We will pull out of Iraq... into Afghanistan

[OriginalWheelman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7895951.stm

President Barack Obama has authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, saying they are to "meet urgent security needs".

Two brigades - one army and one marine - are to be sent, Mr Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

This first major troop deployment under Mr Obama comes as his administration reviews US policy in Afghanistan.

He has vowed to focus US military efforts on fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan, rather than on Iraq.

The additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan had originally been scheduled to go to Iraq.

"The fact that we are going to responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan," Mr Obama said.

The increase "is necessary to stabilise a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan," Mr Obama said.

"The Taleban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border," he said.

It's like deja vu all over again.

[ishkabibble]

No complaints from me. That should have been the only war in the first place.

[Cold_Zero]

So the Bush Administration got something right? I am glad that we can pull out of Iraq and surge into Afghanistan. The faster we stamp out the Taliban the happier that I will be.

[ishkabibble]

So the Bush Administration got something right?

No, they f'ed up the Afghanistan war by not sending enough troops.

[Cold_Zero]

I meant in Iraq.

[ishkabibble]

Nope. Should not have gone there in the first place.

[liquid_cool]

No, they f'ed up the Afghanistan war by not sending enough troops.

i remeber hearing some dems sayin sumpin like this " we lost the war in irac , we need to pull out now!..we need ALL troups home..for there safty!"..humm who was that..ohh thats rite...Harry Reed Majority leader..as for afghanistan...bomb it to oblivion..and now that Obama is prez..the dems will support it!..and most of all..FUND it..unlike when bush wanted to send trops there.

[ishkabibble]

English, do you speak it?

[S13_love]

I can agree with this decision. They should have done this sooner though.

[Cold_Zero]

it is Senator Harry Reid..

[Jacko3]

Hello Super Moderator:

Here is a link that makes me wonder why we went to Iraq in the first place. I hope this information is tolerated in the spirit of good humor and friendship. Jacko wanna be a friend to anyone willing to accept a heavy dose of tolerance. Tolerance is the milk and honey of america.

These are Bush's own words.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

How could we have gone into war on failed intelligence when the supportiing facts for a war was not as strong or as tangible as that for Afghanistan?

[OriginalWheelman]

Why are you bringing this up again? I was about to say "search I covered this" then realized it was YOU I was talking to.

zer...52580

A very old sayings says "Hindsight is always 20/20." It was in hindsight that he realized he was unprepared, and it takes a good deal of maturity to even admit that. Never has Bush said "I was unprepared when we went into Iraq and I knew it then."

[Cold_Zero]

These are Bush's own words.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

I guess I am reluctant to comment on ‘words’ that are plucked out of an interview that offer no context as to the discussion. But my question, on the first comment where he talks about ‘handle an attack’ is he referring to the War in Afghanistan and not being prepared back in 2001 to wage war 10 months into this Presidency? Only 1 month after the 9-11 attacks? If the comments are in reference to Iraq, then there is really no excuse for being unprepared. Since we had some 13 years to determine what Saddam’s capabilities were and if there really were weapons of mass destruction.

Quote »How could we have gone into war on failed intelligence when the supportiing facts for a war was not as strong or as tangible as that for Afghanistan? [/quote]Well the facts for going to war in Afghanistan has always been rock solid, that is obvious. It is easy to sit back in the confines of history and hindsight and armchair quarterback our country’s decisions to go to war. Heck, we can probably say the same about Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin being used to escalate the war in Indo China, by President Johnson. As for this country’s intelligence failure in Iraq? I would like to point out it was the Clinton Administration that almost single handedly dismantled and defund our intelligence gathering capabilities. So fast forward to 9-11 and the intelligence failures between the NSA and the CIA. Because they failed work with each other, hoarded information and failed to inform the FBI that an attack was eminent on our country and that Al Qaeda operatives from Yemen and Saudi Arabia were operating on our soil, our country was attacked. I guess it no big shocker to me to draw a connection between the Clinton decimation of our country’s Intelligence gathering communities, the failure of these agencies to warn of 9-11 and then 2 years later botch the intel on Iraq’s WMDs. Is this an excuse for going to war? Of course not and ultimately (like it or not) the buck stops with the President. But it does provide context to that part of our history. It is easy to look back 6 years ago, at the events invents that lead up to the Invasion of Iraq and second guess them.

