Wow! Romney won????

Huh, I thought O was still the President. Thanks for the illuminati, er, illumination.

I recommend this read:

FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE
So Much for the Good War
It's time to admit that Obama's Afghanistan strategy is a total failure.
BY ARIF RAFIQ | SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

It's time to admit that Obama's Afghanistan strategy is a total failure.

Why centre out Obama. If it ain't working now, it wasn't working when Bush was in charge.... and Mitt is pretty much committed to the Obama strategy or perhaps more involvement.
Why not just call it the Afghan Invasion... and share the blame all round.

And there we are with the blame Bush strategy...

Of course if anything is going well, that is ALL Obama.

rickyp wrote:Why not just call it the Afghan Invasion... and share the blame all round.

Your post is almost worth ignoring altogether for its base insipidness. However, that line is offensive.

The Afghanistan invasion was undertaken in response to 9/11 and the Taliban's unwillingness to surrender OBL and AQ leadership.

And, I don't think that's related to Mr. Rafiq's article. For example:

Beyond al Qaeda, the U.S. president has achieved little of strategic importance in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is incorrect, if not disingenuous, when he says that the Taliban's momentum has been "blunted." The Taliban's spear is sharp as ever. Last week, on Sept. 14, it cut through Camp Bastion, one of the most secure foreign bases in Afghanistan. There, in a complex attack that cost $10,000 or $20,000 at most, it destroyed six jets valued at up to $180 million. The ratio of cost to achievement of the $100 billion-a-year war in Afghanistan is indefensible, though it must be said that the president, with his emphasis on "nation-building here at home," recognizes this uncomfortable fact.

That has nothing to do with Bush. Obama is wrong in what he's saying.

Blaming Bush does nothing to get Obama off the hook for what's happening now--or how disingenuous Obama is being about it.

bbauska

And there we are with the blame Bush strategy...

Was the Bush strategy working? Ever? The occupation of Afghanistan has gone on for over a decade. Are you saying that 4 years ago it was a picnic but then Obama took over and the things suddenly went into the shitter.?

As Fate points out:

The Afghanistan invasion was undertaken in response to 9/11 and the Taliban's unwillingness to surrender OBL and AQ leadership

I believe OBL was eventually killed....during Obamas administration I think. But whatever the intial mission was, it very quickly became an occupation and an attempt to create a legitimate democratic govenrment.... Agreed?
There wasn't any particular change in the mission objective between Bush and Obama and in terms of tactics not much between Bush and Obama except Obama brought in more American troops , partly because NATO partners who had been there for a long time, were leaving... partly to try a "surge".....
I don't think its worked.

It's not unreasonable to suggest that Obama's foreign policy has been mostly a failure. America's image in the world probably has improved in the last 4 years, but that's mainly just because Bush was so unpopular. When viewed objectively, Obama hasn't really achieved anything much. Certainly we don't tend to hear a lot about his ridiculous Nobel prize these days.

That said, I do think Romney has the potential to be even worse. He worries me because it seems like he knows nothing about the world and cares less, except for that he seems desperate to associate himself as closely as possible with Israel for domestic political reasons and to hell with the consequences.

RickyP, what would victory in Afghanistan look like? What costs are you willing to expend to achieve those goals?

bbauska

RickyP, what would victory in Afghanistan look like? What costs are you willing to expend to achieve those goals?

You haven't followed this thread closely have you?
Victory would have been the establishment of a legitimately democratic and inclusive government, the establishment of institutions that protected and nurtured Afghanis basic rights, including the protection of property rights, and human freedoms of speech, movement and association.
That wasn't going to happen without either: overwhleming support from the Afghanis OR an overwhelming occupation that could protect and allow a central govenrment to establish irself and these things....
Karzai and his government are largely corrupt and have a primary interest in extracting as much power and wealth as they can... That means no matter what, failure was in the cards.
Bush went in initially with 2100 US troops and the special forces from UK, Australia and Canada. he left it up to the Northern Alliance to sweep the Taliban out, and the Al Queda operatives mostly got out. SO even his initial goals went unachieved.
Once he began nation building, he treid to do that on the cheap so he could occupy Iraq too.
I don't know it ever would have worked, but as long as the locals felt insecure (that the Taliban could come back and the westerners would be gone) and KArzai was there for the money ....it was going to fail. Obama inherited the mess, and hasn't been able to do more than put lipstick on the pig.
For that he bears responsiblity. But by the time he came around the effort was doomed.
I'm with Fate. Its time to pull out as quickly as possible and admit defeat. Obama seems to be getting out, but trying to do so but not have a collapse occur days after the last trooper leaves. Optics is evrything...
Mitt doesn't know what he thinks and wants the generals to do all his thinking for him. Not a good idea. Generals don't want to admit defeat and most see the adventure through a limited prism. They'll tell him all they need is more time and more troops... .

