What If No Iraq Invasion ?

POSTED BY: Jongsstraw
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2023 03:55
VIEWED: 6880
PAGE 5 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:21 AM

"And how many attempts have they made before that? If it's a high number, then at least we're doing something right, because Karzai isn't dead yet. If it's a low number, then they likely don't have the resources for numerous attacks, meaning that we are winning the war of attrition."

For one thing, with either answer you give you pretend things are going well. Nice going dude.
And - you mean you don't know the answers to your own questions ??!! Then why are you even assuming your opinions matter ?
But your post is even more off-kilter than that, if possible. The Taleban, which claimed credit, was set up in a building overlooking the parade field. That area of Kabul had been under heavy security - restricted access and the lot - for weeks. And despite all that ...
So, what exactly went well with this ? B/c the mayor of Kabul seems to be losing Kabul as well as the entire country.

"Letting the farmers keep their money has done a helluva lot for local morale, and the economy."

Snicker - you expose your ignorance with every word. Farmers don't want to plant poppies. They'd rather plant food - you know, so they don't starve ? What they have is an inability to get aid for planting food. The government, such as it is, has nothing to give. So they must go to the local warlords for private loans - and guess what they get to plant with that money ! And btw, the farmers don't get to 'keep' the money - b/c of those loans.

"Even the Taliban had to work with the warlords."

Actually - no. The Taleban per se disarmed the entire countryside. They didn't 'have' to work with them at all.

"The warlords' very existence is a HUGE benefit for our cause. ... All we have to do is make it worth the Warlords' while ..."

Let's see - let them sell opium to buy their high-tech state of the art armaments to undermine Karzai and support the Taliban whenever they wish. Does that seem right to you ? 'Cause to me it sure looks like a failure in the making.

"If the people have sided with the(m) warlords, all the better."

Well, the people aren't exactly siding with the warlords, they're just appeasing them. Nor are they siding with US/ NATO forces either, and with good reason.

"You have to remember, there has never been a national system like we have here in the U.S."

Probably the acme of national systems came during the communist era, roughly 1978- 1988.

"To put it plainly, for now, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people that matter."

In that case the US had better make up its mind as to who exactly matters and how much they can be counted on. Karzai can be counted on, but does he matter all that much ? And while the warlords (often closely allied with or identical to the Taleban) may matter, can they be counted on for anything at all ? Because at this point, the US is backing both. And by trying to ride two donkeys going in opposite directions - is going to end up being worse than an ass.

So yeah, you can pretend Afghanistan is going well. Just don't be surpised when you look back and find you're leading a parade of one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:55 AM

Reaverman, if we're not on Afghanistan to capture bin Laden or destroy al Qaida, not to foster a poppy-independent economy, not to help free women (who BTW enjoyed a far superior status under the Soviets, so that by the time the Soviets were defeated HALF of the doctors were women. Which is why the Taliban had such a huge negative effect on women: their freedom was seriously diminished by the Taliban especially in comparison to what they had achieved under Soviet rule), and it's not to reduce the power of the warlords (who BTW are every bit as nasty as "the Taliban"), and it's not to unify the nation or bring progress and education...

In other words, if all we're doing is pandering to the warlords in pursuit of getting rid the "the Taliban" without reducing "the Taliban's" negative paradigm one whit...

what the f*ck are we doing there in the first place?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

VETERAN

Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:09 AM

Whoa Reave what a riff!

Thanks for the flattering commentary regarding my post . Of course, I was not entirely serious it is afterall a fantasy thread.

However, I will point out that there was no need for me to have a through knowledge of logistics to suggest that 300,000 troops could have been used to invade Afghanistan if Iraq was not on the menu. That's because 300,000 is the approximate the number of troops used to invade Iraq. Yes it would have been logsitcally harder to get 300,000 soldiers there than Iraq, but not impossible. (in fact it's kind of unpatriotic of you to suggest the US Armed Forces and their Allies couldn't get that mobilize that many men ).

The counter insurgency policies authored by General Petraeus require a large number of troops to suppress an insurgency. I think the number is like 20 occupiers/1,000 civilians. We've never had near that many coalition troops in Afghanistan. I concede your point that special forces are important, and add that one of their roles as recruiters and trainers of irregular and regular forces could help cut into that deficit. But I don't think its a match for regular army.

Regarding bin Laden and his escape, they had him trapped in Tora Bora. But a tactical mistake was made and the task of guarding one of the potential escape routes was assigned to local troops who were either on the take or incompentent. Bin Laden and his slipped out. Well don't beleive me here's a news clipping:

"U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge...."

So I maintain if we had more troops we would have got him.

Regarding Hussein, I agree with your view more than you think. Hussein would have tried to hang on. A large part of his problem was that he was trying to look strong to his neighbors and internal enemies while the UN Inspectors were revealing that he's got nothing.

RUE

Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:38 AM

" A large part of his problem was that he was trying to look strong to his neighbors and internal enemies while the UN Inspectors were revealing that he's got nothing."

But he was counting on the idea that no one was crazy enough to attack him with UN inspectors in the country. And he probably would have been happy to have a semi-permament UN presence, just in case. Sure, it would have hobbled his power. But he was intent on surviving.

***************************************************************
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

VETERAN

Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:53 AM

To quote my favorite Sunday Host, "You're on point."

