Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan

[Aussie]

"We won in Iraq, after the surge, and withdrawal would have followed regardless of the administration elected."

Anyone agree?

[Postul8]

As I pointed out to the poor demented fool......

If the so-called surge had worked, Bush would have activated a withdrawal and claimed his so-called victory. He didn't, so clearly there can be no victory. As to Bush being successful.....well, denial is definitely more than a river in Egypt

[JW Frogen]

Bush did have a post surge plan for withdrawal, signed in a SOFA with the democratic Iraqi government, one very similar to “peace” candidate Obama’s current plan.

The idea that no war is won unless there is a complete and immediate withdrawal of all troops (which has occurred in no victorious war I can think off) is simply, simple.

To be kind.

There are still US troops in Western Europe, yet no historian would claim the US not achieve it’s military objectives and win WW2.

The surge has been remarkably successful (the Lefts sullen inability to accept this reveals how they really wanted defeat in Iraq, civil war, mass death, simply so they could narcissistically chant against Bush) but this does not meant all the military or political objectives can be instantaneously achieved.

Just as with the US military presence in Western Europe post WW2 or present troops in South Korea the idea that US troops remaining in a country means that country can not know peace or democratic prosperity is a-historical.

Still, Iraq is tenuous. Iran has continuing objectives of destabilizing the south, the Kurds, who have been remarkably successful all through the war, may get involved with growing tensions with the Sunni over oil rich Kurkuk, and the Shia dominated government must bring those Sunni who did participate in the democratic process into a full share of government.

The surge smashed both Al Qeada and most insurgent groups, but there are still terrorists there who will randomly bomb, still insurgent groups hoping with a US draw down they can revitalize their deeply damaged organizations.

No one who really cares for the country would call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal, even peace at any price Obama moved away from that ridiculous position when he started to contemplate the possibility he might have real responsibility in the Presidency.

The world is tough, it requires sustained effort to achieve any sort of democratic progress or peace, we know most on the Far Left can not sustain such effort, indeed are really not all that interested in democracy promotion at all, but at least Obama has left that fold now that he has real responsibility and he has conned the Far Left into voting for him.

He is a President now, not simply a chanting peace protester who does not think of the consequences.

[Postul8]

I wasn't aware the US won WW2??? Crap, I'll have to make suitable notations in all of my WW2 references.

[Aussie]

Yes, yes, yes, Frogen and all that stuff, yes, yes, yadda.

Please riddle me this:

"We won in Iraq, after the surge, and withdrawal would have followed regardless of the administration elected."

Do you agree with that? I don't.

'Winning' a War means the bad guys stop shooting at you. 'We" won over Japan because we dropped two bombs, they took their pants down, and stopped shooting at us.

[mantra.]

Of course we haven't won the war. Bush said we had after he'd bombed the guts out of Baghdad but most thinking people knew he was lying. It has just been a pointless exercise and most Iraqis interviewed now would prefer Saddam to the US. The yanks stole all the cash out of their banks, laundered it through their Treasury and then blew it.

The Iraqis are living in dire conditions, little fresh water, food, jobs and infrastructure - the streets are unsafe and we've got more enemies now than we've ever had before.

Obama knows that it's pointless staying in Iraq - and he should make up his mind about Afghanistan, except the proceeds from the opium trade are too addictive. The Taliban are breeding like rabbits and are everywhere now - thanks to the high unemployment and US occupation of Afghanistan.

What a huge mess. While two thirds of the US population live in poverty without decent healthcare, housing & jobs - the US increases troop deployment to the ME. What's the ME defence budget run into now - a few trillion and for what? Democracy - peace????

[JW Frogen]

Bush did not bomb Baghdad into oblivion; no city that offered resistance of this size has ever been taken with less damage in the entire history of warfare. This is one reason an insurgency had the oxygen to take off, due to the minimal force used to remove Saddam. (For destroying cities one must look to the Russians and Grozny.)

Most of the infrastructure destroyed was not destroyed by Coalition Forces removing Saddam but intentionally be the insurgents who wished to destabilize the country, (see how there was little or no infrastructure destruction in Kurdish Iraq, where there was little or no insurgency) they could do so because of the minimal force used by Bush until the surge.

Since the surge the insurgency has been bashed and battered, it is petering out into random terror acts (though Sadr remains a worrying force, if dormant in fear). This has allowed much of the infrstrascture to be repaired, economic activity to resume, oil production increase.

There has been huge progress in Iraq since the surge.

I know the Left can never see anything but despair, but some people in the world are willing to fight for a future, even risk for it, like the Iraqis who just voted in their fourth election.

