Rand Paul Opposes Troop Surge: ‘Mission in Afghanistan Has Lost Its Purpose

Breitbart ^ | August 21, 2017 | Ben Kew

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) released a statement on Monday opposing any plan to add additional troops to the ground mission in Afghanistan, hours before President Donald Trump addresses the nation about his plans for the region.

“The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war,” Paul said in a statement.

[Theoria]

'President Trump described a strategy that sounds like what he did with ISIS in Syria and Iraq'

Left out of that equation, is the fact that Iran has moved further into Iraq. The NYT and the rest of the face of the GOP and Dems lament the fact that they have done that.

[Georgia Girl 2]

You cannot close the Taliban door because the source of the Taliban is the indigenous population of Afghanistan. Kill 1000 Taliban and they just recruit 1000 more. That’s why Russia could not defeat the Mujadeen. The Mujadeen morphed into the Taliban.

My guess from Trump’s speech is that he is planning to kill them all and let God sort it out then go home. That will give the Afghan military a year or two to secure their country. If they don’t not our problem.

[Steve_Seattle]

"30 days of daily B-52 raids was all the effort it was worth."

I agree. I'm with Paul on this one. As long as we are there, Afghanistan will be a magnet for every jihadist in that part of the world; it will be never-ending. This is like a gambler who's lost big, trying to recoup his losses with even more reckless gambling. If we leave, and they start building new terrorist camps, we come in and bomb them, and go home.

Trump should have stuck with his instincts.

[Drew68]

I try to like Rand Paul, but he always take a completely contrary position to virtually every issue. Still, he’s better than his gadfly father.

Like when he was only GOP senator to vote against unconstitutionally restricting the executive branch's power?

That pesky Constitution!

[OldGoatCPO]

I am holding fire on this, but I think Rand Paul is as much an opportunist as any senator. First of all as pointed out, this is different (if true) in that the goal is eradication of Taliban and not nation building. Secondly, the Generals are now in charge. To be successful we have to:

1. Change ROE be more aggressive
2. Sell this as a part of war on opiates by burning out poppy fields funding Taliban and other terrorist.
3. Bomb the living hell out of strongholds.
4. Deploy Operators as intended, search, destroy, snatch.

We also need to decide who our friends are and who are enemies are. Support our friends while physically and financially destroying tribes who are our enemies. Then after Taliban is destroyed turn it all over to our friendly tribes with a continued presence on a massive base with enough air power close by to level country. I would not mind seeing more contractors, most contractors are former military who want to fight, but also earn good money. If the Generals are too programmed to change ROE and still wage war like Obama the Rand Paul is right.
By the way, the troops going in were already selected and scheduled a year ago.

[SmokingJoe]

Why don’t you tell me exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan right now and how it’s different from anything we’ve done in the last 17 years and how we are going to win it this time and exactly what the end game is.

[SmokingJoe]

Havent we tried all of that at one time or the other one over the last 17 years?

[Seruzawa]

The jingoists can spare me. We are going to protect a culture that keeps young boys in the barracks as sex slaves? WTF are we doing?

Eternal war is the goal. The military “experts” are pulling the wool over Trump. They have no intention of ending the only war they have.

[SmokingJoe]

Look I get why Trump decided to double down, even though all his instincts are to get out: if he gets out and the Taliban and Al Quaeda take over, we could have another 9/11.

[Chainmail]

OK, so when did conservatism become a haven for defeatists? The reason that we are in Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban is because when the Taliban were in power they were a center of feverish fundamentalist Islamist power and a haven and staging ground for our enemies. It's only been 16 years, right?

The facts are that we are a global superpower and are that to ensure our own survival as a free people. If we don't fight back, we will end up being under someone else's power. "Low Intensity Wars" are by definition very long term affairs, since the objective is protecting the folks that we're there to protect, rather than going all Hiroshima on them.

