What Do You Want To Hear About Afghanistan Plan Tonight? (generation, how much)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Trump is seeing first hand how tremendously complicated this situation is, withdrawal from Vietnam was simple compared to this. No terror groups filling the void and killing people, no destruction of schools.
He did quite the promo with the bomb (MOAB) several months ago now he is entering the real world.

Nothing but a Dog & Pony Show, one thing he's quite good at.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Marlow

This ^^^^^.

As an arm chair psychologist, I think Trump has daddy issues. He's enamored of powerful men, seeks their approval, and is easily persuaded by them. It's too bad for the American soldiers whose lives are on the line.

I think that explains a lot of his fantasies like making up phone calls praising himself.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Timmyy

I hear Afghanistan is beautiful this time of year.

Perhaps a good time for the big game hunting Trump boys to go off in pursuit of the rare Taliban mountain goat.

[Finn_Jarber]

I suppose the "no nation building" policy means we will nothing except police the country. No help with healthcare, education, infrastructure, or anything which might help get them get on their own feet. I just don't see how this will ever end. They will always be poor, sick and uneducated, which are the main ingredients for people to turn to crime and/or joining terrorist organizations. Will they have any reason to think we are the good guys?

[GearHeadDave]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Quite strange that he would defer to the military since he was so critical of them back in the election, he claimed he was smarter and now he wants them to lead. He is having to eat a lot of his words but I don't expect an apology.

Yeah there is more to that story, Definitely related to the Bannon departure.

[censusdata]

I want to here OUT OUT OUT but it seems like all every president gets into office promising less needless military campaigns only to change their mind. Obama and Trump seemed like the best options to end such military adventures as we've had and never followed through. I wish we'd stop wasting money in AFG and instead spend that money trying to get back the women ISIS sold into sex slavery.

[Goodnight]

He was sparse on details but what I got out of that speech was that he was going to increase troop strength considerably, but from what I have seen the military can add an additional 4000. That is not going to make much of a difference, certainly not going to defeat anyone with that number.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

He was sparse on details but what I got out of that speech was that he was going to increase troop strength considerably, but from what I have seen the military can add an additional 4000. That is not going to make much of a difference, certainly not going to defeat anyone with that number.

And it certainly has nothing to do with 'America First!' or MAGA unless the first A in MAGA stands for Afghanistan.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

so you want to cut and run and damn the consequences because we will deal with it later when the region blows up.

India has to get involved....you think Al Qaeda and ISIS don't want to expand and create a world war?

you are very naive.....of course this will not end, you think if we cut and run it will end?.....its going to be another massive refugee crisis that we have to deal with and take them in......do you have any idea who are we dealing with and your answer is just cut and run and pretend everything will be fine?

Yes, I want to cut & run instead of postponing the inevitable: the Afghan government falling apart and/or losing any semblance of control over wide swathes of Afghanistan. Getting India involved will only increase the tempo of Pakistan's involvement. Pakistan will not accept an Indian ally in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

Nope.

The military-industrial complex loves war.

As long as we invade and occupy nations, the fight to throw us out of there will continue.

Damn you Cheney.

It is senseless. We were (finally!) reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan. Now we are adding troops and our political leadership has failed to even articulate a goal to the American public. This should be unacceptable. He said we will leave based on conditions, but failed to articulate, even in broad strokes, what those conditions must look like. He said it would not be a blank check, but he said it while he was in the middle of writing a blank check. He said we weren't nation building, then he said we are going to develop the Afghan economy and help the Afghans build to a political solution (so we aren't nation building any more, except we are totally nation building in Afghanistan).

Originally Posted by finalmove

It's astonishing how those on your side could watch a speech and come away with exactly the opposite of what was said.
The military has been given the green light to do what they do best. Appeasement went out of fashion decades ago.
The end.

For years now, we have been stepping up the frequency and intensity of raids & drone strikes in Afghanistan & Pakistan, while scaling back our troop numbers. Now we are going to start adding troops again, while also apparently inviting a more formal involvement of Pakistani territory in the war.

Originally Posted by At-Chilles

Keep Assad in power with the Russians and Chinese backing him and the US only maintains limited control over the middle East. This moves us a way from a unipolar world.

Unipolar = bad, domineering, unstable

Multi-polar = good, greater stability.

You are a fool if you think a multi-polar world is "good, [with] greater stability." Recent history indicates that the multi-polar world was nasty, brutish, and short. Two brutal World Wars characterized that world. Syria was in the Russian sphere before its Civil War, and it will be after the Civil War, too.

Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle

Another crunched thread***sigh***

Trump is trying to steer a middle course---sadly, this will just prolong the conflict..with no end-game insight:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9f5_story.html

"Trump’s decision is a middle path that does not hew to either of the main foreign policy themes he articulated as a candidate: to stay out of expensive overseas quagmires, and to decisively win any conflict worth entering."

This is the same, but with no hope of ending and a risk of even deeper commitment in the future. There is no achievable goal.

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Trump's Generals would like nothing better than to expand the war into Pakistan

The war expanded into Pakistan almost a decade ago--not rhetorically, but in reality. The concern now is that formally moving Pakistan to the side of hostile nation would deepen, prolong, and intensify the conflict.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Trump is seeing first hand how tremendously complicated this situation is, withdrawal from Vietnam was simple compared to this. No terror groups filling the void and killing people, no destruction of schools.
He did quite the promo with the bomb (MOAB) several months ago now he is entering the real world.

You know that Trump almost exactly echoed the language Nixon used on Vietnam when he indicated an "honorable and enduring outcome." If you think withdrawing from Vietnam was easier, you are crazy.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I suppose the "no nation building" policy means we will nothing except police the country. No help with healthcare, education, infrastructure, or anything which might help get them get on their own feet. I just don't see how this will ever end. They will always be poor, sick and uneducated, which are the main ingredients for people to turn to crime and/or joining terrorist organizations. Will they have any reason to think we are the good guys?

In one breath he said no nation-building, in another he said we will develop the Afghan economy. Between developing the economy, building the national security forces, and reaching a political solution to the conflict: he is committing to nation-building. This war only ends when we leave. We had started that process. The right move was to finish it.

[Mike from back east]

The speech was a nothing burger, more of the same old same old stuff.

When he turned the issue over to the Pentagon last month it was a foregone conclusion that "more troops" would be their preferred solution.

When you're a general the only solution is always more troops.
When you're a GOP pol the only solution is tax cuts for the 1%.

You don't have to take my word for it; the The Marines see the "new approach" as more of the same.