Saddam APOLOGIZES for invading Kuwait?!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
The US has not done all it could to help the process along. We have 6000 men in Afghanistan. We could afford to have 50,000 there to secure the whole nation and provide a safe environment for the re-building process. The failure of the US and its allies has been that.

50,000 huh? From what units, deployed in what areas, supported by what airmobile and air transport assets, which in turn would be based where, exactly?

You're aware that in most of Afghanistan, you have to airlift everything in and out? And 50,000 men wouldn't come close to securing the whole country - there's 15,000 villages scattered to hell and back, and even if you had 50,000 airmobile troops (more than the entire airmobile combat strength of the US Army and USMC), most of the country would have a response time of several hours for company strength insertions.

The US effort there (I agree there could be more, but whether there should be, and in what form, is debatable) has to be balanced against the need and ability to deploy those assets elsewhere, and it has to be at a cost which is sustainable over years. The country is in a severe drought, a majority of the bridges nationwide (such that they are) are down, and even if rebuilt, the structural section of the roadways and bridges couldn't support regular heavy vehicle traffic, which couldn't be reliably secured, anyway.

Even water supplies would have to be airlifted in, and you'd have to build semi-permanent facilities to house the forward deployed troops - all of that (other than wearing the hell out of our rotary airlift capacity) takes away from airlift capacity for direct aid and rebuilding projects.

The west has also failed to make the money available to start the reconstruction.

Which would do what, at this point? The country is still a logistics and security mess. That alone will take years to solve, so until then, what reconstruction can be done will spread out slowly from the main cities.

Which then brigns up the question: will we be as good in Iraq?

Iraq is a lot more physically functional and has a lot fewer logistics problems.

Nation biulding is not cheap and easy: sadly that is what the US seems to be trying to do at this moment in Afghanistan.

Given the specific problems in the country, what exactly would you propose as a better approach?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
We don't maintain those bases out of charity: we do it to maintian our strategic postion and aims.

Ack! I actually agree with one thing you've said without alteration.

[Edan]

We don't maintain those bases out of charity: we do it to maintian our strategic postion and aims.

Ture, but then I don't think most of the "foreign"aid that the US (or other countries) gives is done onlyphilanthropic reasons, either. The result is the same, however - the US provides aid for other country, allowing them to spend the resources they would have spent on defense to other areas (including foreign aid, which starts the whole process all over again... )

[Gatekeeper]

Chegitz:

I'm sorry, could you say that again? I apparently didn't get it the first time around, nor the second time around. Or has it maybe crossed your mind that I don't think we're losing ground in Afghanistan, at least not to the point where we're hemmoraging.

BTW, MtG, you missed the first instance of Chegitz's supersizing his quote. I nearly had a stroke.

Gatekeeper

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah - I'm still seeing the aftervision of those words when I look at the wall.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's in the same motive as the dogma: (when talking with foreigners who dont speak the language)

If they don't understand you, speak LOUDER




Commie relic

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Or has it maybe crossed your mind that I don't think we're losing ground in Afghanistan, at least not to the point where we're hemmoraging.

If the US Commander on the ground there in Afganistan says it, I think it carries some credence. Far more than a puff piece about how wonderful we are by Time magazine.

[Gatekeeper]

Chegitz:

Then perhaps we should also have taken the generals and admirals in Vietnam more seriously when they said we should've gone after North Vietnam with everything we had, instead of trying to do things with one hand tied behind our backs. (Perhaps so, I would think.)

Or maybe we should've listened to MacArthur when he began pushing for the use of atomic weapons in China during the Korean War. (Nyet! Nuclear options are not kosher!)

Or maybe we should've listened to "Stormin' Norman" Schwarztkopf when he suggested we should've gone all the way to Baghad in 1991. (Heh. I actually agree with that sentiment.)

Gatekeeper

[MichaeltheGreat]

General Schwarzkopf said we could have gone into Baghdad (101st Airborne / Air Assault had a forward refueling base from which 101 and 82 ABD could have moved into Baghdad with essentially no opposition.

I've never heard once that General Schwarzkopf said we should have - in fact, he pointed out numerous reasons why we didn't, including occupying power obligations and the UN mandate limiting authorized action to ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Chegitz - although it's nice in concept to have allies "side-by-side", it's a pain in the ass in practice unless you have time to put together cohesive joint staffs.

Who exactly said "we're losing ground" - Franks? or a subordinate? Regardless of the truth of it or not, it's a rather surprising statement, to say the least. Professional officers aren't in the habit of offering unauthorized opinions to the press.

I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to see the exact wording, and what level of authority it came from.

[chequita guevara]

I don't have the exact quote, as I'm reporting it second hand. My source is, embaressingly enough, Al Gore. Now, before you hurt yourself laughing, consider that he's said this repeatedly and no conservative hard-on has challenged him on it.

Gatekeeper, in Vietnam the Generals lied by saying we are winning the war. Furthermore, we did hit Vietnam with everything we had, short of an invasion, which would have brought us into conflict with the Chinese again.

[GePap]

This is a crucial time in the Afghanistan campaign: the political will within the US to send more troops into Afghanistan if the situation were to worsen exist only today. Once any significant fighting in Iraq starts the political will to send 20,000 more men into Afghanistan simply will not be there, given that it will also be elction season.

As for our allies: there is no political will in those states to send signifcant forces into Afghanistan either, and for them to do it, they still need US logstical support for now. The war in Afghanistan was ours, and while they are handling much fo the aftremath, I would be hard to convince voter in Europe why they should foot the bil for US action. Yes, you can argue about terrorism, but untl Al qaeda attacks targets within western Europe, they wil ahve ery little reason to act, and even then, not within Afghnistan.

Rebuilding a state is along-term process, but you need a good start and political commitement backing it up. We have had a checkered start,a nd the political will to keep it going is diminishing greatly, and a war on iraq will basically make it almost vanish. Whihc then brings into question our politcal will over the even bigger job to be done in Iraq, specially given election season coming up.

[Alireza1354]

YOU CARE ABOUT KUWAYTI'S?

YOU DONT CARE ABOUT ANY ARABS OR MUSLIMS!

HYPOCRITES

ONE DAY ALL ARABS WILL UNITE, BE THEY KUWAYTI, IRAQI OR EGYPTIAN, AND THEN WE WILL TECH YOU A LESSON.

[Provost Harrison]

Sounds like it is a little late for an apology. What next, the white flags come out? I don't think it matters what happens or who says what, Dubya is still going to have his little scrap at any cost...

[Ned]

To those who are advocating sending large forces to Afghanistan, think of what happened to us in Vietnam and to the Russians the 1980's in Afghanistan. We run the risk of fighting a guerilla war with the population against us. Such a war is not winnable.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Socialists, communists, and supporters of capitalism, therefore, have a common foe in the Taliban and al-Qaeda

And what about Palestinian terrorism? People on the left that continually demonize Israel and attempt justify Palestinian terror attacks seem to forget that most (not all) Palestinian terrorists don't just fight for independence, but also for a fundamentalist Islamic state to be put in place. Will you condemn them too? Or are they different because they have a victum status attached to them?