Posted on 10/05/2010 5:25:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Americans are confused and uneasy about the war in Afghanistan, harboring deep misgivings about the U.S. military mission there and doubts that the United States can "win'' in any meaningful sense.
Yet even in an election season when American battle casualties have risen to over 50 dead and 600 wounded a month, the conduct of the war is hardly ever mentioned as a campaign issue – either by candidates or by the voters.
That leaves 100,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting for a mission that has only shallow support at home. And it leaves the Obama White House facing an uphill battle to rally the country behind what senior military and civilian officials say will be a difficult effort ahead to bring the war to a satisfactory end.
In-depth interviews last week across southern Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District, with voters and congressional candidates, teen-agers and retirees, confirmed what national polls suggest: Americans have soured on the war and tuned it out.
"I was pretty much a staunch supporter at first; we seemed to be doing the right thing,'' said Tom Williams, a soft-spoken 42-year-old computer network manager in Oxford, Pa. "I'm not so sure about the war any longer, and I think most people just don't dwell on it.''
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
Maybe we should define what victory would look like and go all out to achieve that?
***Maybe we should define what victory would look like and go all out to achieve that?***
Gee, what a novel idea. /s
Obama and the leftist press don’t want us to win.
It’s when the other guy is dead and all his stuff is broken.
(A perfectly possible outcome up till November of ‘08.)
It would seem that taking out two generations of jihadists would damp the issue down for a few subsequent generations.
For all those people who still protest, you’re welcome,
We protect you and you are protected by the best.
Your voice is strong and loud, but who will fight for you?
No one standing in your crowd.
We are fathers, brothers, and sons,
wearing the boots and carrying the guns.
We are the ones who leave all we own,
To make sure your future is carved in stone.
We are the ones who fight and die,
We might not me able to save the world, well at least we try.
We walked the paths to where we are at,
And we want no choice other than that,
So when you rally your group to complain,
Take a look in the back of your brain.
In order for the flag that you love to fly,
Wars must be fought and young men must die.
We came to fight for the ones we hold dear,
If that’s not respected we would rather stay here.
So please stop yelling and put down your signs,
And pray for those behind enemy lines.
When the conflict is over and all is well,
Be thankful that we chose to go through Hell.
The PRESidENT has already told us many times what he considers victory: complete withdrawal of all US forces. He is a rabid anti-colonialist and categorically rejects any notion of American exceptionalism or moral imperative.
No big mystery there.
The problem is our politicians don't have the balls to do what is necessary.
WWII was the last war that was fought unencumbered by political correctness and limitations. It was also the last one we ‘won’. You will never ‘win’ a ‘humane’ war. War is not supposed to be humane. By it’s pure definition, it can’t be. If being ‘humane’ in warfare trumps complete victory, then we should never engage in one. I find it far more ‘inhumane’ to get our young people killed in a non-victorious war.
Right. Obama does not want to win but he is too gutless to simply come home. The vacillation has caused more USA deaths than under all 8 years of Bush. (Seriously). Obama is a coward but he does not mind our boys and girls shedding their blood over there just so he is not correctly accused of being a craven wimp.
Good point. If today’s liberals were fighting WWII, we’d STILL be fighting it.
When you have a CIC who:
All the while when he campaigned for the job of CIC claimed that our focus should have been on the Afghan theater, instead of Iraq (which he now tries to take credit for the victory there), this should be of no surprise that people don't support this mission. We don't know what the heck it is we're suppose to support, other than our boots on the ground!
Most Americans assume we are in wars to win them. Not so here. Obama has changed the rules of engagement to “Mother May I” on just about everything. If we aren’t there to win, I think we should just bring the troops home.
We DID win in Iraq.
It’s not a matter of “can” - of course we can! It’s a matter of choosing not to!
It starts in The White House and works its way down.
Some things are never easy, it like walking in the middle of winter when both spring and home are far away. That the war is difficult does not make it unwinnable. If our goal is simply to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorist bases and perhaps to help some of the Afghan people along the way we are winning. Not everything has an immediate or easy solution in this world.
We did not lose in Vietnam ... we QUIT!
We won in Iraq. Afghanistan was not lost until the pos usurper took over and changed the ROE. The terrorists know they have one of their own occupying the People's House...and I DO mean occupying!
You, sir, are a freakin’ miltary strategery genius! Seriously!
I suggest you apply to be SecDef!
Couldn't agree more, but I think there is one step before that one. Maybe we should define "war" first.
Our problem, since Vietnam has been the false premise that a "politically correct" war (PCW) is possible. This, of course, is an oxymoron. You go to war to kill people because they are attempting to kill you, you cannot attempt to win a war and do it with the least damage to people and material. (Israel dropping leaflets ahead of bombing their enemy is the height of insane, liberal, politically correct Warfare!) That is not the definition of "war" ... that is a mark of liberal insanity.
As for Afghanistan, we are trying to "fight" a PCW. We have to be very careful not to "hurt their feelings" and mindful that we don't hurt a woman or a child. We must protect their crops (even though the crops may be poppies) to "win their hearts." .... rules of engagement, nation building ...blah blah blah.
THIS IS LIBERAL INSANITY!
If we are not willing to carpet bomb an area to rid it of people who are going to threaten our lives, then we should be bring every soldier home to safety. ("Ah, but you can't do that, what about the women and children?") If you ask that question, then YOU SHOULD NOT BE AT WAR. One simple questions should be asked ...
1. Is the reason for going to this war sufficient to kill the enemy...including men, women, children and simultaneously take down physical structure supporting the enemy?
If there is doubt in doubt in the answer, then we should not be at war. But if the answers are "yes" ... then we need to be sure we understand the definition of war ... kill your enemy and pound them into unnegotiated submission to rid the earth of their ideas and actions.
"Victory" then is self-defining.
So ask the question ...then make a decision ... (1)come home or (2) throw away the rules of engagement and pound them into submission.
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.