glad to hear that your grandfather was
a real patriot; I knew a lot of political science majors in the U. S. Navy, even a few political ones. Perhaps you contacted the wrong navy; McHale’s navy never did exist!
“Unlike the Persians, British and Soviets before us, we’re not in Afghanistan to take it over.”
The Afghans do not believe that, but as long as Karzai can continue to helicopter a few million U. S. dollars out Kabul each day, he should be able to survive until the U. S. goes bankrupt or the U. S. troops pull out, whichever comes first!
By the way, you forgot to mention the Macedonians and Alexander the Great. History did not start in the 19th century or even with the Persians!
Politics will not force the U. S. out of Afghanistan; money and troop deaths will do the job; of course if we can get some of the right wing war mongers (not you) to
join up and fight, the war could last a few more days. Good luck on that, the right
just starts the wars and leaves the poor and desperate to actually do the fighting.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:05PM
TP, it was the US Navy, and it was 1997 – CNET was being stingy with the scholarships and my D in calculus wasn’t going to cut it. I spent two years in NROTC training and was told I wouldn’t get a scholarship and with my math grades, I might not even get a commission. I decided to cut my losses. As a result, I spent another 4 years in college, making up for the time I lost. I wish I could have got the scholarship and served, and I’m still friends with a number of my shipmates from back then, but I’m 100% positive that this is the path God wanted me on, so I’m fine with how things shook out.
Just as an FYI, the Persians conquered Afghanistan before Alexander. That was my attempt to cover recorded history, but thanks for reminding me. My Greek wife will kill me for leaving him out.
Money and troop deaths are political factors, not military factors. I’m not fan of the Karzai government, but I just don’t see another viable alternative. We are working, as far as I know, with the warlords in the territory that isn’t controlled by Kabul, but I don’t know how viable that will be once we’re gone.
What can I say about Iraq – Joe Biden has proclaimed our success there as a key accomplishment of the Obama Administration. Who am I to contradict him on that?
Just as an FYI, the Persians conquered Afghanistan before Alexander. That was my attempt to cover recorded history, but thanks for reminding me. My Greek wife will kill me for leaving him out.
Money and troop deaths are political factors, not military factors. I’m not fan of the Karzai government, but I just don’t see another viable alternative. We are working, as far as I know, with the warlords in the territory that isn’t controlled by Kabul, but I don’t know how viable that will be once we’re gone.
What can I say about Iraq – Joe Biden has proclaimed our success there as a key accomplishment of the Obama Administration. Who am I to contradict him on that?
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Jack Hoff
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:05PM
Afghanistan is not worth one American life, sorry to say that but it is true. It is a nation in name only. There are hundreds of different tribal lords just like Mafia chiefs. They will always be in a struggle for control especially over the lucrative poppy profits.
The only ones that can resolve the conflicts are the Afghan people themselves.
The only ones that can resolve the conflicts are the Afghan people themselves.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Tom Paine
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:05PM
Please see all the recent media and leakef government reports on Afghanistan and then tell me once again how things are going so well in Afghanistan; sounds a lot like Vietnam to me.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:06PM
Jack Hoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Afghanistan is not worth one American life, sorry
> to say that but it is true. It is a nation in name
> only. There are hundreds of different tribal lords
> just like Mafia chiefs. They will always be in a
> struggle for control especially over the lucrative
> poppy profits.
> The only ones that can resolve the conflicts are
> the Afghan people themselves.
I said things were going well in Iraq. I said we’re making progress but we still have a long way to go in Afghanistan and leaving would be irresponsible.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Afghanistan is not worth one American life, sorry
> to say that but it is true. It is a nation in name
> only. There are hundreds of different tribal lords
> just like Mafia chiefs. They will always be in a
> struggle for control especially over the lucrative
> poppy profits.
> The only ones that can resolve the conflicts are
> the Afghan people themselves.
I said things were going well in Iraq. I said we’re making progress but we still have a long way to go in Afghanistan and leaving would be irresponsible.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Sgt Rock
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:06PM
Keep repeating that chant as our embassy staff in Kabul and our Afghan supporters are airlifted by helicopter from the roof of the U.S. Embassy.