[Jacko3]

Very nice response. Well, it would appear that Bush meant all wars. Whether Iraq war or Afghanistan war, they are bot problematic to ur nation, as we speak. So, in the context of the current problems we face in both war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan), the context of Bush's comments, as it relates to not being prepared for war, appears logical.

Yes, it is true that Clinton's relationship, not just the intelligence community, but with the military, was a rocky and distrustful one. And he did act in ways to undermine their capabilities by drastically reducing the size of our armed forces. Whether his action to diminish the effectiveness of the military and intelligence was based on distrust or based on a desire to achieve a budget surplus, remains to be determined.

However, anyone who had been paying attention to world events since 1980, and connecting the dots, up to the Clinton years, should have known that an attack was imminent. Even I, as far back as 1999 knew that the terrorists were going to attack our nation somehow. How could anyone dismiss the first WTC attack, the Tanzania and Kenya US embassy attacks, the Naval Ship in Yemen attack, and think for one moment that nothing was going to happen????

And then, anyone with a good historal reference, should then ask themselves, who first funded and developd A-Qaeda's capabilities as we know it today??? Al-Qaeda, under Bin Laden, was funded by the CIA in the mountains of Afghanistan and supported by Regan and Bush I, to fight the Russian incursion into Afghnistan. it was all part of the cold war struggle, that was imitated when Cuba decided to spread its communist ideal to Angola. US intelligence, also supported rebel groups in that effort, as they did with Al-Qaeda, to squash the further spread of communism. So, if one sees the problem form the perspective of destroying communism, then it is possible to see how terrorlst groups were supported by our nation well before Clinton, whom you suppose was responsible for the intelligence failures, and which assertion i disagree with.

Even in Iraq, we continued to support kurdish terrorists groups such as the MPK. Without the MPK, we could not have won the battle in Northern Iraq. Yet, when the MPK becomes extreme, just as Al-Qaeda has beocme, then we wonder why.

[Cold_Zero]

Another thing.We should always understand that invasion of Afghanistan as the result of an attack on the US. Afghanistan's ruling government (Taliban) harbored Al Qaeda, offered them material support and training. So when 9-11 was perpetrated, it was as if Afghanistan attacked the United States.

Iraq was a preemptive strike. Iraq had not attacked the United States (obviously) but the threat of Iraq possessing WMDs was enough of a threat to constitute an attack. I guess that is the thing about preemptive strikes. There is always the possibility that you are wrong. Just look at Pearl Harbor for the Japanese. Would the United States attack or go to war with Japan, had the Imperial Japanese Navy not attack Pearl Harbor? Was it a mistake for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, especially since the American Carriers were not docked at Pearl?

[Cold_Zero]

Yes, it is true that Clinton's relationship, not just the intelligence community, but with the military, was a rocky and distrustful one. And he did act in ways to undermine their capabilities by drastically reducing the size of our armed forces. Whether his action to diminish the effectiveness of the military and intelligence was based on distrust or based on a desire to achieve a budget surplus, remains to be determined.

One thing to add to this analysis. One could make the argument that the Clinton Administration’s policy to only deploy troops when it was bloodless/convenient to do so (thus missing the bulk of the Civil War in Bosnia and the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan) and to pull troops out when it was not, probably emboldened groups like Al Qaeda to attack American assets overseas and at home.

Quote »However, anyone who had been paying attention to world events since 1980, and connecting the dots, up to the Clinton years, should have known that an attack was imminent. Even I, as far back as 1999 knew that the terrorists were going to attack our nation somehow. How could anyone dismiss the first WTC attack, the Tanzania and Kenya US embassy attacks, the Naval Ship in Yemen attack, and think for one moment that nothing was going to happen????[/quote]I would say that the only two things you missed were, Al Qaeda training Somali militias to shoot down American Blackhawk choppers with RPGs and the attack on the Khobar Towers.