Obama realizes this and so once again has extended his withdrawal timetable and now states he will leave as many as 50,000 troops in country, pretty much what Bush signed in the SOFA with democratic Iraq just before he left office.

[JW Frogen]

Yes, yes, yes, Frogen and all that stuff, yes, yes, yadda.

Please riddle me this:

"We won in Iraq, after the surge, and withdrawal would have followed regardless of the administration elected."

Do you agree with that? I don't.

'Winning' a War means the bad guys stop shooting at you. 'We" won over Japan because we dropped two bombs, they took their pants down, and stopped shooting at us.

Most wars have not ended as decisively has WW2, WW2 ending so because such massive and overwhelming destructive force was used that the enemy could no longer go on.
(The British, Roman other empires fought continual skirmishs in areas they considered of vital national importance, such as in northern India. The key is to contain the enemy so that they wither away or simply no longer can threaten political and strategic goals.)

The Russians did this in Chechnya, but democracies simply cannot unless their very existence is threatened immediately, and so force is used in proportion to the political goals.

The goal in Iraq is an Iraqi democracy, which does not threaten her neighbors, one that pumps oil and is not hostile to the West or supporting mass global terror.

This looks now like it will be achieved, the insurgency is laid low and though they will continue terror attacks for years until the Iraqi army gets strong enough, they can no longer control cities or threaten the end goal should the Iraqi government continue progress with Sunni-Shia reconciliation and the US continue to offer support and assistance.

There will be bombings and set backs, but nothing like 2005 and 2006, when it was unclear whether the previous stated political goals could even be achieved, now we know they will if we persevere.

I know perseverance is not a Leftest traight, but even Obama seems to be learning it post the surge.

[mantra.]

Sometimes Frogen you have blinkers on in regard to Iraq. We didn't have problems with all these extra insurgents prior to the Iraq invasion. As far as bombing Baghdad to bits - the Coalition are ultimately responsible for the infrastructure damage in Iraq. During the Gulf war - all Iraqi schools & hospitals were destroyed and it had taken years for Iraq to get back on its feet and just as they start to make some headway - in comes Bombastic Bush to finish off Daddy's work. Iraq was treated very cruelly - imposing sanctions on a nation struggling to recover from major infrastructure damage and DU poisoning.

I know the Left can never see anything but despair, but some people in the world are willing to fight for a future, even risk for it, like the Iraqis who just voted in their fourth election.

Illegal invasions create despair.

As far as Afghanistan goes - why are the Taliban on the increase? The more we kill - the faster they multiply.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The Taliban insurgency is widening its presence in Afghanistan and "closing a noose around Kabul," an international think tank report says.

The report -- issued Monday by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) -- said the Taliban movement "now holds a permanent presence in 72 percent of Afghanistan, up from 54 percent a year ago."

NATO, which commands about 50,000 troops in the country, disputes the figures.

Titled "Struggle for Kabul: The Taliban Advance," the report said the international community must ramp up grass-roots economic and humanitarian relief to stop the Taliban, the group that once ruled Afghanistan and harbored the al Qaeda terror network when it attacked the United States in 2001.

"It's a very scary situation," said Gabrielle Archer, ICOS manager of development policy. "There's been a dramatic increase in just one year."

The report said the Taliban have expanded from the country's southern region to the western and northwestern provinces and near Kabul, "where three out of the four main highways into Kabul are now compromised by Taliban activity."

"Confident in their expansion beyond the rural south, the Taliban are at the gates of the capital and infiltrating the city at will," according to the ICOS report.

[JW Frogen]

Yes, Iraq was a paradise before we removed Saddam, half Saddam's time at war with his neighbors killing over a million people in the region, brutalizing Kuwait (I know I was there), genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and would have continued thus, environmental damage on a colossal scale, from draining the largest wetland in the Middle East to setting Kuwaiti oil wells on fire, disobeying his generous 1991 cease fire which meant the UN imposed sanctions making his people even more poor.

Yes, life was a bed of golden hummus under Saddam and would have continued thus under his sons.

Or maybe you want to listen to most of the Iraqi people who risked their lives to say goodbye to all that.

As to illegal war, most wars post the creation of the UN and the idea of legal war have not had UN sanction, indeed the US is the only major power to get UN sanction for this war.

A violated 1991 cease fire, 12 violated UN resolutions, and a violated final chance makes this war more legal than most, not that it matters in the real world where real people have to live with real tyrannies, or die with them.

Ask the people of Sudan what they think of UN sanctioned "legal war"?

No nation will submit to it the concept of UN sanctioned war, though many people die under it.