America isn't "ready for that" and it will never be ready for it again. The attitudes of the people reflect the times. That war isn't as devastating as it was in generations past is in keeping with these changes, for better or worse. And if you're truly an optimist, you'll agree it's for the better.
That is an awfully big prediction. 10 years from now we could be in the biggest war since WWII, slogging it out like we have not done in 8 decades.
Never is an awfully big phrase. Not right now, yeah. Never is a long time....
Actually "never" is no time at all. I mean, as long as we're arguing semantics...
At no time in the past or future. I presume, barring a really bad IPCC report I assume America still has quite a bit of future left. Personally I think the no taste for war stuff will last about 10 or 20 years. Then its back to a decade long occupation of some place that will end in Chaos and with that place hating us for centuries.
One note I've heard a lot in this thread is concern about the radical Islamists in the opposition. They are to my knowledge still a minority as compared to the parts of the opposition that are not explicitly Islamists -- though it would imho be a stretch to call them "secular". There's also evidence that there is strong popular resistance to their rule in the areas where they have actually consolidated control and attempted to govern (wish I could find a link just now). Syria has not historically been a heavily religious population, relative to other places in the region, for historical reasons of state repression but also just as a result of Syrian cultural preferences.
I don't know if it matters if they are a minority. As long as they are more organized and motivated than any other group, they'll be the one calling the shots. See: Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood, as far as anyone knows, legitimately won two rounds of democratic elections. They and their sympathizers are not "a minority."
I think eventually Iran will wind up with a bomb. I also don't think there's much danger they are going to nuke Tel Aviv or New York. Presumably they realize if they did that Tehran would be turned into glass parking lot. The real danger is that some of these weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, who aren't going to be dissuaded by threats of a retaliatory strike. Ironically, I feel there's a higher likelihood of this happening if the west tries to go into Iran after it has the bomb and overthrow the regime there and plunges the area into chaos.
1. I have not personally seen conclusive evidence that the Iranians are in fact developing a weapon vs. nuclear power capacity. It's entirely possible that it exists and I just haven't come across it, in which case I would be more than happy to be corrected.
2. The myth of Iran as an irrational actor who would either directly use a nuclear weapon, or furnish an extremist organization with one, is pervasive and powerful.
As to one, it should be noted that Iranians have rejected a lot of proposals where they could have peacefully developed nuclear technology (one that I remember was a reactor owned, staffed and operated by Iranians in Russia) and that the harm from sanctions have far out weighed any benifit that they would have gained from having nuclear power. Not conclusive, I know, but if they aren't building a bomb they should be.
Certainly a lot of their nuclear ambitions are also tied up with nationalism. Both Khomeini and Khamanei were able to very deftly channel external pressure -- both rhetorical and physical, as from Iraq -- into nationalist cohesion and solidarity. It's one of the main reasons they've been able to hold the Iranian state together for as long as they have, given that 1979 was the result of a broad coalition of which the mullahs were actually a minority.
America on the whole though, is pretty bad at that. We start things without wanting to finish them - you get a little blood on your hands, things get a little serious and you can't keep up. I feel like leaving Afghanistan now is an awful idea, for the reasons you've listed. There are men there I know - good people, who have thrown their lot in with the US - and when we leave they're dead because we will have abandoned them without the security they deserve. We stepped in and promised something and we should finish it.
This is a lesson that has not been learned by the US and will be repeated in Syria because the vast majority of Americans are so divorced from actual conflicts, and their repercussions, that are happening around the world.
Our unwillingness to commit to wars is precisely why we shouldn't. There are no gold stars for "trying". The world won't remember good intentions that didn't pan out because of one excuse or the other. Results are results. You either get the job done or you stay the hell out. The mess isn't cleaning itself up and the cost being exacted is ultimately in vain.
Ultimately in vain? I disagree. Our costs and efforts would not be if properly directed, and have not been in Astan. We've already sacrificed, time, effort, money - and blood. The fact that just over half of America feels like the war isn't worth fighting anymore is ludicrous. How much more does it take to see a conflict through?
People like you are analogous to guys booing marathon runners at the 13 mile mark.
Though I think we both agree that action in Syria is a bad idea. If we bomb, we have to commit all the way, and America isn't ready for that.
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
there a reason people see Iran as an irrational actor when it comes to nuclear weapons.
1. they are arming and supplying Hezbollah with rockets that they shoot indiscriminately at targets in Israel. They have no reason to do this Israel cannot take them over or likely even carry out a successful military strike.
2. when faced with the chance for rapprochement with the west they have always chosen to play it out for as many concessions as possible and then harden their stance. an example being when Albright was the envoy to the U.N during the 90s there was talking of negotiating with Iran. Instead of sending their own person of equal status with albright they sent the person under him.
2. when faced with the chance for rapprochement with the west they have always chosen to play it out for as many concessions as possible and then harden their stance. an example being when Albright was the envoy to the U.N during the 90s there was talking of negotiating with Iran. Instead of sending their own person of equal status with albright they sent the person under him.
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
The occupation should continue until Afghanistan is fully capable of defending its own borders, and fully capable of crushing the insider threats they have. You want a solid timeline, and that's literally impossible. Point blank, the nations already committed. If you cut and run you leave behind those who have become invested in you and your power to protect them.
Yeah, it's a good thing. We've literally wiped out their foundation of power. They're wandering nomads, that will be in turn rejected and pursued by legitimate governments across the face of the earth. They are strangers in strange lands, and they will be systematically eliminated - ie the french invasion of Mali. I would say yes, fundamentalist groups are less powerful - and are growing weaker. Radicalism isn't being embraced - it's being hunted down.