Quote »And then, anyone with a good historal reference, should then ask themselves, who first funded and developd A-Qaeda's capabilities as we know it today??? Al-Qaeda, under Bin Laden, was funded by the CIA in the mountains of Afghanistan and supported by Regan and Bush I, to fight the Russian incursion into Afghnistan. it was all part of the cold war struggle, that was imitated when Cuba decided to spread its communist ideal to Angola. US intelligence, also supported rebel groups in that effort, as they did with Al-Qaeda, to squash the further spread of communism. So, if one sees the problem form the perspective of destroying communism, then it is possible to see how terrorlst groups were supported by our nation well before Clinton, whom you suppose was responsible for the intelligence failures, and which assertion i disagree with.[/quote]I guess this is where it gets sticky. Sure we supported the Mujahedeen during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Now Al Qaeda in Afghanistan made up a very small portion of the Mujahedeen. Remember, Al Qaeda were the Arab fighters inside Afghanistan and history shows us in battle, they were ineffective against the Russians. It should also be pointed out that the Mujahedeen does not necessarily constitute the Taliban (not that you were making this assertion, Jacko) and that one of the groups in the Mujahedeen, the Northern Alliance was the premiere groups in Afghanistan that the Coalition Forces used to take on the Taliban. It was also Al Qaeda that killed the leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud a day before the 9-11 attacks. So I guess what I am saying is that Reagan’s policy to support the Mujahedeen during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, is pretty complex.

[Jacko3]

I see your point. I guess the question is, at what point is pre-emption a savvy strategic idea and at what point is it a problematic dieal?? Certainly, FDR knew that Japan was an imminent menace---Japan had already run over China and killed over 200,000 Chinese. Chinese have yet to forgive the Japanese till this day for that attack----it still remains a sensitive subject in China. Should FDR have attacked Japan in order to pre-empt further Japanese aggression or should he have remained silent until Japan attacked Pearl Habor?? We shall never know what the right course of action should have been. But we do know that FDR had severe domestic economic issues to deal with and a Congress that was completely against getting involved with any external conflict, which naturally crimped FDR's ability and tendency to even suggest a pre-emptive war. However, FDR did try to warn Congress that either Germany or Japan would attack us at some point as their aggression was beocming a source of concern. In fact, German U-boats had fired missiles from the atlantic Ocean into the US.

Yet again, while this experience was instructive, it does not provide a substantive evidence that pre-emption was a necessity in terms of the Iraqi experience. Clearly, the diffference between the world that FDR inherited and the one that Bush inherited was a difference between a necessity versus a choice.

Just about every conceivable circumstance around FDR, was a necessity--failin economy, a world gone bunkers, etc, and so he fought a war of necessity--economically and in WWII. In the case of George Bush, while Afghanistan was a necessity---directly linked to 911, Iraq was a matter of choice, and even if it became a necessity as a matter of Saddam's imminent threat to the world with his WMD, the rest of the world were in as much danger as the USA, thus, raising the question, how much danger was the US in from a threat of Saddam's WMD, if the rest of the world faced an equal measure of the same threat from Saddam?


Modified by Jacko3 at 9:06 AM 2/23/2009

[Jacko3]

You said, "One thing to add to this analysis. One could make the argument that the Clinton Administration’s policy to only deploy troops when it was bloodless/convenient to do so (thus missing the bulk of the Civil War in Bosnia and the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan) and to pull troops out when it was not, probably emboldened groups like Al Qaeda to attack American assets overseas and at home."

Well, after the WTC attack in 1993, Clinton does deserve some credit, albeit a weak one. When the intelligence community finally realized that Bin Laden was probably the head of Al-Qaeda, and after Al-Qaeda members had returned to their home countries--yemen, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, etc,. there was an attempt by the Clinton Administration to smoke Bin Laden out of Saudi Arabia. And, Saudi Arabia did ban Bin Laden from coming back to Saudi Arabia. Thus, Bin Laden found refuge in Sudan/Somalia where he thought he could rest and spread his tentacles. Clinton administration fired a few weak missiles that hit or did nothing in Sudan. Under pressure, President Bashir of Sudan was told to ask Bin Laden to leave the country. And so, Bin Laden left and found refuge in the mountains of Afganistan and with the tribal people of Pakistan in Waziristan. This is where he consolidate his efforts to be the head of Al-Qaeda, together with Al Zawahiri who was previously a dangerous member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Eqypt, and who was also banished from Eqypt as well.