We have a lot of good, honorable and courageous young people out there carrying on the fight for us.

Let's at least pretend that we're supporting them instead of sitting on our rosy reds, carping.

[VRWC For Truth]

I say again Paultards being Paultards ...

[going hot]

Agreed. Except he lost it a long time ago. It is about him, not the USA.

[OldGoatCPO]

In the beginning yes, and we were successful militarily. Then the politicians and liberal a$$ State Department came in and began nation building. The military’s hands were tied so as not to offend tribal leaders. State and the pols thought if they play nice the tribes will see the contrast and support a central government. I know of an instance where a recommendation was made to clear hostiles from an area by burning out their poppy fields. It would have worked, but the politicians overruled the plan. The local leaders along with Terrorist were making big money off those fields. The difference between the Taliban and a Mexican Cartel is the religion.

[going hot]

Makes a good place for flypaper for jihadis.

[vette6387]

“Why don’t you tell me exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan right now and how it’s different from anything we’ve done in the last 17 years and how we are going to win it this time and exactly what the end game is.”

I’m watching, at the moment, two former military officers on FNC talking about that very issue. They are saying two things: 1. It’s important not to let Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for Islamic Terrorists, and 2. At this juncture, no one really has any handle on what “winning” would look like. One thing is certain, the 8 years of Obola ( half of our time waging war there, with all the “rules of engagement shit”) pissed away lives and treasure for nothing. Like you, I want to see something different, and I hope that that is that we go on a killing spree there and decimate the Muzzie terrorists to the point where they loose the will to fight.
Trump has his hands full with a terrible “hand” that he’s been dealt in the ME, and if he wants to be re-elected, he has to find a way to wind up most, if not all of our military activities there before the next presidential election.

[Cold Heart]

I heard a retired general tell us why on Varney this morning. Afghanistan is now a forward military base for that whole region. Centered between Iran Pakistan India China Russia. We are also allying with India as part of the plan. No nation building, just prevent the exportation of jihad from Afghanistan and project regional power. We will be there pretty much forever, as in Germany Japan and Korea according to the general (Ret).

[Georgia Girl 2]

Alexander The Great could not subjugate Afghanistan. The French could not do it, the Russians who were vicious could not do it and we won’t do it. Its a losing proposition.

[grania]

Mygosh, I'll be Freeper shamed for saying this, but here goes:

I've never met an Iranian who hasn't been gracious, educated, civilized, and respectful of our culture while in the US. Iran has NEVER, since taking those hostages back in Jimmie Carter's era after we overthrew their gov, had anything to do with terrorist acts we've experienced. They are a perfect example of a country we should leave alone. Do they need lots of weapons? Well, yeah. Who would want Saudi Arabia for a neighbor? Who would want a vacuum in that huge chunk of ME real estate, to be taken over by ISIS?

[Chainmail]

That's because they were trying to conquer and subjugate. We haven't been: we've protected the people and helped them rebuild while destroying the insane Islamists.

Need to brush up on your history/learn a little about warfare.

[Lorianne]

It’s not defeatist (this is like calling people ‘deniers’ a slur) to say this is their country.

The Taliban already control 2/3 of Afghanistan. They are tribal leaders ... like they have had there for millennia. Why? Because it is THEIR COUNTRY, THEIR AREA OF THE WORLD, THEY LIVE THERE.

We cannot tell everyplace on the planet how to organize themselves and arrange their affairs.

In Muslim lands, they have an ongoing 1000 year running war between Sunni and Shia sects ... plus on top of that multitudes of tribal factional warfare. Been that way for thousands of years ... even before Islam emerged. We cannot just come in and force them to be Western and accept our valued.

Left to themselves they mostly kill each other. We can keep them out of OUR COUNTRY.

Their country
Our country
See the difference?

They culture
Our culture
See the difference?

Mostly they are backwards medieval peoples ... but we give them military equipment, technology and training ... so they can kill us. Smart eh?