Surge in Afghanistan (political)

[Jacko]

You guys are both making great points....I wish I had the confidence Stephen has here....given our economic reality (and the corresponding GLOBAL economic reality), we will NOT get the coalition strength we would need and imo we will end up having to leave, rather than "fixing" or "stabilizing" the region....the only question is how soon...

If we are going to spend money (and we will!) , we might as well spend it some more in Pakistan and try to prop that up while working with India to help smooth out that region/power base while improving our internal defenses in the U.S.....there are still a LOT of wise and practical things we can do internally to help minimize terrorism threats that currently go without necessary funding.

[user 6507]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You guys are both making great points....I wish I had the confidence Stephen has here....given our economic reality (and the corresponding GLOBAL economic reality), we will NOT get the coalition strength we would need and imo we will end up having to leave, rather than "fixing" or "stabilizing" the region....the only question is how soon...

If we are going to spend money (and we will!) , we might as well spend it some more in Pakistan and try to prop that up while working with India to help smooth out that region/power base while improving our internal defenses in the U.S.....there are still a LOT of wise and practical things we can do internally to help minimize terrorism threats that currently go without necessary funding.

As long as there's enough left for beer.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You guys are both making great points....I wish I had the confidence Stephen has here....given our economic reality (and the corresponding GLOBAL economic reality), we will NOT get the coalition strength we would need and imo we will end up having to leave, rather than "fixing" or "stabilizing" the region....the only question is how soon...

If we are going to spend money (and we will!) , we might as well spend it some more in Pakistan and try to prop that up while working with India to help smooth out that region/power base while improving our internal defenses in the U.S.....there are still a LOT of wise and practical things we can do internally to help minimize terrorism threats that currently go without necessary funding.

Sort of like stopping an avalanche with a snow shovel isn't it?!

I agree that helping stabilize Pakistan and India might be a better route to success. But, like the Whack a Mole game, the terrorists just keep popping up somewhere else!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by StephenB

The Sunni/Shia rift was not taken into account...

Not even by McCain as recently as this year's campaign, if you recall, despite him supposedly being the stronger candidate in terms of foreign policy and security issues, in general. But then that was actually noted and became a criticism of his capacity in that area, somewhat surprisingly, and of course though it probably played quite a small role in his defeat overall, he was not in fact elected.

So perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Not even by McCain as recently as this year's campaign, if you recall, despite him supposedly being the stronger candidate in terms of foreign policy and security issues, in general. But then that was actually noted and became a criticism of his capacity in that area, somewhat surprisingly, and of course though it probably played quite a small role in his defeat overall, he was not in fact elected.

So perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

Steve

Really????

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Really????

It's a point relevant to my point.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

It's a point relevant to my point.

Steve

I love that when it happens....

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Not even by McCain as recently as this year's campaign, if you recall, despite him supposedly being the stronger candidate in terms of foreign policy and security issues, in general. But then that was actually noted and became a criticism of his capacity in that area, somewhat surprisingly, and of course though it probably played quite a small role in his defeat overall, he was not in fact elected.

So perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

Steve

Pssssst Steve....We got it...your guy won.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Pssssst Steve....We got it...your guy won.

I suppose so...but he is our guy now.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I suppose so...but he is our guy now.

Much in the same way we don't choose our In laws!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Pssssst Steve....We got it...your guy won.

If that's what you got from my post, then I don't think you got it.

Steve

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

If -- just if -- Obama puts through such changes in our approach to foreign military involvement and the like, and lo and behold, we end up capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, what is the reaction going to be?

This is something I have wondered about from time to time, when the subject has come up.

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

You name it: George Bush, Dick Cheney, their people in office and their supporters, the GOP in general or other supporters of the Bush/Cheney approach to Iraq, those who claimed during the campaign that our enemies in the Islamic world would love to see an Obama presidency...

And that's just to run down a few on that side of things. It's also interesting to consider the more sort of celebratory side...

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

Many intertwined issues here. I certainly think for example that if something like capturing or killing bin Laden ever came to pass, well it would have to be done rather carefully indeed to avoid just inadvertently helping him accomplish his goal. And of course the economic aspect of continuing in Afghanistan or anywhere else, even if we have pulled out of Iraq by point X, is another good question.