Edit - Africa on the whole is a bucket of worms worth an entirely separate thread. Want to start one?
there a reason people see Iran as an irrational actor when it comes to nuclear weapons.
1. they are arming and supplying Hezbollah with rockets that they shoot indiscriminately at targets in Israel. They have no reason to do this Israel cannot take them over or likely even carry out a successful military strike.
What's irrational about using Hezbollah as a cudgel against a competing regional power? Pakistan has been using armed extremist organizations for decades now to balance against India on the Indian subcontinent.
2. when faced with the chance for rapprochement with the west they have always chosen to play it out for as many concessions as possible and then harden their stance. an example being when Albright was the envoy to the U.N during the 90s there was talking of negotiating with Iran. Instead of sending their own person of equal status with albright they sent the person under him.
There's a kind of internal logic to constantly maintaining a posture of always being on the cusp ("3-5 years away") of nuclear weapons capability. If you're constantly on the verge of going nuclear, you have negotiating leverage; if you never actually go past the threshold, you don't pose an imminent enough threat that other regional and international powers are forced to make good on their threats.
Having Hezbollah in your back pocket (and according to the State Dept., at least a working relationship with some part of al-Qaeda) further increases the cost of any actual conflict with Iran.
America on the whole though, is pretty bad at that. We start things without wanting to finish them - you get a little blood on your hands, things get a little serious and you can't keep up. I feel like leaving Afghanistan now is an awful idea, for the reasons you've listed. There are men there I know - good people, who have thrown their lot in with the US - and when we leave they're dead because we will have abandoned them without the security they deserve. We stepped in and promised something and we should finish it.
This is a lesson that has not been learned by the US and will be repeated in Syria because the vast majority of Americans are so divorced from actual conflicts, and their repercussions, that are happening around the world.
Our unwillingness to commit to wars is precisely why we shouldn't. There are no gold stars for "trying". The world won't remember good intentions that didn't pan out because of one excuse or the other. Results are results. You either get the job done or you stay the hell out. The mess isn't cleaning itself up and the cost being exacted is ultimately in vain.
Ultimately in vain? I disagree. Our costs and efforts would not be if properly directed, and have not been in Astan. We've already sacrificed, time, effort, money - and blood. The fact that just over half of America feels like the war isn't worth fighting anymore is ludicrous. How much more does it take to see a conflict through?
People like you are analogous to guys booing marathon runners at the 13 mile mark.
Though I think we both agree that action in Syria is a bad idea. If we bomb, we have to commit all the way, and America isn't ready for that.
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
I desire an end to the violence, not 'victory.' My question to you remains unanswered: in light of the proliferation of militant groups across the Muslim world, often supposedly linked to al-qaeda and generally sharing much of the same idealogy, does the evidence support your claim that our occupation of Afghanistan has been both successful and worth the blood, tears, and money poured into it?
America on the whole though, is pretty bad at that. We start things without wanting to finish them - you get a little blood on your hands, things get a little serious and you can't keep up. I feel like leaving Afghanistan now is an awful idea, for the reasons you've listed. There are men there I know - good people, who have thrown their lot in with the US - and when we leave they're dead because we will have abandoned them without the security they deserve. We stepped in and promised something and we should finish it.
This is a lesson that has not been learned by the US and will be repeated in Syria because the vast majority of Americans are so divorced from actual conflicts, and their repercussions, that are happening around the world.
Our unwillingness to commit to wars is precisely why we shouldn't. There are no gold stars for "trying". The world won't remember good intentions that didn't pan out because of one excuse or the other. Results are results. You either get the job done or you stay the hell out. The mess isn't cleaning itself up and the cost being exacted is ultimately in vain.
Ultimately in vain? I disagree. Our costs and efforts would not be if properly directed, and have not been in Astan. We've already sacrificed, time, effort, money - and blood. The fact that just over half of America feels like the war isn't worth fighting anymore is ludicrous. How much more does it take to see a conflict through?
People like you are analogous to guys booing marathon runners at the 13 mile mark.
Though I think we both agree that action in Syria is a bad idea. If we bomb, we have to commit all the way, and America isn't ready for that.
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
I desire an end to the violence, not 'victory.' My question to you remains unanswered: in light of the proliferation of militant groups across the Muslim world, often supposedly linked to al-qaeda and generally sharing much of the same idealogy, does the evidence support your claim that our occupation of Afghanistan has been both successful and worth the blood, tears, and money poured into it?
If you want an end to violence, you're going to live a very unsatisfied life. Your ideals and generalizations about humanity are, on a large scale, not reflected by the rest of the world. You want me to answer a question on your terms, and I won't because your terms aren't real.
You will neither recognize that we've strategically eliminated enemy forces, enemy installation, enemy command structures, and enemy resources nor the fact that we have successfully eliminated an extremist terrorist organization from governmental power, rendering the remains of Al-Qaeda unable to even fund, organize, or facilitate itself. Those fringe groups you see popping up are going to be eliminated.
Would you like some Milk and Oreos to go along with all the dead terrorists we've managed to provide?
In further terms, long lasting stability will come with continued support of legitimate governmental organisation and protection of the Afghan people until they have the capacity to do it themselves.
