Sir Bandelot Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Accordng to this article, victory is not achieveable in the Afghan war. That is to say, a victory in military terms. It is now coming down to protecting our interests. Is that like making the best of a bad situation? Top commander offers grim view of military efforts against Taliban Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the foreign ministers of those countries will travel to Washington next week to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials as the U.S. formulates a policy review. Appearing on "The NewsHour" on PBS, Holbrooke was asked how the Obama administration sees victory in Afghanistan. "First of all, the victory, as defined in purely military terms, is not achievable, and I cannot stress that too highly," he said. "What we're looking for is the definition of our vital national security interests." Link This guy says things have been going quite badly. Yet we hear about staying the course. Who's right here? Edited February 19, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Your title is incorrect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Its not the destination, its the journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Very "winnable"....just a matter of cost. I'm glad this crew wasn't running the show back in 1941. Edited February 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Very "winnable"....just a matter of cost. I'm glad this crew wasn't running the show back in 1941. would that be kinda like that winning cost in Iraq? - what did that, uhhh... win... cost (monetary, lives, world standing, etc., etc., etc.). Hey now - is that one actually in the win column? Ah, whatever - that Iraq thingee is so old news - kinda like bush_cheney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 would that be kinda like that winning cost in Iraq? - what did that, uhhh... win... cost (monetary, lives, world standing, etc., etc., etc.). Hey now - is that one actually in the win column? Ah, whatever - that Iraq thingee is so old news - kinda like bush_cheney Yes....Iraq goes in the win column. Canada was in the bleachers eating popcorn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yes....Iraq goes in the win column. Canada was in the bleachers eating popcorn. wahoo! Mission Accomplished - wait... what was the mission? What was accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 wahoo! Mission Accomplished - wait... what was the mission? What was accomplished? Regime change....any questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Accordng to this article, victory is not achieveable in the Afghan war. That is to say, a victory in military terms. It is now coming down to protecting our interests. Is that like making the best of a bad situation? That is not what is said at all, he states a military victory is not achievable at this time. that the war will have to be won by the will of Afgan people. But this is old news, NATO has been saying this for a few years...The Gen is pissed off because his manpower requests have been cut short...And the Rest of NATO is himin, and hawing about sending more troops.... And why would we need more troops if we can not win....perhaps it lies in providing enough security for the Afgan people to get back on thier feet....we need to stay the course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 ....And why would we need more troops if we can not win....perhaps it lies in providing enough security for the Afgan people to get back on thier feet....we need to stay the course... Right.....Canada's draw down in 2011 will force other NATO partners into a corner....put up (combat troops)...or shut up. We know where the roach nests are and this is the opportunity to exterminate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 From what is being said in military circles, the draw down won't be that much, our main focus of mission will change, location wont change still down south....but it won't change much for the soldier outside the wire... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Very "winnable"....just a matter of cost. I'm glad this crew wasn't running the show back in 1941. Or 1939??? The war ended in 2001. The quagmire started shortly after the war ended. We are 7 years into this..... Who ran the show??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Regime change....any questions? WMD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Stephen Harper- "We are not going to achieve peace and security in Afghanistan." How is it that we achieve anything at all then, if not security? Can it be stabilized economically, can anything be built, projects, with it. Or will the solution ultimately be to include the Taliban and make conciliatory gestures... even... allowing sharia law, if the government of Afghanistan says so? No, somehow that don't smell like victory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Stephen Harper-"We are not going to achieve peace and security in Afghanistan." It's important to put this in context with the rest of what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is Afganistan unwinnable? Umm, learn from Alexander. Quit! He is great you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 It's important to put this in context with the rest of what he said. What next, shall we come up with a new definition what "victory" means, in corporate double-speak? How about in the context that Afghanistan is going to have to solve its own peace and security problems... waste of time? What have they been doing for the past few centuries without our meddling... their minds are already made up as to what they want. The Taliban will be asked to participate in the government, that is what Mr. Karzai has been saying for months. Sharia law will be put in place, as was just allowed once again in Pakistan. We have done nothing, except reinforce their mistrust and anger towards the west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) How about in the context that Afghanistan is going to have to solve its own peace and security problems... waste of time? That's exactly what he said. We have to help them help themselves. We in the end can't achieve it without the Afghans. Edited February 19, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Explain to me, how a country with a continue 30 year history of warfare from 1979 to 2009 cannot raise a fighting force to defend itself? The people of Afghanistan have entire generations that know of nothing but living in a combat environment. The fact that the Afghans cannot raise an army to fight for their government, let alone maintain security, would mean that there isn't support for the Western Actions of the last 7 years. There isn't support for the government. There is no trusting and working relationship with the Afghan Armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is Afganistan unwinnable? Umm, learn from Alexander. Quit! He is great you know. He did leave his name behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Very "winnable"....just a matter of cost. I'm glad this crew wasn't running the show back in 1941. If we were around in 1918, we wouldn't have to be in 1939 or 1941, and Hitler would never have been more than the gutter rat he started out as. War begets war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 that Iraq thingee is so old news - kinda like bush_cheney But didn't you hear? The Iraq War only lasted three months and the U.S. won. Someone just forgot to tell Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yes....Iraq goes in the win column. Canada was in the bleachers eating popcorn. wahoo! Mission Accomplished - wait... what was the mission? What was accomplished? Regime change....any questions? of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. But, of course, we all know how you (the U.S.) did a PNAC sponsored end-around in the name of an imminent attack/threat based on the falsified Iraqi WMD threat and the bogus claims of Iraq’s nuclear program. really now… you want to put that one in the win column – with a foundation based on lies and deceit. And here we thought all you neocon types had gone silent/underground. Any questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 If we were around in 1918, we wouldn't have to be in 1939 or 1941, and Hitler would never have been more than the gutter rat he started out as. War begets war. First in our childish modernity we declare this a war! My mother and father who were pock marked with bullet wounds - starved half to death - loss their family - land and not to mention dads off kilter pupil due to a granade tossed in his face - would laugh at all of you. We in our comfort and feeling irrelevant compared to the dynamic upheavels and horror that our grand parents suffered desperately want to be part of history and partake in some adventure ----- pitiful...War spawns war - death can not bring about a win - death breeds more death - There is no life or life of abundance and prosperity that will be generated out of or within Afghanistan - killing the primative because they will not comply to corporate monsterism will eventually drop the weight of embarrassment on the heads of all those who insist on having fun killing people...Look at Bush and his gang - they will spend the rest of their lives quietly laying in the dark knowing shame and feeling cowardice and guilt for killing - direct or indirect - killing is killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. Not that I disagree with your post. But both Harper and Ignatieff supported regime change. And PNACs support for Pre Emptive War. Edited February 19, 2009 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.