Comments on: Decision Time on Afghanistan – by Jacob Laksin

By: Rhea Aiola

Rhea Aiola — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:38:55 +0000

Nice read, thx for the post.

By: brimp

brimp — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:07:20 +0000

Committing to not winning a war will get you a peace prize.

By: USMCSniper

USMCSniper — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:58:52 +0000

Ahh yes… Mandela the communist terrorist who kills Boer farmers and his tire-necklacing wife Winnie, Arafat the baby killing terrorist and school bus bomber, the anti-semite Carter for his efforts in establishing the Jihadist terrorist state of Iran and a nuclear armed North Korea, and the crackpot certifiable nutcase Al Gore for his achievements in anti science. Obama is in good company and I guess Nobel Peace Prize will encentivize him to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately, and to abandon Israel and support the nuclear ambitions of Iran to complete Hilter's final solution. For sure – no more troops to Afghanistan and massive funds into the IMF!

By: coyote3

coyote3 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:14:50 +0000

We did, but we left, even though we were asked to stay. At conclusion of the Mexican War, the U.S. controlled vast areas of Northern Mexico. Admittedly, not all, but many Mexicans wanted us to stay and continue going south to Guatemala.

By: MaryAnn

MaryAnn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:59:45 +0000

Any war needs to be fought with a clear knowledge of who the enemy is, and a clear goal of victory. If you don't know who you're fighting, or are afraid to name your enemy (as is the case with Islam), victory will remain elusive.
There are no compassionate wars; people die. If a nation is not prepared to accept this, it should not go to war. There are ways to fight wars, in addition to taking up arms. For those means to be effective, the enemy must be known, understood and clearly named. America is losing the ideological battle against radical Islam because we are afraid to call it what it is. Until we do, we will lose any war against it.

By: LenPowder

LenPowder — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:10:25 +0000

The only way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani Muslims – we must remember they are Muslims – is to give them cash, no different than what Democrats do here to win votes. Let's include them in the new Obamacare health program, build subsidized housing, issue food stamps, create non-profit organizations, build schools teaching science and technology instead of Muslim dogma – you get the point. Simply not 'killing' them won't improve their quality of life.

What's really tragic is that you can never establish a free-market enterprise system there because their backward tribal and Islamic cultures make that impossible. When the Jihadists invaded Afghanistan centuries ago they predestined their history to the end of time, as they did in any country or region they invaded.

Our response to 911 should not have been to invade Iraq & Afghanistan but to enforce the strictest security possible so that no terrorist could ever penetrate that security to replicate 911 again. Unwilling or unable to erect such security we were left with no choice but to take the fight to the terrorists. Unfortunately there are too many of them in too many places in the world for us to ever defeat them. In any case, the Islamists are not unlike the Japanese in WWII. They have enough kamikaze fighters to penetrate our defenses. Securing our borders was the answer, but we didn't have the will to enact this policy.

By: LucyQ

LucyQ — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:18:52 +0000

And if nation-building is this week's goal, we should invade Mexico, make it like us, a democracy, and not leave until we've “earned the support of the people.”

By: LucyQ

LucyQ — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:05:07 +0000

“We will not win simply by killing insurgents,” the general wrote. Instead of conventional military tactics, McChrystal pushed for troops to conduct community meetings, local projects, and work programs that could win Afghans to their side and undermine the influence of the Taliban and affiliated jihadists. “Earn the support of the people and the war is won, regardless of how many militants are killed or captured,” McChrystal explained.”

Nevermind that our purpose in Afghanistan was to kill or capture al qaeda. General McChrystal wants our young soldiers to be social workers. The pro-war people are becoming more and more like Muslims–they enjoy killing their young, in this case our young soldiers.

If we're no longer interested in killing or capturing bin laden, then why are we nation-building in Afghanistan? McChrystal is just plain wrong about “earning the support of the people.” If we were invaded by foreigners, no matter the reason, would we end up supporting them?

