Jude 2

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... atalities/

I guess they are beginning to see these decisions are not that easy as innocent Afghans were killed and anti-war protesters are now upset

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Sunday that there will be an "uptick" in American casualties in Afghanistan as the U.S. military increases its presence in that country, which he characterized as "a real mess."

The vice president's prediction prompted outrage from liberal antiwar groups who characterized it as "cavalier," although a leading scholar at a Washington neoconservative think tank called the Biden remarks an overdue recognition of reality.

one love wrote:I guess they are beginning to see these decisions are not that easy as innocent Afghans were killed and anti-war protesters are now upset

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Sunday that there will be an "uptick" in American casualties in Afghanistan as the U.S. military increases its presence in that country, which he characterized as "a real mess."

The vice president's prediction prompted outrage from liberal antiwar groups who characterized it as "cavalier," although a leading scholar at a Washington neoconservative think tank called the Biden remarks an overdue recognition of reality.

The reality is that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are two different wars, motivated by two different justifications. The Iraq War was wrongly motivated; the war in Afghanistan was more than justified. Many Americans see a difference between the two, and had we focused on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda instead of getting distracted by the Iraq War folly, we probably wouldn't be in the mess in Afghanistan that we are in.

I, for one, am, and always have been, willing to fight indefinitely in Afghanistan, so long as our conduct is appropriate and our tactics and strategy sound, which for the most part they are now and will be increasingly so as we put our rightful attention and resources there.

Personally, I don't know that we'll ever prevail in Afghanistan. If we can't do it, it can't be done, though. It is my own personal opinion that the only thing that'll end Afghanistan's treachery is a full fledged nuclear eradication of them. Of course, I don't want that. We may just have to contain indefinitely rather than hope for a final victory in any real sense.

Tim Elston wrote:

one love wrote:I guess they are beginning to see these decisions are not that easy as innocent Afghans were killed and anti-war protesters are now upset

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Sunday that there will be an "uptick" in American casualties in Afghanistan as the U.S. military increases its presence in that country, which he characterized as "a real mess."

The vice president's prediction prompted outrage from liberal antiwar groups who characterized it as "cavalier," although a leading scholar at a Washington neoconservative think tank called the Biden remarks an overdue recognition of reality.

The reality is that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are two different wars, motivated by two different justifications. The Iraq War was wrongly motivated; the war in Afghanistan was more than justified. Many Americans see a difference between the two, and had we focused on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda instead of getting distracted by the Iraq War folly, we probably wouldn't be in the mess in Afghanistan that we are in.

I, for one, am, and always have been, willing to fight indefinitely in Afghanistan, so long as our conduct is appropriate and our tactics and strategy sound, which for the most part they are now and will be increasingly so as we put our rightful attention and resources there.

Tim I agree with the AFGAN war, we are on the same page. I just was getting at the fact that decisions are not so easy when you are in the seat. We can all condemn Bush or Obama but Honestly we are not in their place. I will not condemn Obama before giving him a chance.

For instance Ole Rush has got on my nerves... I know his comment about wanting obama to fail had to do with policies but he opened up for the media to qoute his four words "I want Obama to fail"

This is not helpful. I listened to him bash democrats for not standing behind Bush in a time of war etc. and Now he says we should not try to work with the democrats..HUH... Sorry to hijack

dolfan wrote:Personally, I don't know that we'll ever prevail in Afghanistan. If we can't do it, it can't be done, though. It is my own personal opinion that the only thing that'll end Afghanistan's treachery is a full fledged nuclear eradication of them. Of course, I don't want that. We may just have to contain indefinitely rather than hope for a final victory in any real sense.

Yes, indefinite containment. That's what I'm willing to do. We'll never eradicate the Taliban, but if we can contain them within Pashtunistan they won't be able to overrun Afghanistan again and we and the Pakistani government can continue to put pressure on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In the short term we need to boost our troop levels so that Afghanis feel secure enough to help us with local intelligence. Most do not want the Taliban, but they still feel threatened by them. If we have enough troops there to secure their safety, we'll make better intelligence inroads. In the long term we may have to draw down or withdraw due to political reasons, but whatever the contigencies, our strategy must aim never to allow a wholesale takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban again. It's not an option. I'd be willing to fund containment in Afghanistan until the end of time, if need be.

A primary strategy should be hearts and minds. We need to stop the nighttime special forces raids that are killing innocents. We're better off not risking the ill favor of national sentiment, since grass roots good will is our strongest weapon. Along with increased troop levels we also need to get serious about funding national infrastructure there. The Iraq War, unfortunately, siphoned away the lion's share of what was necessary to achieve strategic success in our real national security threat arena.

When I hear the word.. we never can, or never will, or it's not possible.. it just irks me. We CAN do it. It IS possible.

We just need to decide if we want to baby sit or launch a full scale operation to erase this group or that group or not.

We ARE capable to compartmentalize each segment, set end goals and eradicate the resistance by whatever means necessary and we are the only ones holding ourselves back.

MacUser wrote:When I hear the word.. we never can, or never will, or it's not possible.. it just irks me. We CAN do it. It IS possible.

We just need to decide if we want to baby sit or launch a full scale operation to erase this group or that group or not.

We ARE capable to compartmentalize each segment, set end goals and eradicate the resistance by whatever means necessary and we are the only ones holding ourselves back.

You're right, it is possible.

Just like Dolfan said, we'd have to nuke the place in order to make sure that objective is accomplished.

Of course we could launch a "full-scale operation" but how many dead civilians would that include as well?

You're right also in that we are the only ones holding ourselves back -- we should have put a bullet in OBL first time we saw him. And the second, and the third.