Yes, I have been following. Your position has a tendency to wander, and I wanted clarification. Thank you.

Now for the next question. Do you think the Arab world has gotten closer to your goal of victory since Bush left? My point is that Obama should have recognized that the possibility of victory was, as you say, doomed; or accept responsibility fully for the situation.

I agree on pullout. Leave immediately (2 days max) and let the "Democratic" Arab nation of Afghanistan show us what their true colors are.

Personally, I do not give a damn about optics. When US soldiers are dying needlessly, then change the goals and fighting style/tactics or leave if it is unwinnable.

BTW, it is not "Adventure". It is war. War should be fought for a reason, not played in the backyard with a bunch of little kids. Soldiers die in war, especially when ROEs are bad.

bbauska wrote:I agree on pullout. Leave immediately (2 days max) and let the "Democratic" Arab nation of Afghanistan show us what their true colors are.

It's not Arab, as I'm sure you know. It is Muslim, but Asian, not African. The people are tribal, Pashtuns, etc.

Personally, I do not give a damn about optics. When US soldiers are dying needlessly, then change the goals and fighting style/tactics or leave if it is unwinnable.

BTW, it is not "Adventure". It is war. War should be fought for a reason, not played in the backyard with a bunch of little kids. Soldiers die in war, especially when ROEs are bad.

The ROE are terrible. They were bad under Bush, which is why I said 4+ years ago we should pull out. I agree, we should leave ASAP. But, I've said that.

bbauska

Now for the next question. Do you think the Arab world has gotten closer to your goal of victory since Bush left?

The Arab World? The definition of the term victory can only be used when examining a conflict where an outside agent (i.e. the USA) invades another country for the purpose of conquest or regime change....
So I'll say that "victory" doesn't apply to the Arab world at large.

If you are infering that the goal for the US is the promotion of democracy and democratic instituions in the Arab world, then I'll say yes, that since Bush left office there has been progress on that direction. But not becasue Bush left office and Obama came in...
That progress has been without a great deal of direct influence from American policy, or anyones.. With the exception of the Libyan conflict where NATOs forces were involved and who's involvement was indeed instrumental in both averting a genocide and in allowing the rebels to achieve eventual military success.
But in terms of policy, American and other western policy has virtually nothing to do with the growth of democratic instituions in the Arab world. The US policy in the Middle East has been, for decades, primarily to overtly support dictators and spout platitudes about freedom. The invasion of Iraq, although aimed at a dictator probably helped some of them sustain power for a little while, and it certainly created an ally to Iran in the region. But in the end, admittedly it has sprung forth a kind of a democracy in the nation... It wasn't all bad... Just horribly expensive..... Especially compared to successful and peaceful revolutions in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East.
The Arab Spring is a remarkable step in the move to democratic inclusive societies in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. They are not fully formed democracies, but then few nations who began the road to modern democracies ever began fully formed or perfect. (Indeed, at the beginning neither the UK nor the US were close to the current nations in terms of rights, or participation in the democratic institutions....)
Thought the western culture and especially media and the internet had enormous influence, western governments probably had none. Or maybe even slightly negative influence. And that means the nascent governments and institutions are largely self made, meaning they are probably more resilient than a democracy enforced on a people....
That would mean each one has a good chance for success, and a greater chance than Afghanistan ever had, or has today, certainly.
This is not surprising. 2 out of 3 "revolutions" that have succeeded in toppling dictatorships have been non-violent. (read: A Dictators Handbook....) And if achieved through largely non-violent means, the culture of respect and inclusiveness gives the movements a chance...
So if you think of the goals I enunciated for Afghanistans invaders as "victory" then I suppose its victory. Only not for anyone but the people of the nation. I don't claim any part in the achievement of victory when I'm only a spectator of a competition. And the US and the rest of the West have been spectators in most of the move to democracy in the Arab world. And that isn't going to change.