I guess my point is that since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, Islamic militant groups have spread further throughout the world and in some cases have grown in power, and the Muslim world may be less stable and in some places more violent than before. Meanwhile, a costly twelve year occupation has not achieved its goals, as you yourself implied by saying that withdrawing is a mistake and many more years of war will be necessary. To me, this implies that the Afghanistan War and more broadly the War on Terror have not been successful policies. In light of their vast cost in lives and money, this leads me to regard them as mistakes.
Also, if you see "dead terrorists" as evidence of success then I really don't know what to say.
1. they are arming and supplying Hezbollah with rockets that they shoot indiscriminately at targets in Israel. They have no reason to do this Israel cannot take them over or likely even carry out a successful military strike.[/quote]
What's irrational about using Hezbollah as a cudgel against a competing regional power? Pakistan has been using armed extremist organizations for decades now to balance against India on the Indian subcontinent.
2. when faced with the chance for rapprochement with the west they have always chosen to play it out for as many concessions as possible and then harden their stance. an example being when Albright was the envoy to the U.N during the 90s there was talking of negotiating with Iran. Instead of sending their own person of equal status with albright they sent the person under him.
There's a kind of internal logic to constantly maintaining a posture of always being on the cusp ("3-5 years away") of nuclear weapons capability. If you're constantly on the verge of going nuclear, you have negotiating leverage; if you never actually go past the threshold, you don't pose an imminent enough threat that other regional and international powers are forced to make good on their threats.
Having Hezbollah in your back pocket (and according to the State Dept., at least a working relationship with some part of al-Qaeda) further increases the cost of any actual conflict with Iran.[/quote]
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Personally I think the no taste for war stuff will last about 10 or 20 years. Then its back to a decade long occupation of some place that will end in Chaos and with that place hating us for centuries.
You have to think bigger picture than that. We're only losing a few thousand in each of these wars, and the trend is continuing downwards.
Now the next world war - when tens of billions of us are at each others' throats over the last of this planet's depleted resources - that's something to look forward to.
Glyph on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think it might be for the best to just shake hands and agree to disagree. I dearly hope I'm wrong and if we do step in we do a lot of good and that the Syrian people get a country they deserve soon.
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Largest regional geopolitical rival.
How influential was Iraq in the ME compared to, say, Egypt, Saudi or Turkey?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Largest regional geopolitical rival.
The Gulf Cooperation Council is the rival. But Shia/Sunni still overrides petrodollars in the geopolitical space.
If you look at the Middle East uprisings, the ones which could keep a tight lid on the problems have been doing huge development projects to create jobs. Job development is the main concern of the house of Saud. They understand the vast majority of people with good jobs won't join radical groups.
Personally I think the no taste for war stuff will last about 10 or 20 years. Then its back to a decade long occupation of some place that will end in Chaos and with that place hating us for centuries.
You have to think bigger picture than that. We're only losing a few thousand in each of these wars, and the trend is continuing downwards.
Now the next world war - when tens of billions of us are at each others' throats over the last of this planet's depleted resources - that's something to look forward to.
Still working out the potential fallout of the upcoming vote, and I need people with a different political perspective to make sure I'm not playing to much into my own bias.
If the vote passes, it's a win for Obama. He does what he said he would, any blame or negative opinion is shared with congress. Everybody wins but the Syrians.
If the Democrats vote no, how bad is that for Obama? Will the cable and AM wonk be able to make as big a deal about a party "divide" as I think.
If the Republicans vote no and Obama manages to sway public opinion, how hard will he slam them? If they do it and he doesn't sway opinion, how hard can they hit back?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Largest regional geopolitical rival.
How influential was Iraq in the ME compared to, say, Egypt, Saudi or Turkey?
Iraq was the regional power under Saddam until they messed with Iran.
the way Iraq has been described to me a tleast was that they were basically like Syria except instead of a Shia minority running the country it was the Sunnis.
It fell apart because Saddam's stupidity in foreign relations
But that's what you get when a street thug/ political assassin becomes head of state.
the way Iraq has been described to me a tleast was that they were basically like Syria except instead of a Shia minority running the country it was the Sunnis.
It fell apart because Saddam's stupidity in foreign relations
But that's what you get when a street thug/ political assassin becomes head of state.
To be fair, it's hard to have a foreign relations plan that takes into account the world's military superpower having a decade long seizure. We certainly didn't.
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Largest regional geopolitical rival.
How influential was Iraq in the ME compared to, say, Egypt, Saudi or Turkey?
Iraq was the regional power under Saddam until they messed with Iran.
Didn't they remained so for some time--at least before the "bleeding out" of war, and certainly when they could count on more extensive United States support than previously (not to mention some logistic aid from Warsaw Pact states for purchases from the previous decade)?
Really, Iran-Iraq is a curiosity from the standpoint of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both making public overtures for the same side, at least for a time.
Since the President has stated clearly any action he wants will be well short of ending The civil war, if he gets shut down by his own party, I doubt it will be that damaging. The Republicans will of course paint it as a huge deal, but I expect all the network news experts will simply point out how a few missles wasn't going to change anything anyway so *shoulder shrug*.
Still working out the potential fallout of the upcoming vote, and I need people with a different political perspective to make sure I'm not playing to much into my own bias.
If the vote passes, it's a win for Obama. He does what he said he would, any blame or negative opinion is shared with congress. Everybody wins but the Syrians.
If the Democrats vote no, how bad is that for Obama? Will the cable and AM wonk be able to make as big a deal about a party "divide" as I think.
