Posted on 09/22/2009 11:18:10 AM PDT by RobinMasters
An astonishingly honest assessment — one that I fear is accurate — from the lefty blog Hullabaloo:
Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.
There have been many campaign promises "adjusted" since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments [sic] it has blithely turned aside in the interest of "pragmatism."
The average Democrat doesn't like fighting wars. They don't like using military force. They don't just dislike collateral damage and civilian casualties and flag-draped coffins; they cringe at the concept of combat with citizens of another country, even when the president has declared:
Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignspot.nationalreview.com ...
“The average Democrat doesn’t like fighting wars. They don’t like using military force. They don’t just dislike collateral damage and civilian casualties and flag-draped coffins; they cringe at the concept of combat with citizens of another country”
Mostly it’s because they themselves don’t want to fight, period. The Hippies didn’t want to be drafted because they didn’t want to risk their own butts.
But give them real power over the military, and I guarantee their attitude will change. They’ll LOVE the military, and will love to use it against their own citizens.
However, this concerns Afghanistan. If we pull out AlQaida and every other nutcase Moslem group will move back in and it's just going to end up with the US being attacked again, and this time even more thousands will die.
I think it would be much better for the Democrats to back off their BS because there's really no guarantee that all the people who will be killed are Democrats (which, of course, would make it all right as long as property damage was kept within reasonable bounds).
Personally I’ve believed that we should have aggressively attacked western Pakistan since shortly after 9/11.
Also the Afghan opium business - which is largely run from Pakistan to the profit or terrorists - needs to be destroyed, probably just by buying up the entire annual opium crop at 25 percent above the price offered by Pakistani and Iranian heroin manufacturers.
I agree with you.
Look how fast the left jumped on the bandwagon against Hitler when suddenly it was “Uncle Joe” being invaded.
It all depends on who they get to use the military on.
Yup, and they never forgave Hitler for betraying Stalin. Hence the irony of them “hating” FASCISM when that is exactly what THEY have already put in place in this country. Before that (and the embarrassment caused by death camps), they instinctively knew communists and fascists were just steps away from each other; cousins. And they were correct.
Now, they have the gaul to accuse people who love freedom of being “fascists”.
And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban...
Excellent strategy.
Let's attack a nuclear-armed country of 175M people with a military of 1.5M.
That's about half the size of our military, and you may have heard we have other commitments around the world.
I have no doubt we could conquer and rule Pakistan if we decided to. I just don't see why we would want to. Doing so would not permanently inconvenience the jihadis. They'd just displace to some other location and egg us on to attack it.
‘Cept for the part they don't like war at all not even in their own defense. They will say it too!
Sad really. Let's see, you like breathing but you don't want to use an army to obliterate the very people who want to end your breathing? Well that makes sense, if you want to offer yourself up as an offering to allah or any other god, be my guest.
Me, I intend on staying on this planet as long as possible. I like it here and I like most of the people. Some of them, though, we have a difference of opinion that is just unresolvable through peaceful means.
I would rather they leave me alone but, they won't, so feel the pain, mr. aggressor. I have no intention of giving in.
Ever.
Which unfortunately is where we are at RIGHT NOW with the socialist-fascist-commie pig 0bozo & his demoRAT thugs & minions. Their idea of military is to use it against patriotic American citizens and to capitulate & appease to commies in N Korea, Venezuala, Cuba, Nicauraga (spelling ?), and Uzzlim tyranny in Iran, Saudi Arabia & Libya, among others. Soon, very soon, we need to retake back our country by force from 0bozo & his fellow RAT bastards.
It is either their civilians or ours, it is THAT simple.
No Kidding. I have so many friends on the left and relatives who just shrug their shoulders. Iraq Bad! Afghanistan Good!
“Democrats Never Meant What They Said About Afghanistan”
As some Clinton Administrations underlings admitted about the USA involvement
in The Balkans:
“It was the only war we had.”
In other words, Bill Clinton had to earn some “macho” bona fides
by putting US Forces in the field.
No matter when, where, how or why.
To show he was “Presidential”.
No, they were just harmless little enclaves of playful people just pretending to be building more and more anti-US sentiment.
Saddam would have just backed down and let the inspectors in eventually and the Taliban in place in Afganistan would have just said, "Oh, 9/11 was just a one-time deal..we won't do it again." Right?
Whatever, tell it to the Turks. Haven’t heard squat from them in a while but, my couch with the ottoman looks real nice.
None of us missed the point, although the notion of saying anything to get into office and then doing anything else is just a little blatant when it's expressed like that. It's the sort of thing that inevitably gets brought up when it comes time for re-election.
The far greater offense is not having an alternate policy in mind while you're lying your sorry butt off to get elected. "Just pull out" isn't a policy, it's a vague idea, and aside from an unelectable idea it's a bad one for everyone else other than the candidate and his followers. The truth is that what happened was more like "just lie and then we'll figure it out." Well, figuring it out is turning out to be just a little harder than it seemed during those dorm room discussions.
Nor is Afghanistan simply a static, nor an isolated problem, it's an issue the Russians are merrily feeding (Iran is another) in pursuit of their own geostrategic objectives, namely the reassembly of the Former Soviet Union. The latter is a program of which 0bama and his progressive wing are broadly in favor as long as they don't have to take the blame. That's going to be a little hard to avoid come time for re-election as well. It is, after all, the price of majority.
