The Stupid-Season of Afghanistan is upon us.
There are people form both sides of the isle purporting to present us with “choices” in Afghanistan.
One of these “workable” ideas, meant to be compatible with what their proponents believe is both the center left and the the center right segments of the population’s acceptable way to fight the war-, is a sort of half baked half assed – heck I don’t even know what to call it? OK I got it, we’ll call this one the Biden-Option.
It consists of a sort of troop reduction and subsequent air strikes campaign in combination with special forces action and an expeditionary reaction force.
The stupidity of this is evident. Of course we are doing that already and if not why the hell not? I would ask some of the champions of this idiotic theory to explain to us how do troops not involved in the above mentioned tactics interfere with their implementation?
How do additional troops working say to secure a village, prevent us form conducting air strikes against High-Value-Targets or interfere with SF operations? Of course they don’t and to understand how idiotic the Bidden Option is ..well , I named it the Bidden -Option!
Another so called “choice” – this one even numbers Glen Beck among its proponents and some libertarians- is actually not so much a “strategy” but rather a frustrated reaction to the Obama’s inaction on Afghanistan.
Basically the call is “Mr. President either give McChrystal the troops he needs or bring them all home.”
At first glance this might seem reasonable but in fact is as worse than the Bidden-Option. In the Bidden -Option we do at least get to kill an occasional terrorist here and there and we certainly are able to prevent the bad guys from organizing the kind of C2 (command and control) structure that led to 911. Puling out of Afghanistan, as per the proponents of the “bring’em home option,” and allowing it to be a failed state is a choice that would result in attacks on our soil that might dwarf 911.
There is no room here for going off half cocked and frustrated and think that we can gather our toys and get out of the sandbox with impunity.That’s just beyond naive.
If Obama will not act we have to convince him to act and convince him to do the right thing. We rallied to stop spending, can’t we rally to prevent another 911 by winning in Afghanistan? How about two, three or a series of 911 type attacks can we have rallies to prevent that?
There is only one choice in Afghanistan, we must win!
Some of my 2% of a dollar on how to do that will be posted in the near future but for now please understand that the choice in Afghanistan is not a multiple choice. Check only answer ” A”! WE MUST WIN! That’s it, nothing else exists!
I would adhere to the old saying, “come big, or stay at home”. If the President takes half-way measures designed only to duct tape the problems, then we are doomed to fail, and we might as well quit, now, and save the lives of American soldiers.
There is another option, though, and that is to leave the country, and let the Taliban, and Al Quadia, reestablish themselves, and, then go in and wipe them out.
That’s not an option. Having to fight our way back min against a reconstituted enemy would be very very costly. We are there now and the enemy has been dealt devastating blows, lets kill them and get it over with.
Win what? Our main enemy is the people who live there and don’t want us there? How do you win this by getting under subject of the US? Shooting old leaders and putting in some of our guys. What exactly is a win for you guys on the right?
If you don’t know what a “win” is , well, you just don’t know.
well there you go again, as the great communication once said. I was asking you what does win in Afghanistan mean for the conservatives. Not for a definition of the word win. Let’s stay on point with this discussion so we do get bogged down in semantics
Se previous reply
so based on your reply, the only “win” is how you describe it. I understand now
Evidently you don’t