If the Republicans vote no and Obama manages to sway public opinion, how hard will he slam them? If they do it and he doesn't sway opinion, how hard can they hit back?
1. Seems spot on. It will probably also hose the teapers.
2. I doubt this will happen. Particularly since there seems to be credible evidence to back up this venture for a change, unlike the BS that was the Iraqi war.
3. This one is tricky. Maybe the tea party can find enough dems (probably safe to assume that some dems will vote no to military action) and non-tea party republicans to kill it in the House (last I checked, there aren't enough shitty tea partiers to get anything done without non-tea party republican support). My gut reaction is that if Pelosi thinks she has the votes on the dem side, that this will happen if Boehner lets a vote happen, since I'm sure there are still plenty of non-tea party republicans that will tell the tea party to fuck off. If the GOP were to stop this from going through, it would likely be through the House and probably a result of the Tea Party pushing for their isolationist, but not really when our corporate masters stand to make a buck, bullshit view. I think Obama and the democrats could easily walk out relatively unscathed and possibly in a stronger position. Obama can claim he deferred to Congress when he didn't need to. Dems can point out that this is a reason for why people should get off their fucking asses and vote in 2014 for them. There is no way that the GOP will be able to spin military intervention in their 2014 campaigns in a way that doesn't bite them in the ass.
I'm expecting one, if not more, teapers to insert their feet into their mouths yet again during the debate.
If public opinion on intervention stays low, how would the Dems be able to spin that for 2014? Wouldn't the Republicans be able to fire back that they were the ones representing the views of the people in that vote?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Because they'll look hypocritical given their track record of aggression.
Because they'll look hypocritical given their track record of aggression.
Pssh like that has stopped them before.
I would like to bet 100 internet funbucks that Rep Stephen King says the stupidest shit in the debate. When is Jon back again?
As far as congressional approval goes, I get the feeling that this will go through. I think a solid majority of Dems are gonna line up for it and I think there will be enough Repubs that it will pass.
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
The occupation should continue until Afghanistan is fully capable of defending its own borders, and fully capable of crushing the insider threats they have.
Bah, this is a joke. To even consider Afghanistan as some sort of unified state defies not only current events but the last 200 years of their history.
Karzai, like his predecessor in the 80s under Soviet occupation, is the mayor of Kabul. His influence over the country side is negligible. Afghanistan is ruled, as it has been ruled for centuries, mostly by local clans. Governments in Afghanistan have succeeded by leaving these clans to govern themselves. Getting local groups on your bad side is a mighty bad idea. The Americans have learned this, the Russians learned it, and the British learned it in 1839.
To create an Afghanistan that is contiguous, united, capable of defending itself from external and internal attacks is not possible. It would require the complete transplanting of all the staples of a modern nation state, including military, police, judiciary and bureaucracy. Infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, irrigation and communication. And utterly supplanting local customs and beliefs, and replacing them with some sort of Western slate. The Soviets poured billions into Afghanistan to attempt to achieve this, and they failed miserably. The United States has attempted to do the same thing over the past decade, often (intentionally or not) repeating exactly what the Soviets had done. Despite, however, many billions of dollars spent, progress is minimal, with no end in sight. The Taliban, other Pakistani-backed groups, local warlords and tribal leaders simply wait. They know the US does not have the stomach to stay, just like all previous occupiers.
Al-Queda, was scattered within weeks of the US attack. The Taliban were routed back to their stronghold in the south within months. Occupying the Graveyard of Empires -without a long term plan!- was the height of foolishness. Afghanistan has bled the US military. And it will continue to bleed until the occupation stops. There is no victory there.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If Congress votes no, Obama loses face and the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card gets solidified in the minds of low information voters just in time for the midterms.
The president looks like he punted if Congress votes against him, and looks like he's being led around on a lead if Congress votes for stronger action than he's willing to take.
So in the sober light of 10pm I retract my ponderance last night.
-Anti-war dems, these guys aren't really going to get hurt by voting no since I'm pretty sure their constituents knew what they were getting.
-rest of the dems, my money is on them voting yes; especially, if the evidence is there. If they evidence isn't there, we're have to break this group down further.
-Tea Party, I haven't looked into the nuances of this shitty group but seems like they are leaning no cause there ain't any oil for their corporate masters and Obama seems for it.
-Hawkish GOP (which might be the rest of the party), these guys seem rather for armed intervention. This is also why I think it's likely intervention of some sort will happen since enough of the dems and GOP seem like they'll vote yes.
Let's say this doesn't go anywhere. In that scenario, I'm thinking it would be more likely the outcome of the dems snubbing Obama, than the shitty teapers finding enough votes to kill it in the House. The dems are the only ones that can really play the peace card. Non-Tea Party republican tries it, they'll probably get slammed. Tea Party republican, there are just so many ways to shut them down, it's not even funny. Really though, Obama isn't going to have to run for re-election and the Tea Party (GOP shares a large chunk of the blame here as well) has rendered Congress non-functional, so if it fails, probably not a huge loss for him; especially, since this is a foreign matter.
I think the risk is far greater for the Tea Party. They aren't good at not saying stupid shit. They are liable to alienate the defense industry (as we're seeing in the VA gubernatorial election, business that traditionally back the GOP have no qualms backing democrats - assuming the owners aren't drinking the wingnut kool-aid).
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
The occupation should continue until Afghanistan is fully capable of defending its own borders, and fully capable of crushing the insider threats they have.
Bah, this is a joke. To even consider Afghanistan as some sort of unified state defies not only current events but the last 200 years of their history.
