Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16336
Location: Wish You Were Here
Need2KnowPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:48 am
This war needs to be concluded, but too many in this country, especially the left wing liberals, are very quick to forget how truly vunerable we can be without due dilligence and top notch intelligence, not to mention a strong military and covert military presence.
Let us never forget.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9292
paxPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:43 am
I agree n2k, and will never forget.
The question I have is how to best conclude the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. McCain and Obama have reasonable differences. It's going to be very difficult no matter who is commander in chief. Whoever becomes President, I will support him in his efforts and encourage vigorous diplomacy. I know it's just my opinion and doesn't amount to more than spouting off.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16336
Location: Wish You Were Here
paxPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:15 am
Obama is saying the wrong things about Afghanistan
He hit the right notes during his swing through Iraq, but his plans for that other war could mean trouble.
By Juan Cole
July 23, 2008 | Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Iraq policies are mirror images of each other. Obama wants to send 10,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable. In contrast to the kid gloves with which he treated the Iraqi government, Obama repeated his threat to hit at al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan unilaterally, drawing howls of outrage from Islamabad.
But Obama's pledge to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan will not be easy to fulfill. While coalition troop deaths have declined significantly in Iraq, NATO casualties in Afghanistan are way up. By shifting emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, would a President Obama be jumping from the frying pan into the fire? ....
In general, Obama's policies toward Iraq synchronize neatly with the aspirations of the Shiite-dominated elected Iraqi government, with an affirmation of the need to gain the consent of the Iraqis for any status-of-forces agreement with the U.S., and with a far greater emphasis on addressing the humanitarian crisis provoked by the U.S. invasion. On leaving al-Maliki's office, Obama was able to call his consultations with the prime minister "very constructive."
By comparison, Obama's criticisms of Bush administration policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his determination to make those countries the centerpiece of his foreign policy, are more problematic. Obama's determination to put down the tribal insurgencies in northwestern Pakistan and in southern Afghanistan reveals basic contradictions in his announced policies. His plans certainly have the potential to ruffle Afghan and Pakistani feathers, and have already done so in Pakistan....
Before he jumps into Afghanistan with both feet, Obama would be well advised to consult with another group of officers. They are the veterans of the Russian campaign in Afghanistan. Russian officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. now have in the country, and with three times the number of Afghan troops as Karzai can deploy. Afghanistan never fell to the British or Russian empires at the height of the age of colonialism. Conquering the tribal forces of a vast, rugged, thinly populated country proved beyond their powers. It may also well prove beyond the powers even of the energetic and charismatic Obama. In Iraq, he is listening to what the Iraqis want. In Pakistan, he is simply dictating policy in a somewhat bellicose fashion, and ignoring the wishes of those moderate parties whose election he lauded last February.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16336
Location: Wish You Were Here
Need2KnowPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:51 am
Mr. Obama is very, very, very inexperienced (nil) in anything to do with military operations. If he is elected, he would be wise to seek the counsel of those men and women with long careers in this arena before going around giving his opinions that will come back to haunt him later.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9292
PufPuf93Posted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:51 pm
Need2Know wrote:
Mr. Obama is very, very, very inexperienced (nil) in anything to do with military operations. If he is elected, he would be wise to seek the counsel of those men and women with long careers in this arena before going around giving his opinions that will come back to haunt him later.
GWB when elected had close to zero experience in foreign affairs and a dodgy military record. He lied to the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq where over a million Iraqui civilians have been killed and 4 million displaced and over 4000 soldiers killed and many more wounded. GWB has repeatedly replaced Generals who did not reflect his point of view. I miss Admiral Fallon already. I regret my vote for GWB in 2000.
IMO Obama has over-reached in what he might do as POTUS especially concerning Pakistan. Also a POTUS must surround himself with competent people. This is one reason I would like Wes Clark as VP or Secretary of Defense if an Obama administration comes to pass. Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO and "won" a war in the former Yugoslavia.
Question for you N2K as you are a military man: Am I correct in saying that there has been an abnormal high talent flow at the upper levels out of our military during the past 8 years eg more retirements and retirements of the most talented?
Divine Salamander
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1579
Location: Camp Creek
PhantomPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:59 pm
PufPuf93 wrote:
IMO Obama has over-reached in what he might do as POTUS especially concerning Pakistan. Also a POTUS must surround himself with competent people. This is one reason I would like Wes Clark as VP or Secretary of Defense if an Obama administration comes to pass. Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO and "won" a war in the former Yugoslavia.
If Clark "won" the war, how come there are still American troops stationed there? Even though Clinton claimed that they would only be there for a "brief period of time".
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
Need2KnowPosted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:00 pm
PufPuf93 wrote:
GWB when elected had close to zero experience in foreign affairs and a dodgy military record. He lied to the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq where over a million Iraqui civilians have been killed and 4 million displaced and over 4000 soldiers killed and many more wounded. GWB has repeatedly replaced Generals who did not reflect his point of view. I miss Admiral Fallon already. I regret my vote for GWB in 2000.
IMO Obama has over-reached in what he might do as POTUS especially concerning Pakistan. Also a POTUS must surround himself with competent people. This is one reason I would like Wes Clark as VP or Secretary of Defense if an Obama administration comes to pass. Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO and "won" a war in the former Yugoslavia.
Question for you N2K as you are a military man: Am I correct in saying that there has been an abnormal high talent flow at the upper levels out of our military during the past 8 years eg more retirements and retirements of the most talented?
I would agree with that and I do not know the core reason for it. Many may simply be at the end of their careers and want to pursue other ventures or simply stay retired while others may have other reasons that only they and their close friends and family know. I don't know if it has to do with anything going on in government or the military per se, but you never know.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9292
PufPuf93Posted:
Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:19 pm
Phantom wrote:
If Clark "won" the war, how come there are still American troops stationed there? Even though Clinton claimed that they would only be there for a "brief period of time".
Using your reasoning, we must not have won WWII as we still have troops in Japan and Germany.
I would define the end of a war -- won or loss -- as the cessation of violence, the ability to restore and improve infrastructure, and the citizenry able to move about freely and plan for a secure future.
Our military policy now and also during the Clinton administration is to expand the footprint of our military globally and to that end we now have over 700 foreign military installations and more in the works such as AFCOM. Plan Colombia was initiated in the Clinton adminsitration but funding has been altered where a far higher proportion of the assistance is military aid.
I just did 5 minutes of research and found the following:
NATO's role in relation
to the conflict in Kosovo
NATO's objectives
Background to the conflict
Support for neighbouring countries
Facts and figures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO's objectives
NATO's objectives in relation to the conflict in Kosovo were set out in the Statement issued at the Extraordinary Meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO on 12 April 1999 and were reaffirmed by Heads of State and Government in Washington on 23 April 1999:
1. a verifiable stop to all military action and the immediate ending of violence and repression; Check
2. the withdrawal from Kosovo of the military, police and paramilitary forces; Check
3. the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence; CheckThis explains why we still have troops in Kosovo
4. the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organisations; Check
5. the establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo on the basis of the Rambouillet Accords, in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Check
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1579
Location: Camp Creek
apodixisPosted:
Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:33 am
"The Big Question: Will Iraq disintegrate if the United States withdraws its troops?"
Excerpt:
"Where does Iran stand in all this?
This is the most misunderstood element in the Iraq crisis. The present Iraqi government had two main allies: the US and Iran. Their dispute is over who should have influence over that government. Iran has played a crucial role in the success of the so-called Surge...."
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