Obviously, you are too young to remember a similar event in Saigon.
Obviously, you are too young to remember a similar event in Saigon.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:07PM
Comparing Afghanistan to the American Revolution is one of the worst analogies ever,,,I'm not gonna waste my time breaking it down point by point,,
WE NEED TO LEAVE NOW,,,
WE NEED TO LEAVE NOW,,,
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Loopy lou
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:14PM
#! ASZHOLE A DURKA DURR!!!!!!!!!!!
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JACK DALE MUST GO
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JACK DALE MUST GO
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
ChainBridge
()
Date: May 25, 2011 02:21PM
Brian,
Since you're running for Delegate I looked at your website and couldn't
find any mention of your position on illegal immigration. I am a
conservative who usually votes Republican and the only exception
I've made in the last 25 years was for Chap Petersen for Senate when
Jean Marie jumped ship and started pretending to be Nancy Pelosi.
IMHO, all rpt. ALL employers should be required to E-Verify all
employees and the sooner the better. I would like to hear your views in
another thread if possible.
Thanks
Since you're running for Delegate I looked at your website and couldn't
find any mention of your position on illegal immigration. I am a
conservative who usually votes Republican and the only exception
I've made in the last 25 years was for Chap Petersen for Senate when
Jean Marie jumped ship and started pretending to be Nancy Pelosi.
IMHO, all rpt. ALL employers should be required to E-Verify all
employees and the sooner the better. I would like to hear your views in
another thread if possible.
Thanks
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Brian
()
Date: May 25, 2011 03:23PM
ChainBridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian,
> Since you're running for Delegate I looked at your
> website and couldn't
> find any mention of your position on illegal
> immigration. I am a
> conservative who usually votes Republican and the
> only exception
> I've made in the last 25 years was for Chap
> Petersen for Senate when
> Jean Marie jumped ship and started pretending to
> be Nancy Pelosi.
> IMHO, all rpt. ALL employers should be required to
> E-Verify all
> employees and the sooner the better. I would like
> to hear your views in
> another thread if possible.
> Thanks
Alright that's a fair statement. I will do so this afternoon and look forward to seeing your feedback.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian,
> Since you're running for Delegate I looked at your
> website and couldn't
> find any mention of your position on illegal
> immigration. I am a
> conservative who usually votes Republican and the
> only exception
> I've made in the last 25 years was for Chap
> Petersen for Senate when
> Jean Marie jumped ship and started pretending to
> be Nancy Pelosi.
> IMHO, all rpt. ALL employers should be required to
> E-Verify all
> employees and the sooner the better. I would like
> to hear your views in
> another thread if possible.
> Thanks
Alright that's a fair statement. I will do so this afternoon and look forward to seeing your feedback.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: May 25, 2011 04:23PM
Obama should have pulled back in Afghanistan when he had the chance. Instead he went ahead and poured in more troops and resources, and really there is very little chance for changing what goes on there.
Better would be to pull back but leave some CIA or other covert operators in country, and then use drones and missiles to keep the Taliban and others in check blowing up identified training and staging areas. There are some commercial mineral rights issues that are going to come up soon, but the last thing we need is to be mired in providing military cover for commercial ventures in country.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Better would be to pull back but leave some CIA or other covert operators in country, and then use drones and missiles to keep the Taliban and others in check blowing up identified training and staging areas. There are some commercial mineral rights issues that are going to come up soon, but the last thing we need is to be mired in providing military cover for commercial ventures in country.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: May 25, 2011 04:53PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but
> the last thing we need is to be mired in providing
> military cover for commercial ventures in country.
Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but
> the last thing we need is to be mired in providing
> military cover for commercial ventures in country.
Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:10PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...but
> > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> providing
> > military cover for commercial ventures in
> country.