REAVERMAN

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Reaverman, if we're not on Afghanistan to capture bin Laden or destroy al Qaida, not to foster a poppy-independent economy, not to help free women (who BTW enjoyed a far superior status under the Soviets, so that by the time the Soviets were defeated HALF of the doctors were women. Which is why the Taliban had such a huge negative effect on women: their freedom was seriously diminished by the Taliban especially in comparison to what they had achieved under Soviet rule), and it's not to reduce the power of the warlords (who BTW are every bit as nasty as "the Taliban"), and it's not to unify the nation or bring progress and education...

In other words, if all we're doing is pandering to the warlords in pursuit of getting rid the "the Taliban" without reducing "the Taliban's" negative paradigm one whit...

what the f*ck are we doing there in the first place?

Eliminating a threat. Afghanistan was a huge base of Ops for the folks that attacked us on 9/11. We have eliminated their ability to openly use it, and we severely hampered their efforts, at least before Iraq turned into an Islamic demogogue's wet dream. All those other things were side-goals meant to pacify the anti-war crowd. Sure, the higher-ups actually did intend to carry out some of them, but reality has intruded on those good intentions.

We're finding out what the Soviets did before us: you can't completely alter a culture in a couple of years and NOT expect a massive conservative backlash, regardless of how unjust such a culture seems. It's simple common sense. If you want to radically change a culture, you have to do it slowly. I mean multi-generationally slowly.

But, to be brutally honest, I just don't care about their culture. I care about what benefits us the most. If that means a policy of slow assimilation, fine. If it means allowing "injustices" to continue, whatever. If success requires that we burn the entire region into radioactive glass, so be it. So long as we come out on top in the end.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Quote:
But, to be brutally honest, I just don't care about their culture. I care about what benefits us the most. If that means a policy of slow assimilation, fine. If it means allowing "injustices" to continue, whatever. If success requires that we burn the entire region into radioactive glass, so be it. So long as we come out on top in the end.

Have you ever heard of "blowback"? I can point to many instances where we promoted tyranny only to have it bite us in the *ss later:

Overthrowing the Mossadegh govt in Iran and installing the Shah (and his infamous Savak) only to have the Shah thrown out and replaced by Khomeini.
THEN supporting Saddam to fight Khomeini.
Supporting the Taliban/ mujahideen (including ObL) to oust the Soviets ... and we know how that ended up!
These are only threee instances; I can cite at least a dozen more.

The times we went to war that worked out was when we followed up with development aid and support: Germany and Japan. If I were to encapsulate our REAL interests it would be stability, general propserity and transparency. But the problem is that our REAL interests don't coincide with the interests of the capitalists who want poverty and tyranny because it promotes cheap raw materials and cheap labor

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:52 PM

"Eliminating a threat. Afghanistan was a huge base of Ops for the folks that attacked us on 9/11. We have eliminated their ability to openly use it, and we severely hampered their efforts ..."

Not according to the US NIE which found (June 19, 2007) that al Qaeda had rebuilt to 9/11 capability and was just as much of a threat to the US as ever.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

If you want to be considered credible, it would help if you had facts to go with your 'tude, dude. Otherwise you just look like some little kid with toy guns pretending to be a grown-up. And it looks silly.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Taleban, which claimed credit, was set up in a building overlooking the parade field. That area of Kabul had been under heavy security - restricted access and the lot - for weeks. And despite all that ...
So, what exactly went well with this ?

Their mission failed.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Farmers don't want to plant poppies. They'd rather plant food - you know, so they don't starve ? What they have is an inability to get aid for planting food. The government, such as it is, has nothing to give. So they must go to the local warlords for private loans - and guess what they get to plant with that money ! And btw, the farmers don't get to 'keep' the money - b/c of those loans.

Please provide a link for this assertion. I've heard most farmers grow poppies instead of food because poppies are much more lucrative.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The warlords' very existence is a HUGE benefit for our cause. ... All we have to do is make it worth the Warlords' while ..."

Let's see - let them sell opium to buy their high-tech state of the art armaments to undermine Karzai and support the Taliban whenever they wish. Does that seem right to you ? 'Cause to me it sure looks like a failure in the making.

Is this opinion or do you have facts to support this supposition?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You have to remember, there has never been a national system like we have here in the U.S."

Probably the acme of national systems came during the communist era, roughly 1978- 1988.

Which the Taliban spent 20 years undermining.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"To put it plainly, for now, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people that matter."

In that case the US had better make up its mind as to who exactly matters and how much they can be counted on. Karzai can be counted on, but does he matter all that much ? And while the warlords (often closely allied with or identical to the Taleban) may matter, can they be counted on for anything at all ? Because at this point, the US is backing both. And by trying to ride two donkeys going in opposite directions - is going to end up being worse than an ass.

Opinion or substantiated fact?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So yeah, you can pretend Afghanistan is going well. Just don't be surpised when you look back and find you're leading a parade of one.

Is Afghanistan doing well really that hard for you to take or are you simply being a contrarian?

KWICKO

Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:55 PM

Quote:
Their mission failed.

So no one was killed in the attack?

Quote:
I've heard most farmers grow poppies instead of food because poppies are much more lucrative.

You've HEARD. Is that opinion or substantiated fact? Please provide a link for this assertion.

Quote:
Is Afghanistan doing well really that hard for you to take or are you simply being a contrarian?

Is this opinion or fact? Please provide links to prove that Afghanistan is doing well.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE