Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should the U.S. continue the war in Afghanistan?

By Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens

The tide is turning. The American public is turning against this war, just as it did Vietnam. The Wikileaks documents undermine any pretext to the notion that we have, will or can make progress there. Americans will not stand for seeing our young people slaughtered in an unwinnable war, no matter minerals or Bin Laden.

Jul 27, 2010, 11:08am Permalink
terry paine

"We have shot an amazing number of people,but to my knowledge,none have ever proven to be a threat."-Gen.Stanley McChrystal
New York Times 3/26/10

Jul 27, 2010, 12:08pm Permalink
terry paine

"Why should we hear about body bags and death? I mean,it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"-Barbara Bush

"Terror means killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority"-Bill Clinton

Jul 28, 2010, 8:53am Permalink
Dave Olsen

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." James Madison, June 29,1787, from a speech delivered during the Constitutional Convention

Jul 28, 2010, 9:15am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

So, we lose the War on Terror? After years of talk about 9/11, weapons of mass destruction and rouge states, we just give up and wait for the next attack? We admit that we created more terrorists than we killed. We pack our bags and bury our dead, just like Bin Laden told us we would. We all feel content that we installed two dysfunctional corrupt governments? Oh, yea that’s right they have been “democratized”?? So, we will never win,” let’s give up” is our new motto?

We leave everyone who helped us over there to get their heads chopped off?

I got news for all of you; this isn’t a war we can lose. Those people hate us and want us all dead. They attacked us and will kill us all the minute they have a chance. This isn’t Vietnam.. We were attacked and they are not going to surrender and play nice if we give them their sandbox back..

Jul 28, 2010, 9:21am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

It doesn’t matter how much the war to live costs. It doesn’t matter how long it takes. Surrender isn’t an option when your enemy won’t accept a white flag. I’m not sure if you all understand that the terms of surrender are to DIE.

Jul 28, 2010, 9:32am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The 48 contiguous states, in the current geo-political environment are pretty defensible. There's no need to fight foreign wars to fight terrorism.

Jul 28, 2010, 9:41am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Yup Howard, your right. The ocean is big enough to protect us from a suit case bomb. Look how well the ocean handled all that oil. So, what's the plan? Chop our own heads off or wait??

Jul 28, 2010, 9:52am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Charlie, we are no more or no less safe from a suitcase bomb with our children dying in the desert than not.

Why waste blood and treasure on an unwinnable war that can serve no purpose to make us safer from an asymmetrical attack?

Jul 28, 2010, 9:57am Permalink
bud prevost

Agreed Howard. The US needs to stop fighting an unwinnable war, and bring our troops home. Secure and defend our borders. Rebuild OUR infrastructure, not the Afghan or Iraqi roads, bridges and buildings.
If we truly wanted to "win" this war, we would need to exhibit a no-holds barred approach, something our PC society would find uncivil. "So go fight your war, but make it a clean fight". That's where we are at.
Charlie, I agree that withdrawl at this point would be perceived as failure, but I don't believe our troops and weapons are being used to their fullest potential. Again, we're in a war, but we worry about what the rest of the world thinks.
I think the expression "go big or stay home" is appropriate in this situation.

Jul 28, 2010, 9:58am Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
We are not fighting to win the war in Afghanistan, but to win over the people. As such, we are not wining either. When you have to ask permission to shoot somebody you see carrying a AK 47, you lose. It's time to leave after 9 years.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:05am Permalink
Dave Olsen

A big part of the problem, in my view, is our ridiculous insistence on calling Pakistan and Saudi Arabia allies. The wiki-leak papers show that Pakistan is covertly supporting the Taliban, our enemy. Our natural ally is India and we ignore them. I agree Howard, we are no safer with our people fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq or anywhere else than if they were not, probably less safe. Our actions are the best recruiting tool Al-Queda and the Taliban have. I'm sorry about the people in those countries who'll be screwed when we leave, truly. But we are not the world police.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:28am Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
This generation of our military is the greatest generation. They go back time after time, with little notice. They all volunteer for this. I know one who has been in the army for 8 years and been deployed 6 times. There is one reservist from this area who has been deployed to Iraq 4 times and Afghanistan once. This is your greatest.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:38am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

John, so we in the “weakest generation” pull the rug out from under them and tell them all their losses were for nothing because, we lack the intestinal fortitude to let our army kill our enemies.

The war plan is wrong, not the war. We should be bombing our enemies from afar, not handing out candy bars and building them schools.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:48am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Charlie, Afghanistan doesn't get referred to as The Graveyard of Empires for nothing: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-07-28.asp

If one truly "Supports the Troops" they wouldn't support sending them into a no win situation. Our people will always do their best. It's the civilian leadership that's screwing this up, and that needs to stop. If some political careers are trashed, that may not be a bad thing.

Jul 28, 2010, 12:50pm Permalink
terry paine

Charlie how many more weddings and schools should we drop bombs on "from afar" before you would consider it a win? Ron Paul's position on the war is to bring the troops home and he received more financial support from active military than all of the other candidates combined. Apparently they don't feel we would be pulling the rug out from under them if we brought them home.

Terry Paine
(father of two sons lucky to be alive after serving multiple times in Afghanistan and Iraq)

Also I didn't know you were a fan of Dick Cheney's war strategy "Bombs not candy bars"

Jul 28, 2010, 1:27pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-mVt2IwHYf0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0"></par… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-mVt2IwHYf0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jul 28, 2010, 1:49pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Chris; From an old guy. Ozzy back when you could almost understand him
object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xtqy4DTHGqg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><pa… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xtqy4DTHGqg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jul 28, 2010, 2:14pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

With all due respect, here are the lyrics from "War Pigs" Apropos to today, in my opinion:

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/black+sabbath/#share

Jul 28, 2010, 2:21pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Come on, the classic anti-war song:

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo]

But there's also the question I ask myself, all the time, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding",

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7txCdLCP9U]

As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

Cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding?

So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

Cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
What's so funny bout peace love & understanding?

Jul 28, 2010, 2:51pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

You all act as though the Afghan war was a choice rather than being inflicted on us. Afghanistan isn’t Iraq. Those people are not just going to pull back; this sign of weakness will embolden them. Every rational person in that country will be put to death the minute we run with our tail between our legs. We will send another horrible message of weakness.

Don't we still have bases in Japan, German and Korea? Why does Afghanistan get a time table? Why did we expect that this war wouldn't take time? I wonder what each one of you said we should do on 9/12?

Jul 28, 2010, 3:20pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Charlie,

On 9/12 I was on one of those bases in Germany wearing Kevlar and carrying around my gas mask.

If our government can't be honest about the situation there then it's time to bring the boys back home.

Jul 28, 2010, 3:50pm Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
The Afghan's have had 9 years to build an army and fight their own fight. If after 9 years, they can't or will not, then it's over. And unless your willing to take on Pakistan, you can't win.

And on 9/12, we said destroy them. But Bush and now Obama refused to do that. If you refuse to win, then don't fight.

Jul 28, 2010, 3:31pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

I thought something a bit louder might be good about now.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Ejga4kJUts&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&amp;bo… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Ejga4kJUts&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&amp;bo…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Jul 28, 2010, 3:41pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Also 'like' for John's comment.

And Dave, I'll see your Ozzie and raise you some Dead Kennedys.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gJe-mvFRlGs&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0"></par… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gJe-mvFRlGs&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jul 28, 2010, 3:53pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The issue at this point isn't whether we should have responded to 9/11, but how? It's a legitimate question as to whether the initial response was strategically correct, and it's an imperative question now as to whether to continue or change our strategy. While our enemies would spin a withdrawal as a defeat, screw them. We need to do what's right for the people of the United States. Screw pride. Implement the correct strategy. It is manifestly folly to continue a war that cannot be won and that if continued would only drag the country further toward destruction.

Jul 28, 2010, 3:59pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Howard,

A couple more Punk Rock love songs aimed at the bush administration.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtpF2uM7tWk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0"></par… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtpF2uM7tWk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tr5OyWtBB3M&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0"></par… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tr5OyWtBB3M&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jul 28, 2010, 4:59pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Should we pull out of Afghanistan? Or should we stay there and try to do what should have been getting done?
Bush screwed the military by getting involved in Iraq when he did. That being said Clinton played apart in the problem by not doing his job back in 1998. Clinton should have held the UN's feet to the fire. But that's all said and done now right? The military should have been sent to Afghanistan and used in the same way they were used during wars past. There should have been a focus besides taking the capitol and passing out candy bars. By paying more attention to Iraq we allowed for the Taliban to regroup. That was Bushes fault. Now that he is out of the picture Obama should pick up the slack. Keep the troops there and do what needs to be done to eliminate the Taliban once and for all. Since that is not likely to happen we should then consider the alternative. Pull the troops back home. Militarize the borders. That's right both of them. the federal government should strictly enforce the immigration laws of our country in an attempt to prevent another incident like 9/11 from happening. We don't need any new laws we just need people to start enforcing the ones we already have.
I don't have much faith in that happening though.
So most likely the troops will get pulled back home and the civilian leadership will do everything they can to try to make everyone happy. In the process they will screw our country over because they still won't do what is necessary to protect our country.

Jul 28, 2010, 6:28pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

You all seem to suffer from a bad case of defeatism. Pathetic...

Am i hearing that since we are unable to use our military to defend us from radicals, it's alternate purpose should now be to kill Mexicans who are looking for field work? How stupid of me, of course, the Mexicans and their need for work is the root of all our problems..

Jul 28, 2010, 8:34pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, reality? Someone suggests militarizing our borders and there is nothing shocking about that? You don't see the irony in that? To some people our biggest enemies are now the Mexicans. Not the terrorists who look to kill us everyday. It's the poor people who pick food from our fields.

The spinners are the ones who are distracting us with this fake immigration issue.

Jul 28, 2010, 9:18pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Charlie,

If the Feds started to enforce the existing laws in regards to immigration and properly staffing ICE. Then we might be able to prevent more "terrorist" from entering the country. It may come as a huge surprise to you that the only people crossing our borders are not Mexicans looking for a better life or field work. The fact that many people from Arab countries resemble our neighbors to the south is not lost on these terrorist organizations.
When there is a real problem that is identified it should be handled with a real interest in solving the problem. Don't just go through the motions.
If you took my previous comment as being a defeatist attitude then I'm sorry if I confused you. My opinion concerning Afghanistan is that we should stay there and handle our business. Destroy the Taliban. In no uncertain terms that means find them were ever they are and kill them. Do not arrest them, do not use kid gloves, kill them with extreme prejudice.
That's what should have been getting done in the first place. In matters of war against an enemy of our country the Government should NOT take into account the input from all the armchair generals. We have people that are professional Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman that get paid to be good at making war. The way the Government is using the military in Afghanistan is like someone that builds a muscle car and then only uses the car to drive around the town once a week on Sundays.
Since the current administration has no real interest in using the military to actually complete the mission of destroying the Taliban and capturing Osama Bin Laden, then why not just bring the military home and line them up shoulder to shoulder on both borders. Then maybe we can try to keep the inevitable from happening.

Jul 28, 2010, 9:34pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeremiah, that makes your position much more clear. Thanks. I'll cross you off the list of those who would like to hide their heads in the sand hoping our enemies will just go away.

Sorry Howard, defeatism is an accurate description of what I'm reading and seeing in the poll. Although, referring to me as a politician is called baiting.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:00pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

War breeds discontent, and radical groups like Taliban, Hizbollah, Fatah, Al Saika, Hamas, Al Qaeda and Abu Nidal feed on discontent. There is no shortage of discontent in countries where the annual living wage averages less than $400- as low as $70. ...Where illiteracy exceeds 30%, up to 85% for women. ...Where landmines left from decades of fighting kill tens-of-thousands of children. ...Where unemployment is highest in the developing world- nearing 50%. ...Where despite oil production the total economic output of the Arab world equals that of Spain. ...Where thousands die in factional and civil strife. ...Where child mortality is tenfold compared to industrialized nations. ...Where water is scarce and treatment facilities scarcer. ...Where malnutrition is rampant and has seen no improvement in two decades. ...Where the doctor/patient ratio is 1/4000 in Saudi Arabia, 1/5300 in Afghanistan, 1/25,000 in Somalia. ...Where less than 6% of homes have electric service. ...Where 40% of the population live in utter poverty. ...Where slavery is still practiced, where stoning and torture are inflicted, where thousands of political prisoners languish in jails and many more simply disappear.

With in excess of $1 trillion (not to ignore the human toll) to invest toward winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world, how could that money be best spent?

Jul 28, 2010, 10:19pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"With in excess of $1 trillion (not to ignore the human toll) to invest toward winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world, how could that money be best spent? "

By not meddling in their internal affairs. Which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Jul 28, 2010, 10:27pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

I beieve,and this is only an opinion, Our country lost face value when we walked out of Vietnam. To walk away from this war, and leave those who fought with us behind, will produce the same results.We will be ripe for the picking.

Jul 28, 2010, 11:05pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Howard, I asked the question rhetorically, and your point is valid, albeit it postdated. We view our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as political- whether based on national security or revenge for the 9/11 attacks. The citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan don't see our actions as political (the Mullahs and Imams do); the average Arab takes our presence personally. An Afghani peasant doesn't know Mohamed Atta from the mayor of Dubuque. On the same note, that peasant doesn't differentiate the U. S. military from the Soviets who preceded us. Our policy should reflect the legacy we choose to foster not only in the Mideast, but at home as Frank and Jeremiah have noted. We committed to these actions without an end plan; hopefully someone is working on one now.

Jul 28, 2010, 11:49pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
I think you might have it backwards. I think discontent breeds war, not the other way around. But, it is a small difference and the end result is the same.

Jul 29, 2010, 6:27am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

The real deal is that we have a political fringe who wants the war in Afghanistan to fail. They consider this Obama’s war and pinning a failure on him is more important than our national interests.

There is a lot of talk about how long this war has taken. The fact is we haven’t done a whole lot in Afghanistan because we have been distracted by the war of choice in Iraq.

It has always been in our national interest to press the terrorists in Afghanistan. Those people are not going to go away or are going to play nice when we run away. When they see us complain about how much waging war against them costs, they laugh at us. It emboldens them to attack us more. Running away and hiding will just make them press their war here. They want us all dead, singing songs and talking about all the poor starving Arabs in this world is a distraction. When someone wants to kill you, you kill them first. This is basic survival.

Vietnam and Iraq were different, neither of those countries were intent on harming us before we attacked them. We were the aggressors, it was our choice to stop those wars or not. We don’t have a choice in Afghanistan; the terrorists have not and will not declare a truce. Deal with it.

Jul 29, 2010, 7:48am Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
Political fringe? When polled, most members of the military don't think it's worth staying any longer, and I don't call them a fringe. And they are the ones who have skin in the game.

Jul 29, 2010, 7:52am Permalink
Bea McManis

Charlie,
Just out of curiosity, what is your service record? How long did you serve and where?
Do you honestly believe that the average guy who has no electricity and no access to 24/7 news wants you dead?

Terrorist groups love people like you who see the sky falling at every turn. They thrive on the fear you have and the fear you want to instill in others. Your fear will destroy you, they don't need to do anything else.

Jul 29, 2010, 8:15am Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
It's like Viet Nam. Everyone there was willing to fight, but after awhile, nobody could see for what.

Are you willing to take on Pakistan and expand the war? That is what is necessary to win.

Jul 29, 2010, 8:16am Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
Charlie's worry about people wanting to kill us is real, they do. You would do well to pay attention.

But that is not confined to terrorist just in Afghanistan and is separate from staying there for another 9 years.

Jul 29, 2010, 8:38am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, don’t listen to me, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for you losing that warm and fuzzy feeling in your heart. You and CM are right, all Afghanistan needs is a McDonalds on every corner and then they will put their guns down and sing songs about peace and love.

Your safe and sound, remember you have all that water between you and the terrorists.

Jul 29, 2010, 9:04am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I used to believe as Charlie did, and then I came to my senses. I used to mock those who talked about "root causes," and then I realized -- they were right. Imperial powers (of which the US is one) have exploited Arab Countries for generations. We had no business stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and have been guilty of numerous interventions into the affairs of Iraq, Iran and other Arab nations, including installing and propping up dictators.

You take away the pre-text to hate us -- interfering in these countries -- and Al Qaeda loses a powerful recruitment tool and those of us at home are a hell of a lot safer.

The only thing we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is making this country much less safe. There's zip, zero, nada security component in continuing either war.

Al Qaeda is an asymmetrical opponent, which calls for asymmetrical response. That means the CIA and special ops, not the U.S. military. To whatever degree we've prevented another attack on U.S. shores, that's been a product of tighter domestic security and more aggressive intelligence.

Jul 29, 2010, 9:34am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, you realized your enemy was your own country, I get it. America is bad; guys who live in mud huts with AK-47’s are freedom fighters. If we sing songs they will hear us and understand that some of us are good and on their side. If we shared the wealth and everyone in the world had a piece of the pie we would all be a lot safer. War is caused by economic situations that these poor people have no control over. WRONG…

Their economic situation is caused by their culture and way of life. They choose to follow the guy with the most guns because they have little regard for life or respect weakness. That's why they treat their women like property instead of an important part of their society. They brought war to their doorstep because; they enjoy fighting and feel it’s their only way to achieve entrance into their perverted vision of heaven.

Jul 29, 2010, 10:11am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Charlie, I didn't mention McDonald's, but as long as you bring it up- I traveled to Russia a couple years back. The folks I met there thought an hour drive from Yoshkar Ola (where I was staying) to Cherboksary on the Volga to visit a МАКДОНАЛДС franchise and get a Shrek figure was the ultimate treat. ...Nevermind museums, architecture and local landscape. From what I understand, McDonald's customizes menus for Mideastern palates, substituting lamb for beef. I'm not a big fan of culture makeovers based on American commercialism. It still baffles me that Russians, who understand little English, devote their day to watching A-Team reruns on TV and listening to foreign music on their radios. On the other hand, Coke, Pepsi, KFC and McDonald's seem universally accessible and provide footholds for grassroots enterprise. Go figure.

Jul 29, 2010, 10:35am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

CM, I did like your McDonald’s story and of course you never mentioned McDonald’s, that was an exaggeration on my part.

Howard remember, putting false labels on your opponents arguments is classic red herring political spin. Even the word "spin" can be used as a red herring.

Jul 29, 2010, 11:25am Permalink
C. M. Barons

The Afghana people have been fighting foreign invaders since Alexander the Great. They occupy key real estate necessary for east/west and north/south travel (or gas pipelines) in a mountainous region. Their modern conflicts began with three British wars in 1842, 1880 and 1919. They were invaded by Soviet forces in 1978. Their weapons were supplied by Soviets in the 1950s and 60s (Eisenhower declined the opportunity) and the United States during the 1980s. Their current military outfitter seems to be Iran. I very much doubt that the Afghana enjoy fighting- rather that they are well-practiced and possess sufficient indignation. Their national GDP of $13 billion (thanks to U. S. investment) is comparable to that of South Bend, Indiana. It would take 20 Afghana farmers 140 years to save for second class airfare to ATL.

Jul 29, 2010, 11:30am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Charlie, The extremist Muslims don't hate Americans because we are free or rich or materialistic. They hate us because we are constantly f---ing with them. If we would just leave them alone, and go away, they will find someone else to hate on. Plus, I can't believe you think our intentions are only to stop terrorists from attacking us again. Our government is totally corrupt. Eisenhower warned us about the Military/Industrial Complex.
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Of course he waited until 3 days before he left office to say it. But nonetheless, he hit the nail on the head. I think certain factions in this country like wars, so they can gain more power and profit, Extremist Muslims currently are an easy target.

Jul 29, 2010, 12:26pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

John, as for moving into Pakistan, it’s probably a bad move stepping on that hornets’ nest.

That is really the key point to this whole discussion as well. If we are not willing to get to the root of the problem then, you’re right. It’s time to leave.

Jul 29, 2010, 1:22pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Dave, I think the extremist hate us because we're free and rich and materialistic. I just think they would bother with us a lot less -- find it a lot harder to recruit terrorists -- if we would leave them the f--k alone.

I've no doubt about the extremist Islam ideology. I have no doubt their goal is world conquest, and a world of Shia Law and mass murder of those who disagree.

I also believe that we're doing more to help their cause right now by interfering in the affairs of other countries than they can ever do for themselves.

C.M., I wouldn't say they would be "flintlocks and hurling stones." Who knows how and if their country would have developed without all of the attempts at conquest and foreign intervention. As far as U.S. imperial foreign policy goes, I'm thinking more of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.

Charlie, regarding spin, the truth speaks for itself.

Jul 29, 2010, 3:20pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

So all in favor of the duck and run, think the fanatics will just forget about us. I think it will embolden them to think they won something, and that will draw them to our shores quicker than flys on shi#. Our troops are sick of being targets, I don't blame them. Lets get a new plan, execute it, and stop worrying about collateral damage. Get the job done, show the rest of these scumbags we mean business, stop trying to win their hearts and minds, win the damn war, and do it so convincingly, the scumbags will think twice before they f__k with us again

Jul 29, 2010, 5:37pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Just for clarification, Frank and Charlie, withdrawing and deciding to stop interfering with another country's internal issues is not "cut and run" or "duck and run" or losing the war or defeatist. It's getting back to who we are as a nation. I don't want us to be defined by someone else's actions.

Jul 29, 2010, 7:02pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Right on, Dave. The proudest, bravest action we can take is to do the right thing. The cowardly, immature action is pursue a war just because you're afraid of looking weak. I mean, can anything more more cowardly?

Jul 29, 2010, 8:21pm Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
Because they do not agree with you, you call them cowards or "yellow bellied".

Have you asked your son to join up? Always easy to say somebody else has to do it, right? Now I know that's a bit unfair, but saying people who want to leave a 9 year old war are cowards is too much for me. And they did not say they are not willing to go to war, just not willing to stay in a useless one.

Jul 29, 2010, 8:28pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Which is why I asked about Charlie's military service record.
Was he in combat? Withdrawing the comment about cowards, doesn't erase it from Charlie's opinion. You have to know he still believes it.

Jul 29, 2010, 8:52pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, we all have relatives who have served, are serving or will in the future. I have two teenage boys and a lot to potentially lose. Your argument doesn't make sence. It would be the same as telling a retired person their opinion doesn't matter because they are not paying into the system to fund these wars.

It was not my intent to offend John or anyone else. That's why I deleted my comment.

Jul 29, 2010, 9:09pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm a veteran, though I never came close to combat. I supported evading Iraq. Many people did who never served in the military did as well.

The left constantly berated those who supported the war as "chicken hawks."

I considered then, and consider now, such formulations as illogical.

You can be either for or against the war without having served in the military. You can be for or against with war without having children who do or might serve. You can before or against with war without anything at stake at all.

Being for or against the war is a matter of reason, not a matter of the person.

It's the way the political minded belittle their opponents without taking the time to reason through a rational argument.

Jul 29, 2010, 9:26pm Permalink
Tim Howe

If i didnt know this was a sweet little hometown news site, i would swear i was listening in on a U.N meeting.

Charlie (the ONLY patriot) representing the USA trying to explain to all the cowardly lesser country's why we are defending ourselves and how very very vital it is that we do so. Meanwhile the other country's are sitting around clutching thier little white flags just waiting to wave them as soon as a bully flashes a mean look thier way. Pathetic.

Yes, the war is taking a long time, Yes it appears to have been mishandled, Yes its costing alot of money.

If we leave before the job is done right then we can expect "9/11's" on a regular basis. Plus the war will not end, only WHERE it is fought. I for one would much rather have us bring the fight to them on thier land instead of the other way around.

We need to show the world that you sucker punch us, we will make you pay dearly, (remember our response to pearl harbor? I am not saying we nuke the evil doers necessarly in this case, but we need to to something to make a statement) not go in do a half arsed job (because of bad leadership, not because of our brave soldiers did anything wrong, who i have the upmost respect and gratitude for) then just take the cowards way out when things don't go the way we thought they would.

Keep fighting the good fight Patriot Charlie :)

Jul 29, 2010, 10:50pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

So whats the exit plan, sorry ,this was a mistake, have a nice day? You might as well print invitations to al queda, Come on over, mass murder as many Americans as you want, cause we can't stomach war.

Jul 29, 2010, 11:23pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

For Kevin,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/whats-sadly-missing-in-ti_b…

Tim, "We need to show the world that you sucker punch us, we will make you pay dearly, "

Well, we've done a great job of that -- more than 9 years later, AQ still exists, Bin Laden's still alive and we're stuck in two quagmires that we have no hope of winning.

It's almost as if it was written in Bin Laden's playbook.

What the war zealots don't realize and fail to acknowledge is that our "war on terror" is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. There was no hope in defeating the U.S. by flying planes into buildings. In fact, it's well documented that Bin Laden NEVER expected the Twin Towers to fall or that many lives to be lost. He wanted to suck us into an intractable war that would sap our strength, waste our money and cause the kind of morale problems in our military that are now on the rise.

This is how empires fall.

There is nothing so frustrating for me than realizing that we are giving more aid and comfort to the enemy by continuing these wars than 100,000 Tokyo Roses could have dreamed of giving to the emperor of Japan.

Jul 29, 2010, 11:37pm Permalink
Bill Bogan

What has always struck me about american foreign policy is that we are so intent on spending billions, trillions of dollars (that we borrow from the chinese) to "save" other countries.

yet when you look inside our borders what do you see? high unemployment, states who's financial managment borders on criminal (nys for one) and when we have a disaster we cant even help our own people!

why are we spending the money on a war we cannot win, against an enemy that cant beat us just like we cant beat them. the question was posed what could we have done with islamic relations with that trillion dollars?? what could we have done for ourselves with that money?

I agree with Howard, we cant beat AQ in a war. they are not an army, they are not a country. this isnt one army pounding anohter back and forth until one gives, they are people who hide in the crowds until they shoot then hide again. when we kill them, unless we can prove they were shooting at that instant we prosecute our own men.

What we really need to do is bring our men and women home, look at ourselves and fix our country from the inside first.

/rant.

Jul 30, 2010, 12:54am Permalink
John Roach

Yesterday a report done for the Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, General Peter Chiarelli, was released.

The army is broken. It needs to stand down after 9 years of two wars. We just might need it to fight another one.

Army Stressed After Nearly a Decade of War
abcnews.go.com wars.

Jul 30, 2010, 7:37am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

I was taught at a young age, don't start a job you don't plan on finishing, maybe the problem was our entrance plan, if we don't have the resolve on the way in, we sure as hell won't find it once we're there. Our problem is we go in and try to fight a cosmetic war, war is not pretty, kick their ass, destroy the enemy, and get out of dodge. Let the rest of the scumbags know,state sponsered terrorism is an act of war, and respond accordingly.

Jul 30, 2010, 9:35am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The "kick their ass" strategy is great in a symmetrical war, such as we fought against Germany and Japan. It's totally irrelevant in an asymmetrical war.

Jul 30, 2010, 9:47am Permalink
John Roach

Frank,
Going was not the problem. There was a great plan for that in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem is there was no exit plan.

Jul 30, 2010, 10:02am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

You can't fight a war cosmeticly, these scumbags hide behind women and children, in mosques, if you go into war, collateral damage will happen, if you plan on winning the war, unleash your armies and let them do their job. We went in with the intention of creating a new, propped up govt. This is why we have been there 9 years. What we should have done is bomb them into the dark ages, and don't stop until they take ownership and stop promoting terrorism. When the rest of the countrys who sponser terrorism understand how we will deal with this threat, I believe they just might have second thoughts.

Jul 30, 2010, 10:51am Permalink
John Roach

Frank,
Would have, should have, could have, You miss the point, we didn't. End of story. And after 9 years, nobody is going to kick start the war up and go into Pakistan. Get that through your head.

Since we have decided not to rally win, what do you do? Stay and and still not really win, or leave, and hope that next time we have better leaders.

Jul 30, 2010, 11:32am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Thanks for calling me a coward, Charlie and unpatriotic, Tim; since neither of you know me or much of anything about me other than my point of view once in awhile. Go Screw Yourselves. I will never delete this.

Jul 30, 2010, 12:49pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Tim wrote: "Plus the war will not end, only WHERE it is fought."

The question is- How to end it without expanding it?

The Arab World is the third largest culturally unified population in the world. 339.5 million Arabs make up the Pan-Arab world from North Africa to the Arabian Sea. But Arab/Muslim populations are far more widespread: 191 million in Brazil, 65 million in France, 40 million in Argentina, 307.5 million in the U. S., 60 million in Italy, 111 million in Mexico, 1.7 million in Burma, 24 million in China, 213 million in Indonesia, 4.3 million in the Philippines, 8.4 million in Azerbaijan, 117 million in Bangladesh, 14.4 million in Malaysia; the list goes on.

Terrorist Training Camps have been discovered in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yemen, Somalia, Xinjiang (China), Tajikistan, Sudan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Punjab (India), the Netherlands, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Guerrilla warfare is a tactic based on protracted fighting. There are no borders, no rules of engagement or decisive battles. Oppose a guerrilla war; treat it like a forest fire: douse it, contain it, let it burn itself out, but don't fan it. That's rational- not unpatriotic.

Jul 30, 2010, 1:21pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Dave, I’m sorry you took my words as a personal attack. If I truly felt you were a coward, I would not tell you in a public blog. My comment was never intended to be personal.

The policy you are advocating and how our country would be perceived is where my comment was directed. The terrorists would most certainly look on our country as cowardly.

Jul 30, 2010, 1:41pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

I didn't actually see your comment Charlie. The reaction of others and you feeling the need to remove it, tells me enough. Anyway, I am moving on. I don't care what you or the terrorists think of my position.

Jul 30, 2010, 2:19pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
While 9/11 was an Arab terrorist attack, the most radical ones are not Arab. They are Turks, Egyptians, Afghans, Persians (Iran), Pakistanis and the like. We just associated Muslims with Arabs due to movies and books. That's not to say Arab countries are not a danger, but they are not the main one.

