Democratic Hawks Set Us Up For Defeat

[tekisui]

The anti-war Liberals are not 'quick to admit defeat' in theaters of war. Rather, they are against war as an instrument of policy for various reasons. Our modern wars, fought against non-uniformed insurgencies and non-governmental actors cannot be 'won'. They can be protracted, escalated and they can be ended.

Democratic Hawks, accepting the neo-con frame that wars can be won and that they have value as policy, are handing themselves over to defeat. By accepting that frame, the wars become politicized and that is a no-win situation. The debate moves from 'whether modern wars are effective and necessary' to 'the best way to win the wars'. Democrats did good on Iraq, once the public forced it. They stood up and said this war is not worth fighting. It took the war off the political table. In Afghanistan, however, accepting the idea that there is such a thing a 'right war', ensures political defeat.

Each decision made in regards to the war, now, will be criticized by the right as the wrong way to win the war. And, the nature of this war is that progress is fleeting, ill-defined and temporary. Inevitably, each decision--no matter how thoughtful, careful and planned---will be followed at some point with violence and further destabilization. That is the opening for the right to say wrong decisions were made and that they would have done it better. Politicizing a war is not a frame that can be won. If we were fighting a government with a military that could possibly be forced to surrender, maybe. But, an indigenous insurgency, never.

The only way to 'win' against an insurgency fighting against occupiers is to leave. Politically, militarily, economically, humanely this is the only valid decision.

Democrats are asking to be hit hard on Afghanistan. We will pass the 1,000 dead US soldier mark sometime this year or early next. Over 5,000 wounded in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it.

It is time to devise an exit strategy and frame the debate on Afghanistan as 'what is the best way to get out'. We must abandon the meme of win and success. For a win and a success is ending it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. Yeah us pro AfPak supporters of Obama are setting you

up to fail. Seeing as how we don't give a shit about life and all that.
:eyes:

[tekisui]

3. You are playing a game you cannot win.

I need not make judgments on you how much or how little you value you life. But, you are on the losing side of this. One day, a commander-in-chief will finally make the correct decision to get out of Afghanistan.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. You did the other day. But that's O.K.

I bet Obama sends in more troops and you lose this argument. Then you can start posting all the anti Obama and Democratic bullshit that you want to.

[tekisui]

7. Get over yourself.

Just because you are a hawk doesn't mean I am in any way anti-Obama or anti-Democratic. Quite the opposite is true.

He may add more troops, I expect he will. But, I don't expect to lose this argument. Things will get worse, more money will be wasted, more lives will be lost. We will never have a clear 'victor' and some day, a President will pull the troops out. It will not be based on a win or even stability, but on a President realizing the American people are over it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. I think you should take your own advice.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

9. You offer nothing of substance to the debate.

You address none of the points in the OP. You counter nothing. You simply avoid the argument. Weak.

[SIMPLYB1980]

11. Oh please. When I tried to bring some substance last week

you all but called me a baby killer. Read your post from Friday.

[tekisui]

12. More of the same, thanks.

:eyes: :hi:

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. Did you expect something different?

:eyes: :pals:

[Greyhound]

19. No, you're setting up the entire nation as well as the party to fail.

Obama has, through following this ill-conceived and horribly executed "plan", taken ownership of this lose-lose debacle that rightly lays at Idiot Frat Boy's door.

[unhappycamper]

2. For me, the answer is quite simple.

What is the mission statement? What is the exit strategy? What exactly are we getting for the $180 million dollars a day the Afghanistan occupation costs?

If you cannot answer those questions quickly and with clarity, get the fuck as quickly as you can. And I'm not talking about 2 ~ 15 years. Start packing. Now.

[tekisui]

4. That is a concise way to put it.

The mission statement is muddled and shifty at best and I have yet to hear Obama mention the word exit in regards to Afghanistan.

[Lasher]

6. In ROTC I was taught the 9 basic principles of modern warfare.

I have since seen different versions but they are: Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise, and Simplicity. Objective is included in every variation of these principles and there is a reason it is always listed first.

[msongs]

16. principals of modern warfare - increased budget, long term job security, kill lots of people nt

[lonestarnot]

10. 14 more announced this a.m.

[joeycola]

13. so so so sad.

[lonestarnot]

14. :(

:cry: :patriot:

[bvar22]

17. No "WIN" possible.

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire


On the Plus Side:

*The War Profiteers are raking in the MONEY,

*The Psycho Bigots have new masturbation material (even at DU),

*Al Qaeda is getting everything they want.

So its not ALL bad.


K&R up to +2

[tekisui]

18. Right you are.

The DUers having wargasms are sick.

[inna]

20. KR+10.

[TheKentuckian]

21. No one as of yet has articulated with any level of clarity of what we buy with this

open ended blank check. Nor any actual comprehensive strategy and how this effort actually ties into it as far as the wider efforts against organized terror.

Even the hawkish policy people and former generals though gung ho, fail to paint a picture of an endgame that in any way justifies the blood and capital they plead for. Some even admit that this build up will actually make Pakistan (the real issue that we pretend around) more unstable for the next five years after which they hope, pray, assume, or whatever that conditions will reverse for the better.

This whole thing is nonsense. Pakistan is the real interest so the only real reason to be in Afghanistan is as part of a pincher to hem Al Queda in. That means that either we cooperate under a united command with the Pakistani military to put the squeeze on or that Pakistan allows and gathers some kind of Muslim multinational group large and equipped enough to eliminate destabilizing factors while we hold down the fort on the other side of the border. Meanwhile, another international force would have to be in action or at least prepared for action in weak nation states to the north where militant terrorist organizations are already taking root and taking over.

If we can't build the coalitions required for a truly comprehensive strategy to actually go after the stated threat then the rewards even under a best case scenario is going to be negligible with a humongous investment. I think it is clearly unlikely that we will suffer any ramifications by pulling out that would cost us as dearly as this wrongheaded path we seem to be on.

Bottom line is we are getting very, very, very little even optimistically at a completely insane cost and it is at least as possible (and probably more so) that we will deplete our resources both human and financial and end up worse off than we are today. Very likely we could accomplish all we are ever going to in Afghanistan by just spreading a few billion a year around directly to the villages in money and items.