Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
If the Taliban announced they'd leave Afghanistan by 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for our side?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for us?
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Werbung:
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I guess if they said "we hope to leave by 2011 given the conditions on the ground" it might be argued they are probably not going to stick to that deadline.
I predict by 2011 the only people leaving will be a few of the additional soldiers we sent it, but it will not be an actual withdrawal.
I guess if they said "we hope to leave by 2011 given the conditions on the ground" it might be argued they are probably not going to stick to that deadline.
I predict by 2011 the only people leaving will be a few of the additional soldiers we sent it, but it will not be an actual withdrawal.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I suppose it would. It would also be a victory if they were unable to carry out operations in Afghanistan because they were dead or incapacitated.
I suppose it would. It would also be a victory if they were unable to carry out operations in Afghanistan because they were dead or incapacitated.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I like how people fail to listen to what is actually said, so they can say what they want to have been said
I like how people fail to listen to what is actually said, so they can say what they want to have been said
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I think it will be more like all of the surge troops will be pulled in 2011 and a steady draw down of the number there now will start after that.
Personally I'm inclined to not send more troops and start the draw down now. But my guess is that this way the President can say he kicked it into high gear and really went after Al Qaeda, and he can also say he did so quickly so he could bring most all the troops back home for good.
Pretty smart politically and this will no doubt kill off more bad guys quicker... but in the end I think Afghanistan will always be a hot spot do to the tribal & religious thinking and the embedded drug trade.
I think it will be more like all of the surge troops will be pulled in 2011 and a steady draw down of the number there now will start after that.
Personally I'm inclined to not send more troops and start the draw down now. But my guess is that this way the President can say he kicked it into high gear and really went after Al Qaeda, and he can also say he did so quickly so he could bring most all the troops back home for good.
Pretty smart politically and this will no doubt kill off more bad guys quicker... but in the end I think Afghanistan will always be a hot spot do to the tribal & religious thinking and the embedded drug trade.
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
...Not-to-mention those folks who have some dire-need for (any) opportunity to run-around screaming....
"WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!"
.....'cause, they've got nothin' ELSE goin'-on in their lives.
"WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!"
.....'cause, they've got nothin' ELSE goin'-on in their lives.
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
If he is doing a surge for "political" reasons, then that is simply outrageous. I would rather see him simply end the war (which would be a terrible mistake in my view) than "surge" for some domestic political constituency.
If he is doing a surge for "political" reasons, then that is simply outrageous. I would rather see him simply end the war (which would be a terrible mistake in my view) than "surge" for some domestic political constituency.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I think that we need to be real, if by 2011 the surge has not done its job...or at least got very close...we lost and its time to pack it up anyway....If we can't have any security and the political system is not better yet there...I don't know how much more sticking around will do for us. We knot we can't stay till the fighting stops,,,when ever we leave, some will fight...we can only try leave a goverment and army that can fight back in our place.
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
Why did we decide that we had to rebuild their society to begin with?
Why did we decide that we had to rebuild their society to begin with?
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
My guess would be...a commitment that we made way back when the Russians pulled out and we reneged on that commitment in 1986 {?} that we would help them rebuild/fortify their infrastructure and then we neglected to follow through with that promise!
My guess would be...a commitment that we made way back when the Russians pulled out and we reneged on that commitment in 1986 {?} that we would help them rebuild/fortify their infrastructure and then we neglected to follow through with that promise!
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I don't think we actually ever made that commitment when we were there helping against the Soviets.
I don't think we actually ever made that commitment when we were there helping against the Soviets.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
I have heard we did as well, most likey depends on who said what to who...
regardless I think we learned what the cost of not doing that was.....that said , it was civil war after, would have been hard for the US to pick a side at that time...though we did know some groups we did not want
I have heard we did as well, most likey depends on who said what to who...
regardless I think we learned what the cost of not doing that was.....that said , it was civil war after, would have been hard for the US to pick a side at that time...though we did know some groups we did not want
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
John Thys/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, spoke on Wednesday at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
By ALAN COWELL
Published: December 2, 2009
PARIS — As political and military leaders across the globe pondered President Obama’s announcement of his Afghan strategy, European allies offered a mixed response on Wednesday, with some of the biggest contributors to the NATO coalition withholding promises of immediate troop reinforcements.
Obama’s Surge Strategy in Afghanistan
Will 30,000 additional troops be sufficient to curb the insurgency?
The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he believed other members of the alliance would contribute 5,000 soldiers — and possibly more — to make a “substantial” increase to the 42,000 NATO troops already ranged against the Taliban.
“This is not just America’s war,” he said at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.