You fight them the dirty way. Small, unpublished raids and hits. Drones are great. Bush was right when he said this would be an ongoing fight and at times unknown.

Jul 30, 2010, 2:50pm Permalink
Tim Howe

Dave,

It was your position, opinion, idea or policy if you will that I was calling cowardly, (and I still do) but not YOU personally. I am very sorry if you misunderstood.

John,

To answer your question a few posts back. Obviously my "job done" is killing every last terrorist, and bringing the warm fuzzy feelings to the afgans that only democracy can bring. Unfortunetly we do not live in a fantasy land on gum drop lane with lollipop lamposts and we don't all live in gingerbread houses :) We could fight a 100 year war with them and never achieve that, so I guess i would have to "settle" with Bin Laden's head on a silver platter, some form of democracy maybe a democracy lite? :) A stable Gov't, or as close to that as you could achieve over there, and some way of keeping the terrorist orginizations in check. I just really think that leaving with so much unfinished business is a scary, scary thing. We have many eyes on us now, not just the "arabs" we are fighting directly now, but others who would like nothing more than to attack us, which is why I am so hellbent on the idea of SHOWING the world what we do to people who "mess" with us. Handling THIS war correctly now may save lives in the future.

So, to those of you who want to leave prematurely, I am going to make each and everyone of you (Dave,CM,Howard,John) President for a day. Let me give you a hypothetical...

Right now we are disrupting operations for AQ, Taliban, ect. We are making it very difficult for them to function. You might even say we in a manner of speaking "have them on the run" Not that they are "going" anywhere, i am just saying they are not very comfortable right now.

If our armies were to leave with tail tucked firmly between our legs, then what do you do in the few months that follow when they are free to regroup and things go back to "normal" over there and our threat level moves up another color (you gotta love the threat level color warning system) and we realize we are right back where we started 9 years ago, maybe even worse. What then? Seriously guys, what then? I read alot of explainations from you 4 guys saying how much better it would be for us to leave now, but not alot of talk about how we as a country might handle ourselves in the near future if we were to just pull out.

Please understand, I don't consider ANY of you guys unintelligent by any means. I STRONGLY disagree with you, but in no way do I question your brain power :) Now my bases will be covered and I won't offend Dave again :)

So what say you Presidents Olsen, Roach, Owens, and Barons? How do you see the FUTURE based on the war stopping tomorrow?

Jul 30, 2010, 4:30pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Ok, Tim; I said I would move on, but you called me back so go ahead and add Liar Liar, pants on fire to the list of insults. Thank you for making me President for a day. If I were in charge not only would all the troops leave Afghanistan and Iraq, but just about everywhere else too. A lot of government bureaucracies and waste would be gone as well, so we'd have some cash in the bank. I would issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal for Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and assign bounties specific to the named individual. Just like in the old west of this country, or the pirates of the 18th century. Then I would remind Pakistan that if they don't give up any of the named individuals, we can start reducing the aid money we send them. Next I would ask to speak to the United Nations and I would put forth a proposal that Pakistan and Afghanistan meet and draw their own boundary lines. The borders as shown on maps were drawn by the British when their Empire was collapsing and don't mean a heck of a lot to the people who live there (along the border) where Bin Laden and Mullah Omar et al (if they're even alive)supposedly live. I don't recognize the UN as a governing body, but it'll start some dialogue. There are some natural borders there between different peoples, who would stop fighting about it. The northern part of the country is more pro-western and hate the Taliban and the south is fundamental Muslims sympathetic to the Taliban.

I firmly believe that if we get out of other countries affairs there won't be any more attacks on this country. I also accept that some Americans including you Tim and Charlie, don't agree and probably never will. Nuff said

Lastly, stopping military operations in Afghanistan, stating that the Karzai government is inept and corrupt, stating that Pakistan's intelligence force is complicit in the insurgency and we're not going to be a part of it any more, is not placing our tail firmly between our legs and running. It's saying, "hey, we tried to help, you guys don't want us around anymore, so good-bye and good luck" Unfortunately with the administration and military brass we have, that's fantasy and will never happen.

Jul 30, 2010, 8:28pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

If there were a President Howard B. Owens III, there would be no troops overseas (saving the country $6 billion annually), and we would no longer interfer in the affairs of foreign countries.

So essentially, what Dave said, the pre-text for attack would evaporate.

And I like Dave's bounty idea.

Except there would probably be no foreign aid to reduce in the Owens administration.

If we were attacked, I wouldn't be opposed to strategic, tactical and precise bombing strikes against select terrorist targets.

And I wouldn't prevent the CIA from fighting an asymmetrical war.

Our response to attacks would be measured, precise and targeted. The shotgun approach of Bush/Obama would not be part of the strategy.

Jul 30, 2010, 8:32pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Howard,

How is that 6 billion saved? From extra pay received by deployed troops, or because there wouldn't be that many troops in the employ of the U.S. Government to deploy in the first place. because if the latter is the case then I think that would be a bad decision.

Jul 30, 2010, 11:18pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Noted, Jeremiah; I used the image figuratively to contrast with portable missile launcher.