I wasn't trying to argue for it, just pondering what the reaction from any of those groups I mentioned would be if it did come to pass that bin Laden was captured or killed during an Obama administration, most especially after a shift in the focus of military action to Afghanistan from Iraq, or renewed team-building with Pakistan, however that can be done, or other things that Obama has emphasized for some time now, and that fit with the left's criticism of Bush as fighting daddy's war of revenge for oil and Halliburton on trumped up charges about WMD and all that.

I can hardly imagine a bigger deciding point on the debate between the right and left on Bush/Cheney and Iraq and all of the above than if this were to happen. It would quickly bring to the fore the question of whether Bush ever really cared, even on 9/12, about getting the people responsible for the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. Cared enough to focus on it despite other pressures and motivations, I mean. It would seem to me very damning for years to come to the right's attempts to claim basic competence, much less superiority, in terms of keeping America safe. Imagine it: 2 full terms screwing out and ending up with well over 4,000 Americans dead -- more than were killed in the attacks, in fact -- in Iraq for some assortment of that kind of motivation, and then a new guy people didn't even think was qualified comes along and -- bam! -- culprit in hand or dead.

So as I say, it would be interesting to see the reaction if it did come to pass (apart from those other points mentioned).

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

Not even by McCain as recently as this year's campaign, if you recall, despite him supposedly being the stronger candidate in terms of foreign policy and security issues, in general. But then that was actually noted and became a criticism of his capacity in that area, somewhat surprisingly, and of course though it probably played quite a small role in his defeat overall, he was not in fact elected.

So perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

It's a point relevant to my point.

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

If that's what you got from my post, then I don't think you got it.

Steve

I got it Steve...It's just that everyone of your posts (save the last one to Jacko) on this thread speculate about Obamas administration or the lack of foresight of the Bush Administration. Then you point out McCain's short comings.

It really doesn't matter who is in office or what thier back ground is...the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is now and will continue to be no small effort. If Obama can get Pakistan to allow us an increased role there, then more power to him...same goes if he can get Osama. But, I don't see him making any Earth shattering changes in that region unless he decided to pull us out of there. I hope I'm wrong! But, history has shown us that Afghanistan is no cake walk.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by horizon200

I got it Steve...It's just that everyone of your posts (save the last one to Jacko) on this thread speculate about Obamas administration or the lack of foresight of the Bush Administration. Then you point out McCain's short comings.

It really doesn't matter who is in office or what thier back ground is...the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is now and will continue to be no small effort. If Obama can get Pakistan to allow us an increased role there, then more power to him...same goes if he can get Osama. But, I don't see him making any Earth shattering changes in that region unless he decided to pull us out of there. I hope I'm wrong! But, history has shown us that Afghanistan is no cake walk.

Sorry that you don't get it.

That's a nice long post, though.

All those earlier ones are an entirely separate issue, no relation to the latter ones, where I responded to StephenB's comment. What I meant in the latter ones is just what I said: perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

If you cannot see any more substantive interpretation than that I just like to harangue Bush and laud Obama, that's your call, I guess.

Steve

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sorry that you don't get it.

That's a nice long post, though.

All those earlier ones are an entirely separate issue, no relation to the latter ones, where I responded to StephenB's comment. What I meant in the latter ones is just what I said: perhaps things are looking up with regard to our approach on these matters.

If you cannot see any more substantive interpretation than that I just like to harangue Bush and laud Obama, that's your call, I guess.

Steve

I guess

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by horizon200

I guess

The earlier topic, that I brought up, was pondering what the reaction would be if bin Laden was captured or killed during the Obama administration, presumably as a result of different focus in these areas. People responded, I responded, it was closed, as far as I thought.

Much later, discussing different things, StephenB noted that a general problem for us in the region had been that the "Sunni/Shia rift was not taken into account" sufficiently or appropriately. Not surprisingly, that reminded me of McCain failing in that very way during the campaign at one notable point. I then commented that it was somewhat of a pleasant surprise, imo, that people even took note of that failing, indicating that there may be a generally greater understanding of, and interest in, such important distinctions these days. And yes that while it was undoubtedly only a small role, we did not elect as president a candidate who had just recently failed to make that distinction. Thus things may be looking up.

I just don't see that these 2 threads of the conversation are the same thing, as you suggest, or that the content is just Bush bashing and Obama praising, as you also suggest. I think those are your unrose-colored glasses getting in the way.

But again of course it's your call!

Steve