60% of Americans Against Afghan Mission.

• Footwedge

  Maybe because of all the retired generals coming out of the closet lately. But not to worry. Plenty of good wars to fight on the horizon.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-few-in-us-sense-afghan-support-for-war/2012/03/11/gIQAfj4S5R_blog.html
• HitsRus

  

  I would say fatigue and frustration has set in. Please don't label me a warmonger for saying so, but I think there were very good reasons to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Where public support was lost in both was in the post war management and administration...and the reason for that is loud and clear in your link. The link is in the 'politics' section. Wars need to be fought decisively...and what needs to be done needs to be done, irrespective of polls. Chances are, if they were, we would have been out long ago...and we would have been viewed as liberators rather than occupiers. I don't have time to elaborate and won't be able to respond till late tonite. I'll be curious to see where this thread goes.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  That's because the propaganda machine is trying to drum up support to go into Iran and Syria, so the sheep forgot about the hype for the other wars and now wonder why we are still dying and spending hundreds of billions over there.
• jhay78

  

  As long as this is our mission in Afghanistan, we need to get out:
  

  ‘We will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others.”
  
  That’s the concluding rally cry of the U.S. Department of Defense’s newly issued guidance on the &#8220roper Handling and Disposal of Islamic Religious Materials — Service Members/Civilian Training.” Here’s how it works: Mainstream Muslims throughout the Middle East believe, based on the Koran and other “Islamic Religious Materials,” that if an infidel force invades a Muslim territory, its members must be killed until the force has been driven out. They further believe that if non-Muslims commit some act — even an inadvertent one — that Muslims perceive as insulting to Islam, a campaign of murder and mayhem is justified.
  
  Our response? We will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others.
  
  So as Afghans kill Americans, as our “allied” Afghan trainees turn their guns on their American mentors, Americans policymakers debase themselves by ordering “training to increase awareness of cultural and religious sensitivities regarding Islamic Religious Materials.” As Afghans kill Americans, as the Afghan president demands that Americans be tried and punished for accidentally burning Korans that jihadists had already defiled, our president apologizes for our purported insensitivity. As Afghans kill Americans and explain that the Koran commands them to do so, U.S. policy is to give each captured jihadist a Koran. As Afghans kill Americans and derive support from the Koran’s injunction that Muslims “make ready [against non-Muslims] your strength . . . to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies” (Sura 8:60), U.S. military commanders instruct our troops that the Koran, which non-Muslims are unfit to touch, “is regarded as the verbatim Word of God; the primary source of Islamic guidance.” And, of course, we will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others

  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293103/let-syria-be-andrew-c-mccarthy
  
  We thought maybe if the Afghan people were free to choose their own government and not be oppressed by the Taliban that that country would no longer be a safe haven for people who want to destroy us. Looks like we were wrong.
  
  And then there's the Afghan constitution, which we helped them create:
  

  [LEFT]Article One
  Ch. 1. Art. 1 Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
  Article Two
  Ch. 1, Art. 2 The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.
  Article Three
  Ch. 1, Art. 3 In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam[/LEFT]

  http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution.html#preamble
• dwccrew

  

  As many people concluded 10 years ago, Afghanistan and Iraq would be a cluster fuck. You remove one oppressive regime and another will takeover. It's only a matter of time until the Taliban take back over (once we leave Afghanistan). You'd have to fight there permanently to avoid the Taliban taking over. The people of that country either don't want a western type of democracy or are too stupid to try and follow through with implementing it. Same with Iraq, they have a lot of Iranian influence within their government now.
  
  When will the United States realize that the people of the middle east will never live peacefully with each other? Avoid that region of the world and let them focus on killing each other.
• isadore

  Muslims
• Footwedge

  HitsRus;1113554 wrote:I would say fatigue and frustration has set in. Please don't label me a warmonger for saying so, but I think there were very good reasons to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Where public support was lost in both was in the post war management and administration...and the reason for that is loud and clear in your link. The link is in the 'politics' section. Wars need to be fought decisively...and what needs to be done needs to be done, irrespective of polls. Chances are, if they were, we would have been out long ago...and we would have been viewed as liberators rather than occupiers. I don't have time to elaborate and won't be able to respond till late tonite. I'll be curious to see where this thread goes.

  The "get in...get out" argument appears on the surface to be a good one. Ron Paul and the followers use it all the time. An example of that type of success was Desert Storm. However, when fighting terrorists groups it is not practical...nor real.
  
  Look at Libya for example. We have opened up Pandora's box. There is a pretty simple rule to follow. Don't start wars...period.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Footwedge;1113979 wrote:The "get in...get out" argument appears on the surface to be a good one. Ron Paul and the followers use it all the time. An example of that type of success was Desert Storm. However, when fighting terrorists groups it is not practical...nor real.
  
  Look at Libya for example. We have opened up Pandora's box. There is a pretty simple rule to follow. Don't start wars...period.

  Well the difference is Paul wanted to get in, get the guys who attacked us, and get out. That is justified to me. There was no justification to go into Iraq or Libya or Iran or Syria to begin with, no matter how fast they claim they will get out.
• Footwedge

  dwccrew;1113817 wrote:As many people concluded 10 years ago, Afghanistan and Iraq would be a cluster ****. You remove one oppressive regime and another will takeover. It's only a matter of time until the Taliban take back over (once we leave Afghanistan). You'd have to fight there permanently to avoid the Taliban taking over. The people of that country either don't want a western type of democracy or are too stupid to try and follow through with implementing it. Same with Iraq, they have a lot of Iranian influence within their government now.
  
  When will the United States realize that the people of the middle east will never live peacefully with each other? Avoid that region of the world and let them focus on killing each other.

