Posted on 08/22/2017 8:59:22 AM PDT by Enlightened1
He said he wanted to continue the strategy of staying in Afghanistan as a candidate. Well staying means doing what is necessary to be effective. Clearly that could mean adding more troops for support on the ground. It’s either stay and have the best plan or leave. He ran on staying.
Be against the policy all you want, but its not very effective playing this “dark forces” in the HW, and McMaster is a puppet master line. It’s turning into hysterics.
And I’m not happy with this policy either.
They are already considering options and may already be there helping the taliban vs ISIS. They have established a coalition of Russia Pakistan and China in supportung taliban vs ISIS. This may have as much to do with fighting over who controls the drug trade as much as terrorism
The Afghan government was among many reportedly considering asking for Russian assistance against ISIS shortly after Putin went into Syria. Iraq was another
We really had to step up our game to keep our creds with these allies once the extent of our support for ISIS was unveiled as a significant factor in why we ( under obama) were not really fighting them
1. Donald Trump bought a piece of property in 2001 to build a new luxury hotel/condominium/resort project. Let's say the property is located in Gary, Indiana or Detroit, Michigan.
2. Fifteen years later, Trump decided that Gary and Detroit will be sh!t-holes for decades, and that he has no interest in moving these projects forward. Word gets out in the real estate market that he wants to sell the property by 2017.
3. His advisors are all over the map when it comes to recommending the best course of action. Some of them -- like John McCain and H.R. McMaster -- insist that he should go ahead and build the project even though everyone knows the place is a dump. Others, like Steve Bannon and Pat Buchanan, tell him that ditching the property now (even at a huge loss) is his best bet.
4. After listening to all of these people (and others), Trump decides to pursue a course of action somewhere in between these two extremes. He doesn't want to build the project because it's a losing proposition, but he also thinks he can add value to the property and avoid selling it at a huge loss. So he decides to invest a modest amount of money in some roadway improvements and new utilities on the property that would have been needed for his defunct project, but would also help a future sale to anyone who might have a different project in mind (a small shopping center, an office building, a satellite campus for a state university, etc.). Then he'll come back in 2018 or 2019 to see about the final course of action on the site.
I'd love for us to be able to dump Afghanistan but reality (thanks/Clinton/Bush/Obama) bites.
Since we’re digging up Spock, causation (cau·sa·tion
n/ noun 1. the action of causing something, (which seems like tautology, but sometimes you simply have to put it in one’s hand) and `non sequitur’
1: an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent.
It is tempting to use ad hominem, to point out the support from the Chicago Tribune and all the other lefty rags, along with unbridled approbation from the dirty scoundrels, nevertrumpers who twisted our foreign policy into pretzels over the last eight years—all applauding President Trump’s speech last night. But that’s a fallacy.
An analogy—DACA was an Obama presidential executive order, a flatly illegal order. President Trump could kill it with another EO. So to say that Texas and a court can decide the matter doesn’t follow anymore than the left saying that a court could order DACA continued. President Trump is correct in stating recently that DACA is within his wheelhouse and no other.
Afghanistan: McMaster & the neocons, Pakistan, terrorism, 3,298 level chess, the solar eclipse—any reasons one might assign to continuation of this endless war which just celebrated its Sweet Sixteen birthday, any of the `real reasons’ one might ascribe to its continuation ...
in fact one man decides whether to put this poor student next through high school and college ... and then for how long?
As far as assigning responsibility for a decision to pour even more American blood and treasure into this sink which has been called the place “Where Empires Go To Die’—all non sequiters.
Sending more troops and assets to Afghanistan is the exact opposite of what candidate Trump said he would do. This is within President Trump’s wheelhouse and no other.
Post it a 101st time then.
I believe Trump ran on the ideas that we fight terrorism and that we don't nation build. On those ideas, so far so good from Trump.
Field Marshall Brian Darling disapproves.
He informs us it is better to let Afghanistan become a failed state and let Pakistan continue to assist the spread of ISIS.
Apparently Bannon doesn't want to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, even when nation building isn't involved.
Trump did not campaign on this. He talked about removing troops and spending money at home instead of trillions in the Middle East.
Sundance is dead wrong about us “assigning ownership to Pakistan”. We aren’t about to trust Pakistan with anything.
Pakistan has been assisting Islamic extremists since before the days when they were hiding Osama Bin Laden.
They had 500 of their front line troops guarding the ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan. The one that we hit with a MOAB bomb in April, killing them all.
Trump put Pakistan on notice. If they continue to help our enemies we will treat them as one.
Now you’re asking the neverMcMaster crowd to use facts and stuff instead of the rumor and gossip they love so well. Won’t happen.
Do you know anyone In the military that can now be sent into that hell hole?
Ask them if tump campaigned on a surge in afghanistan
But you know he wont be successful..just like kushner will not magically bring peace to israel when everone has failed
That poster is ignorant about troops. He did not campaign on a surge in afghanistan.
It is clearly possible to support the Trump presidency while questioning certain policy decisions. Having to choose between unquestioning support and #NeverTrump is a false dilemma.
There are just as many stories critical of Trump on Breitbart today as there are on CNN. Maybe more. If that isn’t working for Never Trump, nothing is. Buy a clue, FRiend.
“Sad to see Breitbart go full on Never Trump.”
Well we know which side Bannon was on. So do we have a war on terror or not?
“Excuse me, but did not the President say yesterday that he was putting an end to “Nation building” and directing our military to focus on killing terrorists.”
That is what I heard. I guess some people missed that part.
Brian Darling is a Rand Paul cohort. Apparently Brian, Randy and Bannon don’t like us preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist controlled country.
Bannon has really unleashed the fruits and nuts over at CNNbart. This won’t end well for him. Guaranteed.
Good summation and right on target.
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.