Karzai, like his predecessor in the 80s under Soviet occupation, is the mayor of Kabul. His influence over the country side is negligible. Afghanistan is ruled, as it has been ruled for centuries, mostly by local clans. Governments in Afghanistan have succeeded by leaving these clans to govern themselves. Getting local groups on your bad side is a mighty bad idea. The Americans have learned this, the Russians learned it, and the British learned it in 1839.
To create an Afghanistan that is contiguous, united, capable of defending itself from external and internal attacks is not possible. It would require the complete transplanting of all the staples of a modern nation state, including military, police, judiciary and bureaucracy. Infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, irrigation and communication. And utterly supplanting local customs and beliefs, and replacing them with some sort of Western slate. The Soviets poured billions into Afghanistan to attempt to achieve this, and they failed miserably. The United States has attempted to do the same thing over the past decade, often (intentionally or not) repeating exactly what the Soviets had done. Despite, however, many billions of dollars spent, progress is minimal, with no end in sight. The Taliban, other Pakistani-backed groups, local warlords and tribal leaders simply wait. They know the US does not have the stomach to stay, just like all previous occupiers.
Al-Queda, was scattered within weeks of the US attack. The Taliban were routed back to their stronghold in the south within months. Occupying the Graveyard of Empires -without a long term plan!- was the height of foolishness. Afghanistan has bled the US military. And it will continue to bleed until the occupation stops. There is no victory there.
I agree with all of this. Trying to occupy Afghanistan was a stupid mistake. My least favorite decision Obama has made was to not cut and run from that crapsack state the minute he took office.
It's hard to take talk of "progress" seriously when the troops there who are ostensibly "training the Afghan police" are at risk daily of being murdered by said police. What a joke. What a sad, pathetic joke on us.
If Congress votes no, Obama loses face and the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card gets solidified in the minds of low information voters just in time for the midterms.
The president looks like he punted if Congress votes against him, and looks like he's being led around on a lead if Congress votes for stronger action than he's willing to take.
So in the sober light of 10pm I retract my ponderance last night.
Not really, the low information voters that would by swayed by the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card already buy that shit since like fucking forever.
If Congress says no. I can tell you the out will be along mostly economic reasons and will put the GOP on the spot because then it becomes a matter of "will the fuckers vote for some economic bills or will they continue trying to repeal Obamacare." At this point, most low information voters will probably forget about this come midterms.
Likewise, there is no thirst for a ground war in the states. Well not large enough to make it politically viable. If someone pushes for stronger action, that might not go well politically at all. At which point expect, "why should we put boots on the ground when we'll get bitched at by everyone; especially, since the economy is still weak."
If Congress votes no, Obama loses face and the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card gets solidified in the minds of low information voters just in time for the midterms.
The president looks like he punted if Congress votes against him, and looks like he's being led around on a lead if Congress votes for stronger action than he's willing to take.
So in the sober light of 10pm I retract my ponderance last night.
Not really, the low information voters that would by swayed by the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card already buy that shit since like fucking forever.
If Congress says no. I can tell you the out will be along mostly economic reasons and will put the GOP on the spot because then it becomes a matter of "will the fuckers vote for some economic bills or will they continue trying to repeal Obamacare." At this point, most low information voters will probably forget about this come midterms.
Likewise, there is no thirst for a ground war in the states. Well not large enough to make it politically viable. If someone pushes for stronger action, that might not go well politically at all. At which point expect, "why should we put boots on the ground when we'll get bitched at by everyone; especially, since the economy is still weak."
Maybe.
I also think that the GOP only votes no because the president wants a limited engagement.
I doubt economic reasons will be floated, but I do expect the GOP to use our armed forces member's lives as hostages come the debt negotiations next month.
Not proof by any stretch, but I like the Presidents chances even less after reading the above.
I don't think it will be difficult for Obama to spin this as "I felt strongly about helping the Syrians and wanted to punish the use of CWs, but after some thought I decided to not go over the heads of congress and blah, blah, blah."
So the problem in your view is not that that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan, but that they're withdrawing after 12 years of failure? For how many more years should the occupation continue? How are you sure your goals will be reached even with an indefinite presence? What cost in blood and $$$ is too much? It will suck when the Taliban take control, and you're right that some of those who collaborated with the foreign invaders will be killed. But none of these problems are necessarily resolvable, and some of them wouldn't have arisen in the first place if we hadn't invaded.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
The occupation should continue until Afghanistan is fully capable of defending its own borders, and fully capable of crushing the insider threats they have.
Bah, this is a joke. To even consider Afghanistan as some sort of unified state defies not only current events but the last 200 years of their history.
Karzai, like his predecessor in the 80s under Soviet occupation, is the mayor of Kabul. His influence over the country side is negligible. Afghanistan is ruled, as it has been ruled for centuries, mostly by local clans. Governments in Afghanistan have succeeded by leaving these clans to govern themselves. Getting local groups on your bad side is a mighty bad idea. The Americans have learned this, the Russians learned it, and the British learned it in 1839.
To create an Afghanistan that is contiguous, united, capable of defending itself from external and internal attacks is not possible. It would require the complete transplanting of all the staples of a modern nation state, including military, police, judiciary and bureaucracy. Infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, irrigation and communication. And utterly supplanting local customs and beliefs, and replacing them with some sort of Western slate. The Soviets poured billions into Afghanistan to attempt to achieve this, and they failed miserably. The United States has attempted to do the same thing over the past decade, often (intentionally or not) repeating exactly what the Soviets had done. Despite, however, many billions of dollars spent, progress is minimal, with no end in sight. The Taliban, other Pakistani-backed groups, local warlords and tribal leaders simply wait. They know the US does not have the stomach to stay, just like all previous occupiers.
Al-Queda, was scattered within weeks of the US attack. The Taliban were routed back to their stronghold in the south within months. Occupying the Graveyard of Empires -without a long term plan!- was the height of foolishness. Afghanistan has bled the US military. And it will continue to bleed until the occupation stops. There is no victory there.
See the problem is what else would you have done?
Afghanistan became a terrorist training ground when the Taliban took over. After 9/11 what were we just going to let 3,000 people die in vain, and let every single terrorist and despot in the world think its okay to carry out such attacks?
Also after you destroy a government and their military you are obligated in the worlds eyes to rebuild it. You think the U.S.A's reputation is damaged because of Iraq it would be way worse if we just took out the only governance in Afghanistan and left for people to fight over whose in charge in a prolonged civil war.
The Pakistanis never committed to action on their border where much of the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate which is one of the major reasons the Taliban are the problem that they are. Notice i didn't say Al-Qaeda that's pretty much because we've eliminated all of their top brass. A good example being when zalwhairi was put in charge after Osamas death we killed his second in command and then the replacement for the guy we killed.
I say the job's well done when Al-Qaeda says to recruits to never meet in groups and only walk around on an overcast day because of fear of drone strikes.
Its not going to be perfect the middle east will only ever see peace when people decide they have had enough of war and are willing to put away their animosities.
Afghanistan probably would have turned out much better had the Bush Junior Administration not be hell bent on starting shit in Iraq. Afghanistan was the the right call. Iraq was a fucking stupid idea.
Posts
At no time in the past or future. I presume, barring a really bad IPCC report I assume America still has quite a bit of future left. Personally I think the no taste for war stuff will last about 10 or 20 years. Then its back to a decade long occupation of some place that will end in Chaos and with that place hating us for centuries.
Certainly a lot of their nuclear ambitions are also tied up with nationalism. Both Khomeini and Khamanei were able to very deftly channel external pressure -- both rhetorical and physical, as from Iraq -- into nationalist cohesion and solidarity. It's one of the main reasons they've been able to hold the Iranian state together for as long as they have, given that 1979 was the result of a broad coalition of which the mullahs were actually a minority.
In response to your comments about US military pressure forcing al-Qaeda to decentralize- that may be true, but is it necessarily a good thing? Are fundamentalist militant groups actually less powerful than they were prior to our invasion? The northern half of Mali was recently taken by 'al-qaeda linked groups,' necessitating a French invasion and occupation. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram are not part of al-qaeda, but largely share its idealogy and methodology, and continue to pose security threats to African nations. Yemen's al-qaeda franchise briefly controlled a chunk of the country and are apparently still dangerous enough to necessitate air strikes. Factions of the Syrian rebels have declared allegiance to al-qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq is bombing the shit out of its country and is said to be growing in power. Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fundamentalist militant groups are still dangerous enough to require constant air strikes and, by your own estimation, many more years of occupation.
Do you think the evidence supports the claim that the Afghanistan War has been successful?
1. they are arming and supplying Hezbollah with rockets that they shoot indiscriminately at targets in Israel. They have no reason to do this Israel cannot take them over or likely even carry out a successful military strike.
2. when faced with the chance for rapprochement with the west they have always chosen to play it out for as many concessions as possible and then harden their stance. an example being when Albright was the envoy to the U.N during the 90s there was talking of negotiating with Iran. Instead of sending their own person of equal status with albright they sent the person under him.
12 years of failure huh? Tell me General Kaputa - what constitutes victory, to you?
The occupation should continue until Afghanistan is fully capable of defending its own borders, and fully capable of crushing the insider threats they have. You want a solid timeline, and that's literally impossible. Point blank, the nations already committed. If you cut and run you leave behind those who have become invested in you and your power to protect them.
Yeah, it's a good thing. We've literally wiped out their foundation of power. They're wandering nomads, that will be in turn rejected and pursued by legitimate governments across the face of the earth. They are strangers in strange lands, and they will be systematically eliminated - ie the french invasion of Mali. I would say yes, fundamentalist groups are less powerful - and are growing weaker. Radicalism isn't being embraced - it's being hunted down.
Edit - Africa on the whole is a bucket of worms worth an entirely separate thread. Want to start one?
What's irrational about using Hezbollah as a cudgel against a competing regional power? Pakistan has been using armed extremist organizations for decades now to balance against India on the Indian subcontinent.
There's a kind of internal logic to constantly maintaining a posture of always being on the cusp ("3-5 years away") of nuclear weapons capability. If you're constantly on the verge of going nuclear, you have negotiating leverage; if you never actually go past the threshold, you don't pose an imminent enough threat that other regional and international powers are forced to make good on their threats.
Having Hezbollah in your back pocket (and according to the State Dept., at least a working relationship with some part of al-Qaeda) further increases the cost of any actual conflict with Iran.
If you want an end to violence, you're going to live a very unsatisfied life. Your ideals and generalizations about humanity are, on a large scale, not reflected by the rest of the world. You want me to answer a question on your terms, and I won't because your terms aren't real.