By: Timmy

Timmy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:46:03 +0000

I mean the tactic is wrong from the standpoint of what we want to be the outcome. It isn't about what is morally right or wrong. And I'm not particularly concerned about anything we do “to” the Muslims if you are implying that I think anything we might have to do would be morally wrong. As far as I am concerned this is a fight for the literal survival of Western Civilization and therefore nothing is off the table. But at this point what we should do to confront Islam is first state the truth about it, make it a propaganda war to expose Islam for what it is, quit all the PC crap and tell the truth and history for what it is. Instigate them to go crazy by showing cartoons etc., let them riot, let them burn down their own cities. End all expansion of Islam in the West, end all immigration. Close any mosque that calls for Sharia. Deport anyone that calls for Sharia. So there is stage one, an endless propaganda war that we must win. As for actual war, bomb and destroy any troublesome regime, spend ZERO effort rebuilding any Islamic country. Let them suffer and stew in their own miserable societies. Do nothing to help them or prop them up. Support any non-Muslims in any land where they are being subjugated or attacked by Muslims. In other words make it clear who and what the enemy is and which side we are on. As it stands we are sick fools for creating Islamic states in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everlasting shame on the United States for that!

By: USMCSniper

USMCSniper — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:01:08 +0000

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of wealth; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of victory. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, and only a small chance of survival.

Partially From Churchill……

By: coyote3

coyote3 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:48:18 +0000

I don't quite know what you mean, when you say consider that a tactic might be so wrong. Are talking about morally wrong or incorrect? There is a big difference. The assumption that others share our morals and will respond favorably if we abide by them, have cost us too many lives already, and almost caused us to lose a couple of wars, and that was fighting people with whom we did share some values. Maybe we do need to confront Islam. You seem to articulate some answers, so “how” would “you” confront Islam?

By: josephwiess

josephwiess — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:10:55 +0000

In my opinion, President Obama and the Democrats are political and moral cowards. They need to start thinking about what might happen if the Taliban and Al-Queda take over both pakistan and Afghanistan.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if this bunch of spineless pollsitters had been in control during World War II. Would they have denied weapons and supplies to England, or refused to send help to the French underground, or would they have said, "We can keep sending bomber raids and wear them down." or would they have worshiped at the feet of Hitler and Mousalini?

I honestly don't think they ever want us to win at anything again, ever, and it's starting to really tick me off.

By: airconditioningtx

airconditioningtx — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:18:02 +0000

thanks for nice post

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:15:38 +0000

Consider that it is possible to judge a strategy or tactic wrong without even knowing what the goal is. In other words, some things that someone or some entity or group could do are so wrong that one doesn't even have to know what they are trying to do in order to condemn it as a failure. One doesn't need to come up some bizarre example where doing something outrageous is in fact good when seen in context of the goal – such as the hiker who cut off his own arm trapped by a boulder in order to save himself. In the case of our dealings in Afghanistan there simply is nothing that can be done with boots on the ground at this point that makes sense. Whether we stay or leave, spend a trillion more or zero more, it just won't make a difference in the end. Why delay the reality another few years at the risk of 40,000 more lives. And it isn't about “losing” the war, there is nothing to win. Until we decide to confront Islam per se we are just wasting time money and men.

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:53:33 +0000

I would have to say that I have stated what our goals should be and that to the extent that the goals are anything other than that we are wasting our time money and men on whatever strategies or tactics are employed.

People who have the unfortunate circumstance of living under Islam are not actually wired differently but the oppressiveness of Islam forces them to act in certain ways. If the Afghans were Christian or Hindu or anything other than Muslim it would be an entirely different ballgame but then in that case we wouldn't be there in the first place.

By: coyote3

coyote3 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:37:03 +0000

No, I was very specific, although there is a little extrapolation involved. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you are being very loose with your terms. I don't think winning the hearts and minds is the “goal”. That is the problem, there is no goal, and it is not up to the military to set goals. So far, no one has given them a goal, and that is an even bigger problem. His winning the hearts and minds would seem to be part of a strategy, good, bad, indifferent, but it is kinda of hard to have any idea, if we don't know what the goal is. Likewise, we could say that the “how” you win the hearts and minds is a tactic, e.g. the stealing the women and raping the cattle, whether it would work or not, again, we don't know the goal, and that is the most dangerous part. Winning the hearts and minds, may or may not be possible. I tend to agree with you that it is not possible with these people, because they don't appear to be “wired” like we are, but that is really irrelevant. If we don't know what goal they want to accomplish by winning the hearts and minds, we remain clueless as to whether it would work or not. Kind of like asking “Is this a good tool?” Well, the obvious answer, is “that depends on what you want to do with it.” I believe that previous administration did the right thing by going to Afghanistan, and the stated goal was Al Queda, and getting UBL. Well, fine partially successful, but Taliban got in the way. No problem fighting them, either, for that purpose, but I believe we lost sight of what we went there for. In all fairness, this happened under the previous administration, although they got off to a good start. Another factor was that the previous administration did not really prepare the American people. After the attacks, they could have easily whipped the American people into screaming for blood in the streets, and at the same time educating them about the realities of a war. It would have worked under those circumstances. Now, this outfit has no goals, and is just as clueless, if not more so, than the previous bunch.

