Originally posted by: AndrewR
Then you need to read some history. Specifically, you should concentrate on the experiences of the British Empire and the Soviet Union during their invasions/occupations of Afghanistan. Then, compare those experiences to the US/NATO action currently. Post when finished.
Again, it's an interesting
opinion. Assume for a moment you are right. So what? It ignores the question of results. Is it better to have fewer casualties and NOT accomplish our mission, or more casualties but get the job done? I suggest that in the former case, the deaths are empty. If we're gaining our objectives, at least the lives lost serve a purpose. We apparently did not put enough people in Afghanistan to cripple al Qaeda and capture bin Laden. It seems American lives are being lost in vain.
However, I do NOT accept your premise. I note that a RAND Corporation study (discussed in another thread here) showed that the higher the number of troops on the ground, the lower the
rate of casualties. While you are welcome to your opinion, I find RAND's more credible.
Finally, you ignore the issue of legitimacy. Losing lives in Afghanistan serves the higher purpose of protecting America. Losing lives in Iraq does not. Hundred of Americans have died to further the imperialist agenda of Bush's minions and to line the pockets of Bush's supporters. Those are empty deaths, indeed.
That's a strong list of countries, regardless of how you wish to spin it.
No, it's not. They represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.
Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.
More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.
I stand by what I said before, "No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor.
Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues."
Invading Iraq without an exit strategy. Failing to secure significant international support. Not putting enough troops on the ground to do the job right (a criticism echoed by a number of "untrained pundits" carrying the title "General", many of whom are or were on the ground there). Our invasion was a smashing success, agreed. Our occupation has been a fisasco.
You act like everything can be planned infinite detail before it happens. The first rule of military planning is that even the best military plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy. Rebuilding a country is even more tricky. I've seen some criticism from generals but not much, and one of those generals is now running for the office held by the person he was critisizing -- pardon me if I don't trust his objectivity.
Sorry, that's sheer apologist nonsense. No one is talking about planning in "infinite detail", simply about establishing a plausible plan to control Iraq once we got there, and to get back out as quickly as possible. We didn't have one. Bush charged in with guns blazing and didn't give a moments thought to what happened next.
And even though you want to diss Clark, he is only one of the many generals who have criticized Rumsfeld's meddling in military decisions. He is only one of many who have said emphatically that we needed more troops on the ground.
If you support the Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC ideology of a new world order dominated by U.S. military might, then I will term you a neo-fascist. If not, then I won't.
I'm part of that military might, and I support my chain of command.
I have no problem with you supporting your chain of command (within the usual caveats of illegal orders, etc.) A soldier is expected to do so. You are the tool, not a policy maker. If you also support the Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC ideology, however, I will term you a neo-facist because I believe that most accurately describes their ideology.
Choice C: because it borders on lunacy.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm sure a vacuous insult is easier than acknowedging you haven't the slightest idea what facism means and how it does and does not apply to the current administration. When you can't refute, attack. Maybe nobody will notice the difference.
In any case, if you're currently serving in the armed services, please accept my gratitude and my best wishes. Contrary to the slander of many Bush supporters, I can separate the man GWBush from the United States and those who serve it. I do not support Bush and his actions in Iraq. I wholeheartedly support our troops. Best wishes to all for a safe tour and a speedy return to their homes and loved ones.
:beer: