Nov 16 2006
Iraq And Afghanistan
The Washington Post notes something interesting that came out of Congressional hearings yesterday (and which I have not heard much about). The consensus is we will need to actively support the Afghanistan Democracy for at least a decade to ensure its long term survival:
Five years after the United States drove al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that both groups are back, waging a “bloody insurgency” in the south and east of the country. U.S. support for the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai will be needed for “at least a decade” to ensure that the country does not fall again, he said.
Well there is no doubt we need to stay in Afghanistan – that was the country where 9-11 eminated from. It was command central for Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. So that also begs the question – who ever thought Iraq would be easier? There is an active insurgency in Afghanistan and no recommendation to cut and run from there (yet). So I don’t understand why we need or should abandon Iraq if we have the same long term challenge in Afghanistan, and that is considered something we must support? Who is challenging the Democrats to defend their conflicting stances (yes, I know all dem stances are conflicted – many times with reality). But the point to make to the American people is we see a ten year effort in Afghanistan, we have seen nearly a decade in Bosnia. Who ever said Iraq would be done in 3 years? Why should we abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda and hold onto Afghanistan? I am not for bugging out of either place – but if we had to pick one to give up to Al Qaeda, my choice would not be Iraq with all its oil resources, educated populace and WMD expertise.
And our presence was necessary in Germany for 50 years. Todays threat will probably last at least as long.
And our presence was necessary in Germany for 50 years.
Yeah, where’s the Democrats’ exit strategy for Germany? How come it took a Republican administration and Congress to get us out of that quagmire?
but if we had to pick one to give up to Al Qaeda, my choice would not be Iraq with all its oil resources, educated populace and WMD expertise.
I hope we aren’t placed in a position where we have to choose, but I agree with your assessment.
Our buddy, Ken, has taken issue with you on numerous occasions on whether or not Al Qaeda would gain a foothold in Iraq if we leave prematurely. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone could possibly predict what would happen. I’m not willing to stake my life on it — perhaps Ken is.
Our Nation through our Congressman made a promise to both nations. That promise needs to be kept no matter how long it takes. Maybe we can do something good for the Afganistanians, it is a difficult job because it is a nation with few resources. Iraq as an absolute must stay if it takes 50 years. May be not in the numbers we have now but say 75,000 soldiers. But we need to be there until the Islam fascists give up or are killed. Some one needs to say that loud and clear. If we leave the middle east with out settling Iraq the rest is gone. And this country in a time of great peril will have to build a wall around the whole border and put the military on the beaches.
Strata
One of your most egregious posts. Ignorant or prevaricating,
take your pick. Whoever believed it would be easier in Iraq?
USA Today ran a comprehensive column of pre-war quotes
from Bush Adminstration officials, the likes of which included
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rice….
All predicted a short war.many specifically saying
weeks or months long, with Iraq’s new government in place
and overseeing an oil industry paying the cost off…by
end 2003.
This ostrich-like (or worse) politicking on your part seves as
a keynote to the lengths the true believers will go to conceal
their dishonesty or ,charitably, their virtually complete faulty outlook on every aspect of Middle East foreign policy, stretching, yes, to Afghanistan.
Another thing that Afghanistan will have to cope with after stabilization and reduction of the violence, is a shift to alternative crops or light industry to remove the massive opium poppy production that now is the lifeblood of the economy in the rural provinces.
Not only does it contribute to the global drug supply issue, but it also a major source of funds for the Taliban to exploit.
Yea, I don’t see why some want us to surrender. Actually we still have troops in Germany and Japan and it’s been 61 years and I’ll be willing to bet we will still have troops in both for a min of 10-15 more years. Both countries love the income. I have no problem with troops in Afghan and Iraq for as long as it take. I would have no prob with troops in Iran and N. Korea if it would insure peace. We have a couple million military people and they have to be stationed somewhere, why not where it will do the most good to insure peace in the USA. At least 40% of my time was spent overseas and I loved it. I volunteered, same as the present military. Surely none of them expected to spend all their time at home.
It would be my prayer that none of them ever have to die to preserve our freedom. Unfortunately there are people in this world who see their objective as the opposite of mine. Most of them are Islamic Fascists.
Ken —–the war was short. Building the nation is the longer hard part.
AJ,
The herd on the left can’t grasp the reality that we are in a War of several fronts. The enemy is a network of fascist groups and governments having varying degrees of common interest.
Leaving Iraq early probably would be a disaster. If the Dems pull what they did in Viet Nam (cutting off funding, reneging on Nixon’s promises to S. Viet Nam, and making the Paris Peace accords unenforceable) the blood will be on their hands.
I do not have a link for this, I think I saw it in the comment section over at Just One Minute but Steny Hoyer was actually talking about winning in Iraq vs the usual surrender theme.
I have no idea why people think we can just run away. In truth we lost that option years ago when we committed ourselves to babysitting Saddam.
Ken, you said it but I don’t believe it. Pres Bush said it would not be easy, it would be long and hard. The war was short and sweet. Putting down the insurrection is taking longer. Actually it’s not an insurrection, it is more an invasion of Iran into Iraq. Wonder why you are not opposed to that invasion? Talking about winning in Iraq. The war is over, the US won. Now it is a matter of attempting to allow those people to continue to live in freedom or allow them to be slaughtered. The choice is ours. I find it an easy choice. apparently you do also and your choice seems to be opposite mine. Good thing most in the US didn’t feel that way in WWII or you would be speaking German (instead of French)
Kathie
The war is three and a half years old; it was not short,it is not
short.
For Enforcement
This is not 1940s America, partner. Americans are far less united
and will not stand for such protracted occupation and continual
fighting-and if such as you try and force the issue, mass protests
will result and sit-ins with colleges closed. Better hope Bush
pulls a rabbit out of his hat soon. And your red herring “surrender”
fools no one. Americans in the contiguous 48 are in worse danger
from their own government than from al Qaeda forcing them to bow to Mecca.
And showing you a story brimming with pre-war quotes will not
change your obstinate ugly American hubris an iota. You seem
unphased by the 40,000 Americans killed and wounded thus
far. The paradigm myth about Hitler’s ability to conquer
America given our non-intevention in the European theater
is on its way out , along with the “America as world policeman”
of Strata/Bush/ruling class stripe.
Macker
Bush and a submissive populace has the blood of at least 450,000
Iraqis already on their hands.
Here is the quote from Hoyers:
“After the first of four recent speeches by President Bush on Iraq, I stated that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces from that country could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists, and damaging our nation’s security and credibility. I still believe that we can – and we must – achieve success in Iraq. Of course, we have succeeded in the initially stated objective of removing the Hussein regime, and providing a context in which a democratically-elected government could be put in place. Its ability to sustain itself is our last objective.”
Our Challenges in Iraq Remain Great, But We Can – and Must – Achieve Success”>security and credibility. I still believe that we can – and we must – achieve success in Iraq. Of course, we have succeeded in the initially stated objective of removing the Hussein regime, and providing a context in which a democratically-elected government could be put in place. Its ability to sustain itself is our last objective.”
Ken:
There is absolutely no evidence that 450,000 people lost their lives in Iraq since this invasion. None. Nada.
Believe it or not it is possible to be against this war without lying.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
pre-war predictions documented for FE.
Oh, yes Johns Hopkins University , the leading expert on epidemiology from Tufts Universityand the renowned Lancet are just a small fraction who have verified the accuracy of the report as many as 650,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, Terrye. You’re displaying your unread status again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
and for Terry’s edification on the subject
now as far as your “remove the Hussein regime” blather, Terrye.
Most Americans have concluded it wasn’t worth the cost, because of your/Hoyer’s omitted NO WMDS were found, Terrye. Only 35% support the war and Hoyer’s selection is a revolting evidence that the ruling class needs even more punishment for its intransigence
on the subject,motivated in large part by greed, lust for oil and
dual loyalty.
Lancet Ken?
You are gullible!
Hopefully, the dems are all about politics. They knew we could not afford to leave Iraq but nattered on about it to thwart Bush and satisfy their base. Now that they will control congress they can’t afford to lose this war. If they do this they will never again be elected to anything. They will take credit for the win and use this as a basis for the presidency in 2008. Also as has been noted before the dems seem to be fighting internally. Perhaps they will get rid of their nutwing left. I sincerely hope this is true. I don’t care who takes credit for the win in Iraq or even the war on terror as long as both are won by us.
Ken,
Interesting how you and others rely on polls to form your judgments.
Regarding the bogus “study” that produced the 650,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, It has been exposed as a fraud and dismissed by most thoughtful observers. Regurgitating it, only calls into question your other sources.
And this is not the ’60s either. Americans have better sources of information and can check mate a deceiving media.