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:35:33 +0000

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/colum...

second try on link for article

you can also google Diana West general and find it

Diana West: McChrystal's strategy won't win Afghanistan

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:18:05 +0000

You seem to be dealing in generalizations. Nothing you have said is news to me. I understand the civilian and military roles. But you serve as a good example of what happens, the military is over there trying to do something, anything, but even they don't know what the real goal is. But they can "occupy" themselves with endless scenarios and strategies nevertheless.

See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/colum...

"To win what McChrystal describes not as a battle in the war on global jihad (fireable offense No. 3), but rather as "the struggle to gain the support of the [Afghan] people," (fireable offense No. 4), he writes that we must "connect with the people" - the same "people," he acknowledges, who "can often change sides and provide tacit or real support to the insurgents" (fireable offense No. 5)."

The goal of the general would seem to be winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans. If he has any comprehension of the larger goal of saving the West from the Islamic Jihad, or beating back Islam and containing it within certain geographic borders, then he sure is remaining awfully secretive about that.

By: coyote3

coyote3 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:04:57 +0000

This is another example of why amateurs, you and I included, should not be doing this. The military doesn't set overall goals. Winning the hearts and minds is not a “goal”, it is a tactic, which is meant, successful or not, to achieve an overall goal, i.e., strategy. Again, I am not so presumptuous as to say what that goal would be, but then that is not for me to say. That, is up to the civilian administration, and I have not heard them articulate a concrete one yet. The military can do a lot of things, but they can't do things they were never meant to do. The “goal” is not good or bad. Adolf Hitler had goals which were, in fact, achievable. However, as an equivalent to an E-4 he was not qualified to formulate the tactics to achieve those goals. While he didn't hamper his military “like” we do, he did so, in another way, by believing he was qualified to “run” a war, and thereby interfered with his military to the point where he not only decided “who” was the enemy, but when and how the war would be prosecuted. He probably did as much to lose the war for Germany, as the did the allies. It was probably lucky for us he was as wacky as he was. In our country, the civilian government determines “if” we get into a conflict, and what we are supposed to accomplish in that conflict. I would agree that the military's input in necessary, to aid the civilian government in determining if what they want to accomplish is achievable militarily. Beyond that, however, when you have the unqualified micromanaging, deciding the “how”, e.g. whether or not stealing the women and raping the cattle is the best way to accomplish what you want to accomplish, you have a recipe for disaster.

By: Timmy

Timmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:22:40 +0000

There are actually TWO distinct tracks on which one has to analyze the current situation. The first one is from the standpoint of the armed services already there – they must come to some sort of reasonable conclusion. IF their GOAL is correct, and it is NOT, then let them choose the tactics. But the general wants to do the impossible – win the hearts and minds of the civilian Muslim population. For that I condemn him and whatever tactics evolve out of that goal. And he wants 40,000 more men for that fools errand?!? The goal must be established first and then tactics devised. The general is merely trying to do “something” “anything” and that is not good enough. We could send 1,000,000 more men and spend 1 trillion more dollars, and build modern cities all over Afghanistan and even absurdly do the work that Al Qaeda wants and kill millions of OUR OWN citizens just as a sign of “good will” to them – and at the end of it all they would still hate us to the very core of our infidel beings and wish that we would die right there on the spot. The second track is what Western civilization is going to do about Islam going forward. Boots on the ground is never going to work. We should separate ourselves from them entirely and destroy problem regimes from the air and never build up any Islamic country at all ever never.