Afghanistan - Now Obamas War

#1
It is his baby now. Afghans protesting the latest attack. His willingness to close Gitmo, negotiate with rogue states, etc. will lead to even more unrest.
Less than a week on the job and he's in trouble.
 
#2
I disagree. He is pretty popular in the Muslim world, he is closing Gitmo, and he isn't Bush.

I think this will give him a lot more room to manoeuvre than his predecessor.
 
#3
PubMaster1 said:
It is his baby now. Afghans protesting the latest attack. His willingness to close Gitmo, negotiate with rogue states, etc. will lead to even more unrest.Less than a week on the job and he's in trouble.
My bold.

I fail to see how negotiating with Iran will lead to more unrest, if anything it could be the solution.

I think you just dislike Obama & no matter what he does people like you will always hate him & start getting hard-ons whenever you think he might have got something wrong
 
#4
If he counters his olve branch extension with ferocious force then there are gains to be made.
 
#6
jonwilly said:
Much as one Hates it, like it or not, You have to TALK to the Enemy no matter how despicable they be.
john
John - You are right where the 'enemy' is organised and can be said to provide a listener. As I understand 'gan, there is no one Army opposing us. It seems it is not just Talib but local chiefs who object. Even if we get some sort of agreement with Bloke A, there is no guarantee that Blokes B, C, D et al agree with him as a spokesman for them and their parochial interests. Remember the vacuum in NI when PIRA broke away and we had to try and negotiate with pin men and the stickies both?
 
#7
Of course you should always talk to your enemy - when they come under a white flag asking to negotiate their terms of surrender.
 
#8
tmsbry said:
PubMaster1 said:
It is his baby now. Afghans protesting the latest attack. His willingness to close Gitmo, negotiate with rogue states, etc. will lead to even more unrest.Less than a week on the job and he's in trouble.
My bold.

I fail to see how negotiating with Iran will lead to more unrest, if anything it could be the solution.

I think you just dislike Obama & no matter what he does people like you will always hate him & start getting hard-ons whenever you think he might have got something wrong
I never said I hated him, I just think he is sending the wrong messsage to the wrong people. I don't believe the Iranians will negotiate in good faith, as they have no reason to. They'll use it as a tactic to stall and delay and eventually take the time to do whatever evil they are up to.

As for the Taliban, or Al Qaida in Afghanistan, they have a great track record, don't they?

I guess he isn't Bush, and I didn't agree with many of Bush's policies, but Obama, will eventually capitulate to the Taliban.

As the prophecy says, the evil will come from within.
 
#9
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq as the new administration turns its focus to Afghanistan
...
"There are fears that this could become a US war rather than a Nato one," said Christopher Langton, senior fellow for conflict at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. "With other Nato members already planning to scale back, the US could find itself isolated. Rather than being an international operation, it would become another 'coalition of the willing', as in Iraq...
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq as the new administration turns its focus to Afghanistan
...
"There are fears that this could become a US war rather than a Nato one," said Christopher Langton, senior fellow for conflict at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. "With other Nato members already planning to scale back, the US could find itself isolated. Rather than being an international operation, it would become another 'coalition of the willing', as in Iraq...
Well at least the coalition of the willing got the job done. I think Obama now realises how impotent NATO is, it's time we all did.
 
#13
Thanks ORC for putting me right.
Yes you do need a Someone to talk to.
The eternal problem of, Withdraw from Empire, just who is the opposition and who do you talk to.
john
 
#14
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq ...
Winning?
I personally think that Iraq is not a war won, more a situation that has stabilised for just long enough to everyone announce they are pulling out. Al sadr et all toe the line until the majority of forces have gone and then there is a huge risk of Iranian invasion/influence, civil war taking over or the insurgents seizing power. It could become a lawless breeding ground for terrorism with out much encouragement and then little control..
 
#15
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq ...
Winning?
It depends on the definition of 'victory'? In theory it is possible to give a definition that would make the war in Vietnam victorious.

By the way, what is the cardinal difference between the wars in Iraq and in Vientnam?

Returning to Afghanistan, the war here painfully reminds one that the Soviet union waged in the country.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq ...
Winning?
It depends on the definition of 'victory'? In theory it is possible to give a definition that would make the war in Vietnam victorious.

By the way, what is the cardinal difference between the wars in Iraq and in Vientnam?
No major-power backers (and by backing I mean heavy gear and thousands of tons of supplies, not the odd rocket and some training) for the anti-government elements, no conventional army able to take advantage of the absence of the US. Remember, it was the North Vietnamese army that overthrew the Southern Government, not the Viet Cong. If Iran thought of trying the same trick it would end up devastated through bombing and blockade, and even if it did somehow manage to avoid US intervention, it would find Iraqi nationalism impossible to overcome.
 
