Posted on 08/21/2010 2:24:38 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
Well gee whiz, if it ain't on Google, then it just ain't...
I would argue that G.W. Bush has a STERLING success in the latter. First, Libya "voluntarily" defanged itself after we invaded Iraq. Second, Saddam and all threats---real or potential---he presented are gone and a functioning democracy in place. Third, Iran is now bookended by U.S. operating positions. This is supremely important. If IRAN---as almost everyone has said for a decade---is the final piece on the chessboard, then Afghanistan is essential to taking Iran.
Fourth, almost ALL guerrilla wars take between five and ten years, and 70% have been won by the "government" (i.e., us). The exceptions were China and Vietnam, and in neither case did we utilize even remotely all our war-making capabilities.
Finally, I think Bush should be credited with enormous success in wiping out the guts of the worldwide terrorist movement. He first pushed it off U.S. shores---there has not been a successful outside-in attack since 9/11. Then he forced the radical Muzzies to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and sucked in thousands from all over the world to kill them there. We NEVER could have invaded 20 countries, so they played right into his hands, so to speak, by going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since then, the major successful attacks have been in London and Spain, not here. And since 2005, there have been almost no major bombings or al-Qaeda attacks anywhere.
Yes yes and yes.
The war against Islam must be won.
This is a powerful video. Three Things About Islam
Stupid article.
The U.S. hasn’t been 9/11’d again, so on that basis alone knocking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan has been a succes.
Fight them “over there” instead of “over here” and all that...
For another reason, Iran is encircled by U.S. forces, with our forces in Afghanistan closing the ring.
I think your analysis is sound. Unfortunately, we do not have a continuity of leadership or goals. Our problem is not what we did for the first seven years in Afghanistan or why. Our problem is what do we do now and why.
I think the price of staying will be high. I think the price of leaving would be catastrophic.
Yep, no doubt about it. As opposed to allowing a dictatorial Soviet puppet regime.
There's a reason why certain Majors never get to be Colonels.
Well stated. Afghanistan and, even in bigger measure, Iraq were mousetraps, flytraps and roach motels that attracted jihadists from all over to where we had the most capabilities and overwhelming power to kill or capture them; al-Qaeda was essentially destroyed in Iraq.
As well we removed financing and recruiting capabilities and incentives of state regimes (Taliban and Saddam) and demoralized future potential recruits and recruitment efforts.
And many people simply don’t take the time to look at the map if they don’t see that Iran is between the Iraq and the “hard place” (Afghanistan).
Fortunately, there are a plenty of easy answers to the question “What happens if we leave or lose in Afghanistan?”.
BINGO!
you see that we already won in Iraq. Even Obama can't avoid tacitly admitting that. But he is already screwing up Afghanistan---which was a low-level war, but not unsuccessful, under Bush. Now Afghanistan will threaten to bleed back to Iraq.
The American invasion of Afghanistan was a solid punch to the Taliban back in 2001.
Kabul was rid of the Taliban, schools were opened, a new government formed, women could actually go outside without having to don a GP Small.
In the last couple of years suddenly the American military is getting its ass kicked? How? Why?
What changed?
Winston Smith don't taste good.
The other day we passed a grim milestone. There have been more American troops lost in Afghanistan under 19 months of President Obama than under 7 years of President Bush. The only article I could find about it on Free Republic was some guy pimping his blog. It should be breaking news on every forum, network and paper.
You are very, very kind, LS. The author equates burning of cities and crops by the Russians with a few civilian deaths from the American drone strikes. He equates, tacitly, the invaders' aims: colonization of Afghanistan by the Russian, and our strike at al Qaeda with a promised withdrawal upon success. How much more disingenuous can the author be. Even his phrase, "immoral methods," is from 1960s.
He is an anti-War '60s fellow, and does not bother with truth or logic to promulgate his point of view.
Actually, I looked through his article archives and I think he's relatively young.
Stephen H. Blackwell
Associate Professor of Russian
PhD, Indiana University, 1995
Doesn't make his perspective valid, but your guess about his history was incorrect.
I did not mean that literally. The '60s radicals made it "cool" to be anti-establishment for several generations. When calling him such I referred to his outlook: America can do no right; all the world problems stem from America's misdeeds.
Michelle Obama is not a '60s radical either, but she reveals the same mindset when she refers to America as a "mean country."
Great post.
Agreed.
I read the article, and felt the steam rising from my collar. Before I could crack my knuckles and begin typing like mad, I read your post, and...no need for me to restate what you so efficiently stated. Good job, LS...:)
Well and truly stated ... as usual, Sir.
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.