You will neither recognize that we've strategically eliminated enemy forces, enemy installation, enemy command structures, and enemy resources nor the fact that we have successfully eliminated an extremist terrorist organization from governmental power, rendering the remains of Al-Qaeda unable to even fund, organize, or facilitate itself. Those fringe groups you see popping up are going to be eliminated.
Would you like some Milk and Oreos to go along with all the dead terrorists we've managed to provide?
In further terms, long lasting stability will come with continued support of legitimate governmental organisation and protection of the Afghan people until they have the capacity to do it themselves.
Also, if you see "dead terrorists" as evidence of success then I really don't know what to say.
What's irrational about using Hezbollah as a cudgel against a competing regional power? Pakistan has been using armed extremist organizations for decades now to balance against India on the Indian subcontinent.
There's a kind of internal logic to constantly maintaining a posture of always being on the cusp ("3-5 years away") of nuclear weapons capability. If you're constantly on the verge of going nuclear, you have negotiating leverage; if you never actually go past the threshold, you don't pose an imminent enough threat that other regional and international powers are forced to make good on their threats.
Having Hezbollah in your back pocket (and according to the State Dept., at least a working relationship with some part of al-Qaeda) further increases the cost of any actual conflict with Iran.[/quote]
sorry I should have clarified it is rational if you have certain aims.
1. it is not rational in regards to achieving peace or stability.
The Iranian state itself hasn't been threatened since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. The Gulf Wars handicapped and then eliminated probably their largest geopolitical rival.
Largest regional geopolitical rival.
You have to think bigger picture than that. We're only losing a few thousand in each of these wars, and the trend is continuing downwards.
Now the next world war - when tens of billions of us are at each others' throats over the last of this planet's depleted resources - that's something to look forward to.
I think it might be for the best to just shake hands and agree to disagree. I dearly hope I'm wrong and if we do step in we do a lot of good and that the Syrian people get a country they deserve soon.
- John Stuart Mill
The Gulf Cooperation Council is the rival. But Shia/Sunni still overrides petrodollars in the geopolitical space.
If you look at the Middle East uprisings, the ones which could keep a tight lid on the problems have been doing huge development projects to create jobs. Job development is the main concern of the house of Saud. They understand the vast majority of people with good jobs won't join radical groups.
I really hope the Hanar are coming to pick us up.
If the vote passes, it's a win for Obama. He does what he said he would, any blame or negative opinion is shared with congress. Everybody wins but the Syrians.
If the Democrats vote no, how bad is that for Obama? Will the cable and AM wonk be able to make as big a deal about a party "divide" as I think.
If the Republicans vote no and Obama manages to sway public opinion, how hard will he slam them? If they do it and he doesn't sway opinion, how hard can they hit back?
- John Stuart Mill
Iraq was the regional power under Saddam until they messed with Iran.
It fell apart because Saddam's stupidity in foreign relations
But that's what you get when a street thug/ political assassin becomes head of state.
To be fair, it's hard to have a foreign relations plan that takes into account the world's military superpower having a decade long seizure. We certainly didn't.
Didn't they remained so for some time--at least before the "bleeding out" of war, and certainly when they could count on more extensive United States support than previously (not to mention some logistic aid from Warsaw Pact states for purchases from the previous decade)?
Really, Iran-Iraq is a curiosity from the standpoint of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both making public overtures for the same side, at least for a time.
E: sorry, this was aimed at @knuckle dragger
1. Seems spot on. It will probably also hose the teapers.
2. I doubt this will happen. Particularly since there seems to be credible evidence to back up this venture for a change, unlike the BS that was the Iraqi war.
3. This one is tricky. Maybe the tea party can find enough dems (probably safe to assume that some dems will vote no to military action) and non-tea party republicans to kill it in the House (last I checked, there aren't enough shitty tea partiers to get anything done without non-tea party republican support). My gut reaction is that if Pelosi thinks she has the votes on the dem side, that this will happen if Boehner lets a vote happen, since I'm sure there are still plenty of non-tea party republicans that will tell the tea party to fuck off. If the GOP were to stop this from going through, it would likely be through the House and probably a result of the Tea Party pushing for their isolationist, but not really when our corporate masters stand to make a buck, bullshit view. I think Obama and the democrats could easily walk out relatively unscathed and possibly in a stronger position. Obama can claim he deferred to Congress when he didn't need to. Dems can point out that this is a reason for why people should get off their fucking asses and vote in 2014 for them. There is no way that the GOP will be able to spin military intervention in their 2014 campaigns in a way that doesn't bite them in the ass.
I'm expecting one, if not more, teapers to insert their feet into their mouths yet again during the debate.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
If public opinion on intervention stays low, how would the Dems be able to spin that for 2014? Wouldn't the Republicans be able to fire back that they were the ones representing the views of the people in that vote?
- John Stuart Mill
If that mindset was the case a democrat would've never been elected to office after Vietnam or republican after watergate
Pssh like that has stopped them before.
I would like to bet 100 internet funbucks that Rep Stephen King says the stupidest shit in the debate. When is Jon back again?
As far as congressional approval goes, I get the feeling that this will go through. I think a solid majority of Dems are gonna line up for it and I think there will be enough Repubs that it will pass.
This, and the GOP is usually more pro intervention.
So more Rep. Congressmen/women might support intervention, and less Dem. might be against it.
Bah, this is a joke. To even consider Afghanistan as some sort of unified state defies not only current events but the last 200 years of their history.