#17
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq ...
Winning?
It depends on the definition of 'victory'? In theory it is possible to give a definition that would make the war in Vietnam victorious.

By the way, what is the cardinal difference between the wars in Iraq and in Vientnam?
No major-power backers (and by backing I mean heavy gear and thousands of tons of supplies, not the odd rocket and some training) for the anti-government elements, no conventional army able to take advantage of the absence of the US. Remember, it was the North Vietnamese army that overthrew the Southern Government, not the Viet Cong. If Iran thought of trying the same trick it would end up devastated through bombing and blockade, and even if it did somehow manage to avoid US intervention, it would find Iraqi nationalism impossible to overcome.
They are insignificant details from may point of view.

Strategic objective of the war in Vietnam was creation of stable US ally at least in the Soouthern part of the country. For many reasons (including the efforts made by the Soviet Union and China) the objective was not reached.

Strategic objective of the war in Iraq was creation of stable US ally. Despite the fact that major powers did not intefere, the objective has not been reached yet and likely would not be reached anytime soon. Moreover, it is quite possible that Iraq would become an anti-American force in the region.

From this point of view (strategic objective and its realisation) the wars are quite similar.
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
KGB_resident said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/is-afghanistan-going-to-be-obamas-iraq-1515332.html

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq ...
Winning?
It depends on the definition of 'victory'? In theory it is possible to give a definition that would make the war in Vietnam victorious.

By the way, what is the cardinal difference between the wars in Iraq and in Vientnam?
No major-power backers (and by backing I mean heavy gear and thousands of tons of supplies, not the odd rocket and some training) for the anti-government elements, no conventional army able to take advantage of the absence of the US. Remember, it was the North Vietnamese army that overthrew the Southern Government, not the Viet Cong. If Iran thought of trying the same trick it would end up devastated through bombing and blockade, and even if it did somehow manage to avoid US intervention, it would find Iraqi nationalism impossible to overcome.
They are insignificant details from may point of view.

Strategic objective of the war in Vietnam was creation of stable US ally at least in the Soouthern part of the country. For many reasons (including the efforts made by the Soviet Union and China) the objective was not reached.

Strategic objective of the war in Iraq was creation of stable US ally. Despite the fact that major powers did not intefere, the objective has not been reached yet and likely would not be reached anytime soon. Moreover, it is quite possible that Iraq would become an anti-American force in the region.

From this point of view (strategic objective and its realisation) the wars are quite similar.
Dictionary Says:

Victory:
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.


I would argue the American position in Iraq meets several of the criteria to call it a victory.

In looking at the goals of both the allies and the extremists, it's obvious that the actual fight is won and now it is time for the battle of hearts and minds.

You may be right that the war is not over, but then again, it's not over.

So much Russian schadenfreude won't change the eventual outcome. I see Iraq as becoming another Dubai and influencing many other nations in the region. Something the religious zealots fear strongly.

This may be reinforced with Obama embracing muslim sentiment as long as he can keep the momentum.

The strategic goal was to create a stable Iraq in order to turn it into an ally.

Iraq is stable at this point in time. Even propagandist KGB/FSB agents have a hard time arguing against that.
 
#20
ghost_us said:
Dictionary Says:

Victory:
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.

I would argue the American position in Iraq meets several of the criteria to call it a victory.

In looking at the goals of both the allies and the extremists, it's obvious that the actual fight is won and now it is time for the battle of hearts and minds.

You may be right that the war is not over, but then again, it's not over.
So it is not right to say about victory or about defeat. The game is not over. Here I agree with you.

ghost_us said:
So much Russian schadenfreude won't change the eventual outcome. I see Iraq as becoming another Dubai and influencing many other nations in the region. Something the religious zealots fear strongly.
New Dubai? Agreed. It is quite possibe but not soon. But will be Iraq further am american ally? It is a big question.

ghost_us said:
This may be reinforced with Obama embracing muslim sentiment as long as he can keep the momentum.
Of course, it is possible.

ghost_us said:
The strategic goal was to create a stable Iraq in order to turn it into an ally.
And again I agree with you.

ghost_us said:
Iraq is stable at this point in time. Even propagandist KGB/FSB agents have a hard time arguing against that.
Stable Iraq? Today? You joke. Too far from it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7846420.stm

The outgoing American ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has warned against "a precipitous withdrawal" of US troops from the country.

Mr Crocker, who is retiring after a 30-year diplomatic career, said such a move would be dangerous.

Mr Crocker was speaking to journalists the day after briefing President Barack Obama on the situation in Iraq.

The US and Iraq have already signed a deal under which American combat troops are to leave by the end of 2011.

But during his election campaign Mr Obama said he wanted them out by the middle of 2010.
If Iraq is stable then what American troops are doing there?
 

Latest Threads

Top