Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Afghanistan has always been an unconquerable location : the terrain there is the most inhospitable place one could choose to fight a battle.
The might of the British Empire in 1842 was wiped out in Afghanistan.
Captain Connolly and Captain Stoddart were brough before Emir Nasrullah in chains.
The Russian Empire - who fought the Brits - for Afghanistan were defeated.
The USSR in the 1980's were defeated there too.
Centuries back, the Golden Horde held sway.
Peter Hopkirks book "The Great Game" really is required reading for the Palinites here.
"Many the bodies that lie in the sand,
Who tried to rule Afghanistan."
She's someone who can have the NYT number one best seller before the book actually comes out.
Stephen King probably could as well. But that doesn't mean I would give his political prognostications any weight. When Palin starts offering up constructive ideas instead of destructive criticism, maybe people will start listening. But until then she isn't contributing to the discussion, she's just manipulating it.
. . . . When Palin starts offering up constructive ideas instead of destructive criticism, maybe people will start listening. But until then she isn't contributing to the discussion, she's just manipulating it.
I know it's tough for some but committing to win a war against our sworn enemies is a valid position. . . even one worthy of discussion. Go Sarah!
Yeah! Go Sarah! People don't realize the depth of her understanding of current foreign affairs and her acute grasp of the direction we should take as a nation for the future.
I know it's tough for some but committing to win a war against our sworn enemies is a valid position. . . even one worthy of discussion. Go Sarah!
Really, I didn't see any discussion.
But, let's see. Our sworn enemies are Al Qaeda. And current estimates according to the news place roughly 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are Al Qaeda operatives in Germany, too. The Taliban became an enemy in a collateral way, they refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. While their repressive theocracy might be reprehensible to us, their activities beyond providing a safe haven for Bin Laden and his cronies did not pose a threat to American interests. And the Taliban actually functioned as a stabilizing influence in that region. I think most analysts would say that our presence in the region is actually contributing to the de-stabilization of that area.
While I, like Mrs Palin, sympathize with the families who have soldiers in Afghanistan serving, the current troop deployment is about 80,000 soldiers, and the general's request is for an additional 40,000. My perspective on this is you want to increase forces by 50%, then we need to have a very clear plan about how these forces are to be deployed, and what strategies are going to be used in that deployment. An increase in forces like this might be the best thing, but it could potentially be like casting our men into a bottomless pit. So unless Mrs Palin knows about those plans in detail, something I doubt, she's not really making a rational argument, she's cheerleading. The general is making his argument, and the President is, I'm sure, studying the plans and goals the general is setting. The President has to look at the military strategy in ways that go beyond a military operation. He has to think about the economy at home, and how the additional deployment and the costs of that deployment will affect the country. He has to think about the political fallout of additional deployment. The military sees this as an operation, but no one thinks that there will be a swift resolution to this conflict, even with the additional troops. What happens politically to the President and the other goals he has, when we deploy the additional troops and the results aren't immediate success. Mrs Palin benefits because that's just more ammo for her attacks. The President has to consider the worst outcomes of these strategies, and how to prepare a country for those outcomes while hoping for the best outcome.
And what is the best outcome? If we drive Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan altogether, they won't be gone, they'll just be somewhere else, and most likely, they'll be in Pakistan, a country with nuclear arms. If we wipe out the Taliban, that doesn't mean that a country that's political reality is tribal factions is going to suddenly become a peaceful democracy. Are we going to stay permanently in the country to act as watchdogs to keep the tribal factions under control? Are we going to impose our values on a country that is deeply vested in its traditions, no matter how brutal and outdated those traditions may seem to us? If we wage a war on their values, we'll have simply moved from a military war to a cultural war, and a cultural war we have very little hope of winning.
So if Mrs Palin wants to actually discuss these issues, then she might have something substantive to contribute. But her facebook comments, rather than being priceless, are worthless.
Yeah! Go Sarah! People don't realize the depth of her understanding of current foreign affairs and her acute grasp of the direction we should take as a nation for the future.
This must be sarcasm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the laugh.
Go Sarah!