Karzai, like his predecessor in the 80s under Soviet occupation, is the mayor of Kabul. His influence over the country side is negligible. Afghanistan is ruled, as it has been ruled for centuries, mostly by local clans. Governments in Afghanistan have succeeded by leaving these clans to govern themselves. Getting local groups on your bad side is a mighty bad idea. The Americans have learned this, the Russians learned it, and the British learned it in 1839.
To create an Afghanistan that is contiguous, united, capable of defending itself from external and internal attacks is not possible. It would require the complete transplanting of all the staples of a modern nation state, including military, police, judiciary and bureaucracy. Infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, irrigation and communication. And utterly supplanting local customs and beliefs, and replacing them with some sort of Western slate. The Soviets poured billions into Afghanistan to attempt to achieve this, and they failed miserably. The United States has attempted to do the same thing over the past decade, often (intentionally or not) repeating exactly what the Soviets had done. Despite, however, many billions of dollars spent, progress is minimal, with no end in sight. The Taliban, other Pakistani-backed groups, local warlords and tribal leaders simply wait. They know the US does not have the stomach to stay, just like all previous occupiers.
Al-Queda, was scattered within weeks of the US attack. The Taliban were routed back to their stronghold in the south within months. Occupying the Graveyard of Empires -without a long term plan!- was the height of foolishness. Afghanistan has bled the US military. And it will continue to bleed until the occupation stops. There is no victory there.
The president looks like he punted if Congress votes against him, and looks like he's being led around on a lead if Congress votes for stronger action than he's willing to take.
So in the sober light of 10pm I retract my ponderance last night.
The breakdown is
-Anti-war dems, these guys aren't really going to get hurt by voting no since I'm pretty sure their constituents knew what they were getting.
-rest of the dems, my money is on them voting yes; especially, if the evidence is there. If they evidence isn't there, we're have to break this group down further.
-Tea Party, I haven't looked into the nuances of this shitty group but seems like they are leaning no cause there ain't any oil for their corporate masters and Obama seems for it.
-Hawkish GOP (which might be the rest of the party), these guys seem rather for armed intervention. This is also why I think it's likely intervention of some sort will happen since enough of the dems and GOP seem like they'll vote yes.
Let's say this doesn't go anywhere. In that scenario, I'm thinking it would be more likely the outcome of the dems snubbing Obama, than the shitty teapers finding enough votes to kill it in the House. The dems are the only ones that can really play the peace card. Non-Tea Party republican tries it, they'll probably get slammed. Tea Party republican, there are just so many ways to shut them down, it's not even funny. Really though, Obama isn't going to have to run for re-election and the Tea Party (GOP shares a large chunk of the blame here as well) has rendered Congress non-functional, so if it fails, probably not a huge loss for him; especially, since this is a foreign matter.
I think the risk is far greater for the Tea Party. They aren't good at not saying stupid shit. They are liable to alienate the defense industry (as we're seeing in the VA gubernatorial election, business that traditionally back the GOP have no qualms backing democrats - assuming the owners aren't drinking the wingnut kool-aid).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I agree with all of this. Trying to occupy Afghanistan was a stupid mistake. My least favorite decision Obama has made was to not cut and run from that crapsack state the minute he took office.
It's hard to take talk of "progress" seriously when the troops there who are ostensibly "training the Afghan police" are at risk daily of being murdered by said police. What a joke. What a sad, pathetic joke on us.
Not really, the low information voters that would by swayed by the "Barry can't play in the big leagues" card already buy that shit since like fucking forever.
If Congress says no. I can tell you the out will be along mostly economic reasons and will put the GOP on the spot because then it becomes a matter of "will the fuckers vote for some economic bills or will they continue trying to repeal Obamacare." At this point, most low information voters will probably forget about this come midterms.
Likewise, there is no thirst for a ground war in the states. Well not large enough to make it politically viable. If someone pushes for stronger action, that might not go well politically at all. At which point expect, "why should we put boots on the ground when we'll get bitched at by everyone; especially, since the economy is still weak."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Maybe.
I also think that the GOP only votes no because the president wants a limited engagement.
I doubt economic reasons will be floated, but I do expect the GOP to use our armed forces member's lives as hostages come the debt negotiations next month.
Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike
Not proof by any stretch, but I like the Presidents chances even less after reading the above.
I don't think it will be difficult for Obama to spin this as "I felt strongly about helping the Syrians and wanted to punish the use of CWs, but after some thought I decided to not go over the heads of congress and blah, blah, blah."
See the problem is what else would you have done?
Afghanistan became a terrorist training ground when the Taliban took over. After 9/11 what were we just going to let 3,000 people die in vain, and let every single terrorist and despot in the world think its okay to carry out such attacks?
Also after you destroy a government and their military you are obligated in the worlds eyes to rebuild it. You think the U.S.A's reputation is damaged because of Iraq it would be way worse if we just took out the only governance in Afghanistan and left for people to fight over whose in charge in a prolonged civil war.
The Pakistanis never committed to action on their border where much of the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate which is one of the major reasons the Taliban are the problem that they are. Notice i didn't say Al-Qaeda that's pretty much because we've eliminated all of their top brass. A good example being when zalwhairi was put in charge after Osamas death we killed his second in command and then the replacement for the guy we killed.
I say the job's well done when Al-Qaeda says to recruits to never meet in groups and only walk around on an overcast day because of fear of drone strikes.
Its not going to be perfect the middle east will only ever see peace when people decide they have had enough of war and are willing to put away their animosities.
Yes, you should have done just about anything except invading Iraq and killing over 100,000 civilian Iraqis.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.