>
>
>
>
> Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
What commercial ventures are the US involved in over there? Last I heard the majority of large dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and now Iran is getting a contract for supplying natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of this type are we using our military to cover for - or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
Iraq was about a lot of things - some part of that was oil no doubt. But all I keep hearing is how the US companies are NOT getting contracts in Iraq. In Afghanistan there have been reports of geological surveys showing large mineral deposits that would provide a commercial interest in the country - but to develop those means you need to have a secure area to develop them in. More likely you will see Afghanistan continue to be treated like parts of Africa where a company or government run company will come in and provide large amounts of money to local warlords to provide security - in other words pay them protection money so the business interests will be 'protected'.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 05:11PM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...but
> > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> providing
> > military cover for commercial ventures in
> country.
>
>
>
>
> Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
What commercial ventures are the US involved in over there? Last I heard the majority of large dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and now Iran is getting a contract for supplying natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of this type are we using our military to cover for - or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
Iraq was about a lot of things - some part of that was oil no doubt. But all I keep hearing is how the US companies are NOT getting contracts in Iraq. In Afghanistan there have been reports of geological surveys showing large mineral deposits that would provide a commercial interest in the country - but to develop those means you need to have a secure area to develop them in. More likely you will see Afghanistan continue to be treated like parts of Africa where a company or government run company will come in and provide large amounts of money to local warlords to provide security - in other words pay them protection money so the business interests will be 'protected'.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 05:11PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:16PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ...but
> > > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> > providing
> > > military cover for commercial ventures in
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
>
> What commercial ventures are the US involved in
> over there? Last I heard the majority of large
> dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian
> firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and
> now Iran is getting a contract for supplying
> natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of
> this type are we using our military to cover for -
> or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his
> ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
>
> Iraq was about a lot of things - some part of that
> was oil no doubt. But all I keep hearing is how
> the US companies are NOT getting contracts in
> Iraq.
We aren't just talking about this moment, what is happening today.
KBR, which used to be a part of Halliburton, benefited greatly from military protection. You must be really naive if you think that the military doesn't protect overseas commercial interests.
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ...but
> > > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> > providing
> > > military cover for commercial ventures in
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
>
> What commercial ventures are the US involved in
> over there? Last I heard the majority of large
> dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian
> firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and
> now Iran is getting a contract for supplying
> natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of
> this type are we using our military to cover for -
> or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his
> ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
>
> Iraq was about a lot of things - some part of that
> was oil no doubt. But all I keep hearing is how
> the US companies are NOT getting contracts in
> Iraq.
We aren't just talking about this moment, what is happening today.
KBR, which used to be a part of Halliburton, benefited greatly from military protection. You must be really naive if you think that the military doesn't protect overseas commercial interests.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Roc
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:17PM
Whenever I hear the word "Afghanistan" I immediately think of Vietnam. A neverending war with little or no benefit to our country with a large cost in lives, equipment, and money. When one fights a war, one needs to go in with a "Winning Strategy". Traditionally, winning a war is defined as either defeating or destroying the enemy. This is an enemy that does not believe in compromise and needs to be utterly destroyed.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:21PM
Roc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whenever I hear the word "Afghanistan" I
> immediately think of Vietnam. A neverending war
> with little or no benefit to our country with a
> large cost in lives, equipment, and money. When
> one fights a war, one needs to go in with a
> "Winning Strategy". Traditionally, winning a war
> is defined as either defeating or destroying the
> enemy. This is an enemy that does not believe in
> compromise and needs to be utterly destroyed.
+1
The Taliban is dug in like ticks and aren't going away no matter how much country building we do. Our tactics and strategy aren't any better than what the Soviets tried doing when they came into Afghanistan.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whenever I hear the word "Afghanistan" I
> immediately think of Vietnam. A neverending war
> with little or no benefit to our country with a
> large cost in lives, equipment, and money. When
> one fights a war, one needs to go in with a
> "Winning Strategy". Traditionally, winning a war
> is defined as either defeating or destroying the
> enemy. This is an enemy that does not believe in
> compromise and needs to be utterly destroyed.
+1
The Taliban is dug in like ticks and aren't going away no matter how much country building we do. Our tactics and strategy aren't any better than what the Soviets tried doing when they came into Afghanistan.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:30PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ...but
> > > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> > providing
> > > military cover for commercial ventures in
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
>
> What commercial ventures are the US involved in
> over there? Last I heard the majority of large
> dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian
> firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and
> now Iran is getting a contract for supplying
> natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of
> this type are we using our military to cover for -
> or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his
> ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
So our military is providing security for OTHER country's commercial interests in Iraq,,,
Well, I feel so much better now,,,
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ...but
> > > the last thing we need is to be mired in
> > providing
> > > military cover for commercial ventures in
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good thing that never happened in Iraq.