Tim, I won't quibble with your interpretation of my comments. For the record I made no recommendation for premature withdrawal. I did say that I hope someone is drafting an end plan. An end plan to me does not preclude mission completed. It means we understand the mission adequately to recognize when it is complete. I'm not convinced the politicians have a clue what our mission is- especially after they explain it.

Jul 30, 2010, 11:20pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Jeremiah, the figure comes from Ron Paul.

If we had no troops stationed overseas, we could safely draw down the number of overall troops.

And of course, personnel costs aside, it's very expensive to operate all of those overseas bases.

Jul 30, 2010, 11:43pm Permalink
Tim Howe

President Olsen,

We differ in the stay/leave debate and probally always will, but boy I gotta tell you just about EVERYTHING else you laid out for your "administration" was amazing (especially that whole bounty thing)
One thing however, I personally do not hold the United nations in a very high regard, I believe they are very corrupt and I dont exactly consider them an ally, but I do understand why you would make the effort to include them.

President Owens III, (I never knew you were a "3rd" thats really cool and something you dont see much at all now days)

Again, the stay/leave thing is what it is :) I did however REALLY like your measured, precise and targeted plan. Like you said the "shotgun" approach is not as effective as the Bush/Obama admins would like it to be, I believe its a little more useful than you are giving it credit for, but "measured, precise and targeted" would probally pay off more, or maybe a combination of both?

Thank you both for responding, I hope we also hear from the Barons/Roach Administrations too :)

Jul 30, 2010, 11:58pm Permalink
Tim Howe

Posted by C. M. Barons:

I'm not convinced the politicians have a clue what our mission is- especially after they explain it.

LOL, that can be said for just about everything they try to do, not just military matters :)

Edit: Btw CM, I forgot to mention this earlier, but I really enjoyed that Russian Mcdonalds story :)

Jul 31, 2010, 12:17am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

John, When we bring the soldiers back home, look behind them, the terrorist will be close behind.Get that through your head.

Jul 31, 2010, 10:10am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

Howard,

It's just my personal opinion, but I feel to withdraw all troops from all forward deployed positions would be a mistake.
It's kind of like having a car insurance policy. You get your beater paid off and then you reduce your coverage from full coverage down to just liability insurance. What happens next ? You get into an accident that totals the vehicle and if you had full coverage insurance it would have not been that big of an issue.

But as for the Afghan issue yeah we should withdraw. Only because both the previous administration and the current administration and the public at large don't have what it takes to actually win the war in Afghanistan.

Jul 31, 2010, 10:56am Permalink
C. M. Barons

I would hesitate to agree with you, John. First, Egypt from the overthrow of King Farouk through the presidency of Gamal Nasser was officially the United Arab Republic (a coalition with Syria ended by a 1961 military junta, in 1971 UAR became Misr). Secondly, push the Israel button, and see how many "non-Arab" lights light up. The former Ottoman (Turkish) Empire effectively became the Arab world when the Arabs allied with the British in WW I and Turkey lost.

Jul 31, 2010, 2:46pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Tim, I haven't been ignoring your invitation to formulate a President Barons, I just have trouble getting around the idea. I lack interest in compromising everything I believe in, the requisite makeover for aspiring to national office. Also, I'd rather legislate. I prefer negotiating, shaping consensus and alliances. I also see more domestic impact in the hands of lawmakers than the executive branch- which may sound odd considering the scope of executive authority exercised by recent presidents.

I realize your true interest is foreign policy, so I offer this... I am extremely leery of the growing trend in weapons manufacturing. The collapse of the Soviet Union was directly attributable to the same shift. At $155 billion, U. S. weapons exports represent 41% of world trade in weapons, our closest competitor being Russia with 17% of world sales. Should we wonder if our own weapons are firing back at us? U. S. non-weapon manufacturing accounts for 12.5% of the GDP, down from 31% in 1970. Weapons production, domestic and foreign procurement, weighs in at 10% of the GDP and drives the DOD budget and likely the politics of war:

1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion (does not include NASA, DOE nuclear weapon development, veterans administration, interest on past military debts, additional spending on the war in Iraq or military provisioning of foreign governments)

2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France (2005), $45 billion
5. Japan (2007), $41.75 billion
6. Germany (2003), $35.1 billion
7. Italy (2003), $28.2 billion
8. South Korea (2003), $21.1 billion
9. India (2005 est.), $19 billion
10. Saudi Arabia (2005 est.), $18 billion

Sometimes thrifty, other times, cheap; always sticker shocked. In 1987 the original order of 132 B-2 Spirit Bombers, price/each, $2.4 billion, was reduced to 21. $140,500 HMMWVs were deployed in Iraq instead of the better-armored $700,000 M1117. Mine-proof $990,000 MRAPs not available until 2007 ($3.3 million virtual MRAP trainer not included).

The toughest swallow is profiting in the wake of dead and maimed.

(comment edited - addition of last sentence, restructuring of preceding paragraph.)

Aug 1, 2010, 5:45am Permalink
Tim Howe

Wow CM you got up at 5:45am to respond to me? Maybe you would be fit for the white house after all, and to take that imfamous "3am call". LOL

I would so sleep through it :)

Aug 1, 2010, 9:22am Permalink

Authentically Local