ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Footwedge wrote:
Iraq does not have an end game in 2011. We have built multiple military bases, landing ports, supply ports etcetera. Even Obama has conceded that 35.000 Americans will have to stay indefinitely.
Staying in Afghanistan makes no sense at all. The COIN operation does not change anything long term. Afghanistan is a barren land with tribal people. It is much like Iraq...an endless occupation.
2011...2012...2013....we will hear the same story...over and over again.
Yes, it is does. The Status of Forces Agreement, go look it up.
That is not the end game sold to the American people during 2003, 2004, or 2005. "When Iraq steps up, we will step down", ring a bell? We have heard the same rhetoric now coveering 3 administrations. Building a 700 million dollar embassy in the green zone of Baghdad hardly equates to having any consideration of "standing down".
35,000 non combat troops. Major combat operations are already pretty much done in Iraq. Most of the fighting is done by the Iraqis.
Exactly my point. We have 35,000 troops there. And they will stay there forever. That's what happens when you invade countries.
Yes, the situation still blows there, and democracy is messy (something the libertarians keep reminding us of), but I am sure that in 15 years, Iraq will be a functioning state. Which, by the way, is not a puppet regime, as the international order has deemed the last election fair and free.
2 million Iraqis (over 10% of their entire populkation) have left the country and live in tents across borders. The unemployment rates have gone through the roof. Their infrastructure has been blown to shriverenes. Most do not have clean water to drink. and you say the "situation blows"?
Talk about understatements.
s for COIN, it takes time, much time, several years. Every general has said it will take many years. It is something that is stated up front. It is nitty gritty, counter intuitive warfare. It is highly adaptive, changes with the times and is constantly updating to the situations on the ground.
I've read about COIN, and this "new directive" is hardly any different than what has previously been employed. The only real difference is that the US will have 30,000 more troops on the ground a ta cost of 30 billion for this year alone.
And then after 3 years, then what? And at what cost? And for what reason? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq pose even the most remote of threats to our country. They have no military, no backing, and no weapons. And our troops continue to risk their lives over there.
Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. Many thought Iraq was a lost case, but now, even against all your broad statement is a "democracy" that is starting to get their feet under themselves.
I really don't care whether or not they are a democracy. We have now accumulated over 42,000 casualties in "spreading democracy". We had every right in bombing the crap out of the Taliban. But this idea of governing "our way or else" is the primary reason that the international community views us as poorly as they do.
You want to greatly reduce terrorism? Then get out of their homelands. 9-11 happened because of our everpresence in the middle east.
The problem is it is a hard sell, and America is not used to a long haul war.
It's a hard sell because it's a bullshit sell. Americans have had it on "war selling".