But the president’s entreaties drew an ambivalent response in some European nations where the war is broadly unpopular among voters who question why it is being fought and whether it can be won.
France and Germany ruled out an immediate commitment, saying they were awaiting an Afghanistan conference in London in late January. Other nations offered only limited numbers of soldiers.
Álvaro de Vasconcelos, director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies in Paris, said the war was “badly perceived in Europe, contaminated by the Iraq war, the killing of civilians, the collateral damage, all of which has contributed to a widespread opposition to the Afghan war among Europeans.”
“If the civilian side is as important as the military one — training the Afghan police, judiciary and doing development, which Europeans know very well how to do and consider their main expertise — it will make it easier for European leaders to get support.’”
“More troops for a very unpopular war, without knowing where we’re going, doesn’t work — you can’t sell it to Europeans,” Mr. de Vasconcelos said. “But you can sell the transition from war to crisis management.”
Mr. Obama’s plan to send around 30,000 more American soldiers was closely watched in Pakistan, gripped by a Taliban insurgency intertwined with Afghanistan’s.
There, distrust of American intentions runs deep, partly because the United States is seen as having abandoned the region after the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, and there is widespread fear in the security establishment of a repetition of those events. And Pakistanis remain concerned about the possible implications of a huge troop surge just across their long and porous border with Afghanistan.
**************************
And you were involved in that discussion too...would be helpful if you would at least read the things that I brought to the table for discussion
From my topic: President Obama putting it all into perpective for me: My post #24
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, spoke on Wednesday at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
By ALAN COWELL
Published: December 2, 2009
PARIS — As political and military leaders across the globe pondered President Obama’s announcement of his Afghan strategy, European allies offered a mixed response on Wednesday, with some of the biggest contributors to the NATO coalition withholding promises of immediate troop reinforcements.
Obama’s Surge Strategy in Afghanistan
Will 30,000 additional troops be sufficient to curb the insurgency?
The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he believed other members of the alliance would contribute 5,000 soldiers — and possibly more — to make a “substantial” increase to the 42,000 NATO troops already ranged against the Taliban.
“This is not just America’s war,” he said at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.
But the president’s entreaties drew an ambivalent response in some European nations where the war is broadly unpopular among voters who question why it is being fought and whether it can be won.
France and Germany ruled out an immediate commitment, saying they were awaiting an Afghanistan conference in London in late January. Other nations offered only limited numbers of soldiers.
Álvaro de Vasconcelos, director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies in Paris, said the war was “badly perceived in Europe, contaminated by the Iraq war, the killing of civilians, the collateral damage, all of which has contributed to a widespread opposition to the Afghan war among Europeans.”
“If the civilian side is as important as the military one — training the Afghan police, judiciary and doing development, which Europeans know very well how to do and consider their main expertise — it will make it easier for European leaders to get support.’”
“More troops for a very unpopular war, without knowing where we’re going, doesn’t work — you can’t sell it to Europeans,” Mr. de Vasconcelos said. “But you can sell the transition from war to crisis management.”
Mr. Obama’s plan to send around 30,000 more American soldiers was closely watched in Pakistan, gripped by a Taliban insurgency intertwined with Afghanistan’s.
There, distrust of American intentions runs deep, partly because the United States is seen as having abandoned the region after the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, and there is widespread fear in the security establishment of a repetition of those events. And Pakistanis remain concerned about the possible implications of a huge troop surge just across their long and porous border with Afghanistan.
**************************
And you were involved in that discussion too...would be helpful if you would at least read the things that I brought to the table for discussion
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
If no other article ever gets written up about the history and our role {USA's} in what happened and what we've done to and for the country of Afghanistan...then this one will have to suffice as one of the all time best historical written reviews of our part in where we are today and why we've set in motion what came back to BITE US IN THE ARSE in 2001!
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history.cfm
We created this debacle and we have turned our backs on this country once before...should we repeat the mistake AGAIN?
If no other article ever gets written up about the history and our role {USA's} in what happened and what we've done to and for the country of Afghanistan...then this one will have to suffice as one of the all time best historical written reviews of our part in where we are today and why we've set in motion what came back to BITE US IN THE ARSE in 2001!
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history.cfm
We created this debacle and we have turned our backs on this country once before...should we repeat the mistake AGAIN?
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Re: If Taliban said they's leave Afgh in 2011, wouldn't we regard that as victory for
It seems that we generally rebuild because we are compassionate. But in this present case I think it is to keep the Taliban from regaining control.
It seems that we generally rebuild because we are compassionate. But in this present case I think it is to keep the Taliban from regaining control.
Similar threads