>
> What commercial ventures are the US involved in
> over there? Last I heard the majority of large
> dollar contracts were going to Chinese and Russian
> firms. In particular for drilling oil wells - and
> now Iran is getting a contract for supplying
> natural gas. So what other commercial ventures of
> this type are we using our military to cover for -
> or were? Looks like another eesh 'talking out his
> ass' moment on something he knows nothing about.
So our military is providing security for OTHER country's commercial interests in Iraq,,,
Well, I feel so much better now,,,
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:32PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We aren't just talking about this moment, what is
> happening today.
>
> KBR, which used to be a part of Halliburton,
> benefited greatly from military protection. You
> must be really naive if you think that the
> military doesn't protect overseas commercial
> interests.
Maybe you should talk to Clinton about all the no bid contracts he gave to Haliburton.
The "military protection" you are talking about was being used by a lot of folks to provide protection for whatever reason they were in the country. That had very little to do with our military other than the fact that many of those guys were former military or just some dumb lugs from the US who made the cut as a merc. There was some protection afforded to the folks securing the EXISTING well heads and pumping operations - but that was part of the rebuilding we were obligated to for blowing a bunch of the shit up (or causing Saddam's folks to blow them up).
The other "para-military" types were typically those folks were just hired for physical security and were not supposed to be doing any "combat" operations. (You should speak to some CID folks who worked over there - then you might actually understand who was getting paid to do what and why). The problem with the Blackwater (and other commercial security) folks is that they are NOT uniformed military but were trying to act like they were.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> We aren't just talking about this moment, what is
> happening today.
>
> KBR, which used to be a part of Halliburton,
> benefited greatly from military protection. You
> must be really naive if you think that the
> military doesn't protect overseas commercial
> interests.
Maybe you should talk to Clinton about all the no bid contracts he gave to Haliburton.
The "military protection" you are talking about was being used by a lot of folks to provide protection for whatever reason they were in the country. That had very little to do with our military other than the fact that many of those guys were former military or just some dumb lugs from the US who made the cut as a merc. There was some protection afforded to the folks securing the EXISTING well heads and pumping operations - but that was part of the rebuilding we were obligated to for blowing a bunch of the shit up (or causing Saddam's folks to blow them up).
The other "para-military" types were typically those folks were just hired for physical security and were not supposed to be doing any "combat" operations. (You should speak to some CID folks who worked over there - then you might actually understand who was getting paid to do what and why). The problem with the Blackwater (and other commercial security) folks is that they are NOT uniformed military but were trying to act like they were.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: May 25, 2011 05:45PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should talk to Clinton about all the no
> bid contracts he gave to Haliburton.
You skipped right over Bush and Cheney, interesting.
> The "military protection" you are talking about
> was being used by a lot of folks to provide
> protection for whatever reason they were in the
> country. That had very little to do with our
> military other than the fact that many of those
> guys were former military or just some dumb lugs
> from the US who made the cut as a merc. There was
> some protection afforded to the folks securing the
> EXISTING well heads and pumping operations - but
> that was part of the rebuilding we were obligated
> to for blowing a bunch of the shit up (or causing
> Saddam's folks to blow them up).
It's not just the private military contractors like Xe and Triple Canopy that are providing physical security to commercial interests. It's the military too.
> (You should speak to some CID folks
> who worked over there - then you might actually
> understand who was getting paid to do what and
> why).
Clearly, since you had some conversations with CID agents, you are a subject matter expert on what is happening in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should talk to Clinton about all the no
> bid contracts he gave to Haliburton.
You skipped right over Bush and Cheney, interesting.