Thank you for the correction. I was typing while getting kids ready for the day. I meant the "NON-Arab" but missed.it.

bbauska wrote:Thank you for the correction. I was typing while getting kids ready for the day. I meant the "NON-Arab" but missed.it.

No worries. I knew you knew.

Yes, it's Obama's fault. It's the nature of being President.

The Taliban attack on an air base in southern Afghanistan on Friday drew coverage for the way the insurgents cloaked themselves in U.S. army uniforms to gain a tactical advantage, but few have taken note of the historical proportions of the damage inflicted. John Gresham, at the Defense Media Network, has published a detailed account of the attack on Camp Bastion, in which two Marines were killed, six U.S. Marine Corps jet fighters were destroyed, and two more "significantly" damaged. Those facts were all carried in most reports, but if that just sounds like a typical damage report from a decade-long war, you're wrong. Gresham explains the devastating damage done to VMA-211, the name of the Marine Corps attack squadron that was most affected last week, noting that it is "arguably the worst day in [U.S. Marine Corps] aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968." Or you could go back even further. "The last time VMA-211 was combat ineffective was in December 1941, when the squadron was wiped out during the 13-day defense of Wake Island against the Japanese."

He spells out some more of the details of the attack:

Eight irreplaceable aircraft (the AV-8B has been out of production since 1999) have been destroyed or put out of action – approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet. Worse yet, the aircraft involved were the AV-B+ variant equipped with the APG-65 radar and AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pods – the most capable in the force. Given the current funding situation, it’s likely that the two damaged AV-8Bs will become spare parts “hangar queens” and never fly again. A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support. The USMC’s response to this disaster will be a telling report card on its leadership and organizational agility.

It just goes to show how desensitizing a decade of war can be. With casualty counts streaming in the news every day, it's easy to miss historically devastating milestones that crop up. As an aside, if you want to see a really smart visual recreation of the attack, watch Brian Todd's CNN segment on the attack below:

And, this analysis is spot on:

We should all be very glad that we have a Democratic president right now; otherwise the news would be terrible. We would be seeing a rash of horrible and depressing stories in the newspapers about strategic failure, with unremitting second guessing and belittling of a president who agonized for months before the surge and then saw his plan fail. We’d be hearing non-stop reports in the media about the incompetent and klutzy leader who torpedoed his own policy by announcing a withdrawal date; the man who tried to please everybody and do everything—and failed at all he tried.
The press would be jumping on this narrative. There would be continuous coverage of the disarray in Afghanistan: the soldier’s we’re training are shooting us, the corruption is intensifying, and the opium trade spreading. There would be story after story about how Afghanistan seems little changed after the surge, and how peace is still not at hand. These stories wouldn’t be on the back pages; they’d be perceived as major news with profound implications for America’s global position and the Sunday shows and nightly TV news round ups would be full of talking heads endlessly analyzing each wrinkle of the failure.
There would be bitter, wounding comparisons between the president and LBJ in Vietnam. If we had a conservative Republican president right now, we’d be hearing him compared to the noble Duke of York, who marched 10,000 men to the top of the hill only to march them down again.
And we’d be hearing all kinds of damning stories about the failure of the U.S. government to deal with the chaos in Pakistan.
We’d also be reading stories linking the apparent U.S. failure in Afghanistan to the empowerment of anti-American movements throughout the Middle East. The recent riots would be used as a stick to beat the president with—his weakness, indecision and strategic inconsequentialism in Afghanistan would be endangering our interests all over the region. Instead of concentrating on the real terror threat, the press would tell us, this hypothetical clueless Republican president wasted time, treasure and attention on a failed strategy in Afghanistan. The press would try to hang the corpse of the U.S. ambassador in Libya around the neck of a Republican president, if we had one right now.
But thankfully we have a Democratic president, and in an election year the normally feisty American media—the same media that worked night and day to expose every flaw and contradiction in the Bush policies in the region (and they had plenty to expose)—is too busy reporting the flaws in the Romney campaign (again, there’s much to report) to pay attention to anything as insignificant as a comprehensively failed presidential strategy in a foreign war.
So the news is upbeat, and there are no connections being made.