Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:02 AM
Thu Dec 10
57 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/03/09
This is flawed thinking. All war is equally pointless. There is always another way. War always ends in injustice at every level. Any attempt to show otherwise is pure revisionism.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
And this is just one story. Of likely millions now.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
What else could be going on here?
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/03/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
The surge combined with a withdrawal timeline sends a message to our military: You wanted more troops for a new strategy, and you got them. Now make it work—and fast—because you're not getting a blank check to bankrupt the country with this bullshit forever.
It also sends a message to Karzai and Pakistan: We are committing more resources in the short term because we will not be around forever. Get your house in order ASAP or be screwed when we leave you to your own devices.
As for advertising to the Taliban that all they have to do is wait us out… First of all, we have gone from ~30,000 troops to now 100,000+ this year just to eradicate them. If 100,000 U.S. soldiers can’t deal with a few thousand cave-dwelling militants, this whole exercise is plainly not worth the cost. Second of all… does anyone actually believe the Taliban would just give up if Obama announced we’d be in Afghanistan indefinitely?
Anyway, Bill Kristol can eat a dick.
12/02/09
Last I checked, Obama is the Commander in Chief. Ie, he is head of the military.
It reminds me Chris Matthews saying that he was surprised that Obama would go to West Point into the heart of the "Enemy Camp." Jeezus.
12/02/09
Last night hardly put the military "on notice"; they still got their surge (albiet slightly lower than asked for) and they still got the assurance that they would have a significant input as to when and how quickly real drawdowns ACTUALLY occur.
12/02/09
The military claims they have been under-performing due to lack of resources. Now that they don't have that excuse, they have to put up results or it's game over. Of course they don't like hearing that--it's nowhere near as fun as Bush's more wars, more troops, forever M.O. but you know what? That's how it is now that the adults are back in charge.
12/02/09
12/02/09
The whole date of 2011 sets up false expectations. If that place is a complete shiatstorm in 2011, do you honestly think the White House will simply throw up its hands and say "oh well, times up, let's go home"?
12/02/09
I was watching Maddow after the speech last night and couldn't stand her smug, condescending insistence that Obama is exactly the same as Bush, and is following exactly the same plans that Bush did in regards to Afghanistan/Iraq. There are clear, substantive differences in their prosecution of the war, and I'm totally fed up with the "anti-war left" (whatever the hell that is) insistence that this thing is exactly like that thing.
12/02/09
What the vast majority of the military folks do want is clear leadership. So far Obama has fallen far short of that.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"
Yep, as far as the war goes I see a huge difference between the two.
12/02/09
I guess I just don't understand exactly what people want out of Afghanistan. If it's to remove all troops, immediately, then fine, but be prepared for what comes afterward.
As far as your discussion downthread goes - I don't think this is about "winning", necessarily, at least in a clear, black-white way. If the President is to be believed, the "surge" is to buy Afghan and Pakistani police, militia, etc. time to prepare for US withdrawal. Which means training, leadership corps, etc. I can't really think of a time that Bush ever pushed this type of an agenda with any real plan (this was given a lot of lip service in the Bush admin, but I can't think of any time a clear strategy was pursued along these lines - correct me if I'm wrong!)
Ultimately, no matter what Obama does, there's going to be bloodshed and pain in Afghan/Pak. I suspect he's doing what he thinks is right to at least minimize this, or keep it managed. Immediate withdrawal leaves a lot of other countries on the hook for the mess and ensures a pretty high casualty rate for everyone involved.
12/02/09
I just don't think we should be involved anywhere in the Middle East. I'm as hawkish as they come, but I don't think there's any way to fight a politically correct war, which is what we're trying to do. I really liked the way Reagan handled terrorists. Remember when Libya was the terrorist stronghold? We went in and bombed the hell out of their oil platforms, and when that didn't work we bombed Mohamar Khadafi's palace, killing one of his sons I believe. After that we didn't have a problem with Libyan sponsored terrorists.
12/02/09
However, can we at least agree that this doesn't seem like a flippant or ill-informed decision on the President's part? I mean, it's politically dangerous, it's actually, physically dangerous and it's generally managed to piss off people on virtually every side of the argument. And he had to have known that would be the case. So I'm not ready to simply brush the decision off as, "well, he's just wrong", or "goddammit, he's right". I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, and I suspect both of those answers are both right and wrong.
I would also like to note that this is one hell of a fucked up situation for any President to try to tackle, much less a President who's been in office less than a year.
12/02/09
I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against them when Bush was in office, and I still am now that Obama is in office. They are trying to fight a politically correct war, which just can't be done. No American lives should be sacrificed unless we are willing to fight to win.
12/02/09
Repeatedly, if possible.
12/02/09
12/02/09
There, fixed it for you.
;)
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I will if you will...
First start with the Ghaznavid Dynasty. It was founded by an invading Turkish army and lasted for 200 years.
Second, Alexander didn't get his ass kicked there. He conquered the entire area on his way to India. Although the locals were a bit uppity once he left for India, his rule didn't end until his death.
So like the myth of the Afghan Winter, your claim the "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there" is highly overstated.
12/02/09
As for the Ghaznavid Dynasty, the founder of the Dynasty, Sebuktigin, extended the borders of his realm to the limits of modern Afghanistan. [south-asian-history.suite101.com] Not quite what you would call winning a war and ruling the country.
The point is, do you want to see the United States bogged down in a war where only two armies ever saw any kind of victory, the last being in the twelfth century? I sure as hell don't. Thanks for making me more edumacated, really.
12/02/09
As for Alexander...yes he had a hard time, but he was a decisive leader and still pushed through to win his battles and establish his authority there - again on the way to his goals in India. Or as the link you selectively quoted continues: "After 4 years of battle he passed through Afghanistan to Central Asia and with 100 thousand reinforcements from Greece and newly captured central Asian kingdoms returns to Afghanistan and captures Balkh, Qandahar, Heart, and Kabul and begins his invasion of India. In Afghanistan he falls in love with a local cheif's daughter named Rokhsana (Roxanne) and they get married before the invasion of India. In India Alexander is injured and is travels back, as he reaches Baluchistan he fall ill and dies at the young age of 32.
After Alexander’s death, Afghanistan is divided amongst 4 Greek governors with their capitals being Kabul and its suburbs, Heart and Sistaan, Qandahar and Baluchistan, and Bakhter (balkh area) and ruled for the next 55 years. "
Anyway, I assume we have moved past your false claim that "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there."
As for wanting us to be bogged down there...not my goal. But, IMO a result made more likely by the dithering from the current CinC. If we want to get out, we need to commit to winning. Which is why it was sad to hear the speech and not hear the word "Victory" even a single time.
12/02/09
I hate to tell you, but the US hasn't won a war since WW II. And that isn't the fault of the soldiers either, it's the politicians fault. We have the best soldiers out there, but the politicians won't let them fight to win.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09