> The "military protection" you are talking about
> was being used by a lot of folks to provide
> protection for whatever reason they were in the
> country. That had very little to do with our
> military other than the fact that many of those
> guys were former military or just some dumb lugs
> from the US who made the cut as a merc. There was
> some protection afforded to the folks securing the
> EXISTING well heads and pumping operations - but
> that was part of the rebuilding we were obligated
> to for blowing a bunch of the shit up (or causing
> Saddam's folks to blow them up).
It's not just the private military contractors like Xe and Triple Canopy that are providing physical security to commercial interests. It's the military too.
> (You should speak to some CID folks
> who worked over there - then you might actually
> understand who was getting paid to do what and
> why).
Clearly, since you had some conversations with CID agents, you are a subject matter expert on what is happening in Iraq.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Get Real Brian!
()
Date: July 07, 2014 10:08AM
Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>Iraq because of the incorrect
> belief that Saddam had WMDs and could give them
> too terrorists.
>
No, Brian. Recently uncovered documents show clearly the reason Bush/Cheney went to war in Iraq was to get control of their under-utilized oil reserves. Cheney's secret "energy summit" in early 2001 actually carved out the Iraqi oil fields for the big oil companies. Getting rid of Saddam would lift the oil restrictions and allow Iraqi oil to flow freely.
But these recently uncovered documents show really nothing new.
The British newspapers reported on May 1, 2005, the "Downey Street Memo." The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te Downing Street memo should have been your first clue as to the real reason for going to war, and what the fake reason really was. You Brian, ignored it.
Did you not see the documentary "Why We Did it." Of course you didn't. It showed interviews from people in the CIA, and in the George W. Bush administration clearly citing the reasons for war and how the facts were manipulated so we could justify war. It showed a clear time line from the secret "Energy Summit" to the invasion itself on how under-utilized oil reserves were he driving force in the Bush administration, not WMD's. You ignored that report.
Actually, when the invasion started, The Washington Post reported the evidence of WMD's was "flimsy." You ignored that report as well, even though it turned out to be absolutely true. Oh, but that is just the liberal media, right, Brian?
The books "Bushwhacked" and The Greatest War ever Sold" also told of oil being the driving force for war. You didn't read those, either, did you?
Until you, Brian, get out of the "Conservative" bubble, you will have no respect in my view. You here cited BS talking points here in 2011, and you should have known better. To come here now and try to defend your BS, is unconscionable.
Go watch Why We Did it" and you can then make an informed opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>Iraq because of the incorrect
> belief that Saddam had WMDs and could give them
> too terrorists.
>
No, Brian. Recently uncovered documents show clearly the reason Bush/Cheney went to war in Iraq was to get control of their under-utilized oil reserves. Cheney's secret "energy summit" in early 2001 actually carved out the Iraqi oil fields for the big oil companies. Getting rid of Saddam would lift the oil restrictions and allow Iraqi oil to flow freely.
But these recently uncovered documents show really nothing new.
The British newspapers reported on May 1, 2005, the "Downey Street Memo." The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Hence, we had to fabricate WMD's and terrorism as the reasons for going to war. Te Downing Street memo should have been your first clue as to the real reason for going to war, and what the fake reason really was. You Brian, ignored it.
Did you not see the documentary "Why We Did it." Of course you didn't. It showed interviews from people in the CIA, and in the George W. Bush administration clearly citing the reasons for war and how the facts were manipulated so we could justify war. It showed a clear time line from the secret "Energy Summit" to the invasion itself on how under-utilized oil reserves were he driving force in the Bush administration, not WMD's. You ignored that report.
Actually, when the invasion started, The Washington Post reported the evidence of WMD's was "flimsy." You ignored that report as well, even though it turned out to be absolutely true. Oh, but that is just the liberal media, right, Brian?
The books "Bushwhacked" and The Greatest War ever Sold" also told of oil being the driving force for war. You didn't read those, either, did you?
Until you, Brian, get out of the "Conservative" bubble, you will have no respect in my view. You here cited BS talking points here in 2011, and you should have known better. To come here now and try to defend your BS, is unconscionable.
Go watch Why We Did it" and you can then make an informed opinion.
Re: Afghanistan and the American Revolution
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer2
()
Date: July 07, 2014 11:01AM
Dude this thread is 3 years old. Brian may be dead by now for all we know.