I am not optimistic. I do not think 0bama or his staff are up to the job and I do not say that for partisan reasons but as a conclusion based on results to date. They are going to attempt to paper the problem over this week at the UN confab on the 24th, and the complaisant media will be working overtime to present the whole thing as another Munich done right this time. "Peace In Our Time and now let's concentrate on Global Warming." Watch it happen.
No, they were just harmless little enclaves of playful people just pretending to be building more and more anti-US sentiment.
Saddam would have just backed down and let the inspectors in eventually and the Taliban in place in Afganistan would have just said, “Oh, 9/11 was just a one-time deal..we won’t do it again.” Right?
So what? You didn't know that Al Queda had large numbers of havens there protected by its Gov't? The leaders of the Taliban there sure know the US exists and the people would allow those anti-US reptiles to run things if we were not there. And then terror breeds. We don't wait for attacks after we already had one that could very well have destroyed us had we not had a George Bush in office ...we go over and do what we need to BEFORE something else happens. And it will if we leave them alone because the Taliban have nothing else that motivates them other than hatred of the US.
nor did Iraq
So what? Saddam couldn't keep going on the way he had been for years. It was time to stop before the world (especially us) suffered. You can't let sick dictators who are a threat continue on otherwise you are like Chamberlain.
>>>> Personally, I have believed we should of made a glass parking lot out of the entire muslum world after 9-11 <<<<
Something like that.
Nonsense. The Muslim world attacked us on 9/11 and hundreds of millions of Muslims celebrated. They believed they could escape any reprisals because we would blame a few radicals; and you want to prove them right. Way to go.
Islam produces terrorists because the Islamic world demands terrorism as a salve to its inferiority complex and a weapon against its enemies (us.) Our job is to make it very clear to Muslims, especially those in Persia and Arabia, that attacking us is a fool's game. We have to prove that they will pay dearly in lives and humiliation for any damage they inflict on us and that we won't be distracted by scapegoats like Al Qaeda. We have to suppress the demand for terrorism; we can't just try to pinch the supply.
Any Muslim regime that sets itself up as our enemy has to go. The Taliban and Saddam were a start, but only a start. We should be waging the Arab and Persian War much more vigorously than we are, but we certainly shouldn't be retreating or giving up any ground we've won.
Sadly, it will probably take another successful attack to make all this clear to the obtuse American public.
So what? You didn’t know that Al Queda had large numbers of havens there protected by its Gov’t? The leaders of the Taliban there sure know the US exists and the people would allow those anti-US reptiles to run things if we were not there. And then terror breeds. We don’t wait for attacks after we already had one that could very well have destroyed us had we not had a George Bush in office ...we go over and do what we need to BEFORE something else happens. And it will if we leave them alone because the Taliban have nothing else that motivates them other than hatred of the US.
nor did Iraq
So what? Saddam couldn’t keep going on the way he had been for years. It was time to stop before the world (especially us) suffered. You can’t let sick dictators who are a threat continue on otherwise you are like Chamberlain.
There's no "as long as". Period. The Taliban WILL get back in power and increased terror activity IS inevitable because their hearts can't change overnight with some kind of benevolence you seem to think might be there.
You say IF they harbor terrorists they should get slammed. And how do we keep track of this activity when our presence is no longer there. Depend on Russia to move in and tell us (and they will increase their presence if we move out). We wait for the inevitable attack? NO. We do not wait for our people to get attacked; we continue to take the correct action now and don't retreat.
And so we have an inexperienced, community organizer, socialist Commander in Chief because McCain ran a pathetic campaign and the media was in the tank for the Kenyan.
Nonsense. The Muslim world attacked us on 9/11 and hundreds of millions of Muslims celebrated. They believed they could escape any reprisals because we would blame a few radicals; and you want to prove them right. Way to go...
There’s no “as long as”. Period. The Taliban WILL get back in power and increased terror activity IS inevitable because their hearts can’t change overnight with some kind of benevolence you seem to think might be there.
You say IF they harbor terrorists they should get slammed. And how do we keep track of this activity when our presence is no longer there. Depend on Russia to move in and tell us (and they will increase their presence if we move out). We wait for the inevitable attack? NO. We do not wait for our people to get attacked; we continue to take the correct action now and don’t retreat.
Democracy will last there just long enpugh to vote the theocratic Taliban back into power.
Of course it likely hinders Al Queda from plotting terror attacks in Afganistan. When they are on defense they are that much more unable to regroup and think of strategies for their own offensives.
Military Strategy 101.
Then after accepting their surrender I would of demanded that they sell all their oil for $20 a barrel for the next 50 years to the United States.
IOW: you can’t trust Moslems.
Bingo.
“stabilize without escalation”
Sort of like “increase medical care/coverage without taxation”.
“It is either their civilians or ours, it is THAT simple.”
Oh, bravo!
You are 1 of the few who recognizes the basic question.
Which leads to the truly most pointed question:
Who is better? (Thus, worth saving most?)
In our PC world, we can’t ask that question nor certainly answer it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.