So, Clinton did do somethings, albeit weak stuff.


Modified by Jacko3 at 9:05 AM 2/23/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Well, after the WTC attack in 1993, Clinton does deserve some credit, albeit a weak one. When the intelligence community finally realized that Bin Laden was the head of Al-Qaeda, and after Al-Qaeda members had returned to their home countries--yemen, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, etc,. there was an attempt by the Clinton Administration to smoke Bin Laden out of Saudi Arabia. And, Saudi Arabia did ban Bin Laden form coming back to Said Arabia. Thus, Bin Laden founf refuge in Sudan/Somalia where he thought he could rest and spread his tentacles. Clinton administration fired a few weak missiles that hit or did nothing in Sudan. Under pressure, President Bashir of Sudan was told to ask Bin Laden to leave the country. And so, Bin Laden left and found refuge in the mountains of Afganistan and with the tribal people of Pakistan in Waziristan. This is where he consolidate his efforts to be the head of Al-Qaeda, together of Al Zawahiri who was a previously a dangerous member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Eqypt, and who was also banished from Eqypt as well.

So, Clinton did do somethings, albeit weak stuff.

Oh I agree, but a few things.1. Clinton did setup a group (CIA) to track Bin Laden only after the African Embassy Bombings in 1998. So for 6 years after the first WTC attack, where was the Clinton Administration? Because I can tell you where Bin Laden was, obviously planning the next attack. Now, while this group was given the ability to track and target Bin Laden, all assassination attempts had to be approved by the White House council. And it was that delay, making sure the Lawyers were happy, that cost us a few chances to nab Bin Laden and plenty of times to assassinate him.2. Remember, it was Sudan that was willing to turn over Bin Laden to the United States so that we could put him into Custody. The reason why he went to Afghanistan, was the fact that Saudi Arabia had attempted to assassinate him and the United States didn’t think that it could hold him , which proved to be a fatal mistake.3. Again, the missile attacks authorized by the Clinton Administration were bloodless and convenient. It was also the Clinton Administration that pursued the Al Qaeda attacks as being criminal investigations. While I think there has to be good balance between law enforcement and military action when dealing with these types of groups, the actions that the Clinton Administration took really had no teeth. I guess I come from looking at the paradigms of the German Government dealing with the Baader-Meinhof gang and other related groups or the United States dealing with narco-guerrilla groups like the Shining Path in the 1980’s.

[Cold_Zero]

In fact, German U-boats had fired missiles from the atlantic Ocean into the US.

I had the image of an LA Class 688i submerging and firing a BGM-109C TLAM. I know what you probably meant, but that technology didnt exist until later during the Cold War.bud

[audtatious]

Hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure Clinton would have given Bin Laden some lead poisoning relatively quickly.

[Jacko3]

LMAO! or maybe gotten into a threesome with Lewisnki and Bin Laden in place of 75 wives.

[Jacko3]

I would generally agree with much of what what you have said. Yes, Clinton does have a few questions to answer with his weak demonstration and attempts to fight terrorism. For me, his handling of the botched Somali operation and his tepid/inexplicable silence during the Rwanda and Burundi crisis, where genocide was obvious, leaves me boiling at him. Clinton and Kofi Annan have a lot to answer for the Rwanda and Burundi crisis. However, we must not forget that Clinton did little to create or support (fund dissidents for other causes or objectives we may have on our plate) any terror groups like his predeccesors had blatantly done in the past.


Modified by Jacko3 at 9:51 AM 2/23/2009

[audtatious]

Clinton does not have any questions to answer. He made decisions and we are paying for them. If it were intentional it would be one thing but I'm absolutely sure that is NOT the case. The same goes for Bush and decisions he made concerning Iraq (WITH Congressional support). Iraq was known at the time to have WMD's and Congress agreed with him.