  The simple answer to your question is due to the new found policy of the neoconservatives that believe that empire is the way to go. They literally want to take over the planet. The ideology is the exact same one perceived by the West after WWII...that the commies would knock over country after country until the whole world was communist.
  
  If one were to google "list of neocons", one would find hundreds on that list.....and less than 1% ever actually served in battle.
  
  Now, we have boots on the ground in Yeman. McCain is wanting to bomb Syria. Tell me John...who you gonna bomb? The bad guys?....or the bad guys? Somalia, Pakistan...and of course Iran....who doesn't even own a WMD.
  
  The only candidate that reflects the views of the majority of Americans...as it relates to foreign policy...is Ron Paul. And yet, he has absolutely no chance of winning....because the MIC controlled media/government/corporations don't want that....it's not in their best interests.
  
  President Obama is a buffoon...a fraud...an enabler to the neocon movement.
• Footwedge

  Cleveland Buck;1113986 wrote:Well the difference is Paul wanted to get in, get the guys who attacked us, and get out. That is justified to me. There was no justification to go into Iraq or Libya or Iran or Syria to begin with, no matter how fast they claim they will get out.

  That was justified. The ocupation made no sense. America's longest war continues to run...like the Energizer Bunny. Yesterday, we had another act of terrorism committed by our own troops. That's what happens when you've been trained to kill...and are seeing no results for your efforts.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  We do have to exit, but we have to do it right.
  We just can't pick up and leave. We at the very least, must leave Afghanistan somewhat stable.
  Pakistan also must remain secure and stable. Otherwise, if both states fail, the past 10 + years means nothing.
  
  The war went beyond getting OBL and getting out, It was the distruction of al-Qaeda core, and to ensure it to not formalize in Afg/Pak.
  Then the mission became to ensure that Afgh grew to a stable state so al Qaeda could not return.
  The problems mounted little by little, but essentially it was the Pakistanis not wanting to help. So, we never really solved the problem of securing both countries. Now, we just do this dance with them back and forth.
  
  The U.S. should start to leave, and move towards a CT operation structure. We are doing that, but perhaps it can increase.
  My only fear is a vaccum left here Afghanistan falls into more darkness.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1114235 wrote:We do have to exit, but we have to do it right.
  We jsut can't pick up and leave. We at the very least, much leave Afghanistan somewhat stable.
  Pakistan also must remain secure and stable. Otherwise, if both states fail, the past 10 + years means nothing.
  
  The war went beyond getting OBL and getting out, It was the distruction of al-Qaeda core, and to ensure it to not formalize in Afg/Pak.
  Then the mission became to ensure that Afgh grew to a stable state so al Qaeda could not return.
  The problems mounted little by little, but essentially it was the Pakistanis not wanting to help. So, we never really solved the problem of securing both countries. Now, we just do this dance with them back and forth.
  
  The U.S. should start to leave, and move towards a CT operation structure. We are doing that, but perhaps it cna increase.
  My only fear is a vaccum left here Afghanistan falls into more darkness.

  A voice of reason in the Neocon Paranoia Zone.
• dwccrew

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1114235 wrote:We do have to exit, but we have to do it right.
  We just can't pick up and leave. We at the very least, must leave Afghanistan somewhat stable.
  Pakistan also must remain secure and stable. Otherwise, if both states fail, the past 10 + years means nothing.
  
  The war went beyond getting OBL and getting out, It was the distruction of al-Qaeda core, and to ensure it to not formalize in Afg/Pak.
  Then the mission became to ensure that Afgh grew to a stable state so al Qaeda could not return.
  The problems mounted little by little, but essentially it was the Pakistanis not wanting to help. So, we never really solved the problem of securing both countries. Now, we just do this dance with them back and forth.
  
  The U.S. should start to leave, and move towards a CT operation structure. We are doing that, but perhaps it can increase.
  My only fear is a vaccum left here Afghanistan falls into more darkness.

  This is what I'm talking about, no matter when we leave it is going to mean nothing. The people over there don't want US influence in any way, shape or form. The people of Afghanistan and their president do not like us and do not want us there, they have said this. They stated they would support Pakistan if the US were to invade Pakistan. GTFOOT now!!!! I don't want any more US soldiers to be killed or subjected to any more kind of mental and emotional stress for people that don't appreciate it and will most likely continue to hate us regardless of if we "liberate" them or not.
• HitsRus

  

  A voice of reason in the Neocon Paranoia Zone.

  Props and reps.
  
  ptown may have more insight because of the nature of his job than anyone else on here. Almost all of us 'know' these 'wars' thru what we have been fed thru the media which itself does not have all the information, and more often than not, focuses on what makes a good story and 'sells newspapers'.
  
  I don't think any reasonable individual could/would not support going into Afghanistan initially. Moreover, the Bush administration correctly ascertained that failed, lawless nation states were breeding grounds for terrorism and a direct threat to our national security in light of 9/11.
• dwccrew

  

  HitsRus;1114461 wrote:Props and reps.
  
  ptown may have more insight because of the nature of his job than anyone else on here. Almost all of us 'know' these 'wars' thru what we have been fed thru the media which itself does not have all the information, and more often than not, focuses on what makes a good story and 'sells newspapers'.
  
  I don't think any reasonable individual could/would not support going into Afghanistan initially. Moreover, the Bush administration correctly ascertained that failed, lawless nation states were breeding grounds for terrorism and a direct threat to our national security in light of 9/11.

  I can't disagree with this, however, the mismanagement after we initially went in has really presented a major problem. The focus should have always been Afghanistan. When Iraq came into the picture, Afghanistan was neglected and now it is a big mess over there and once the US leaves, it will revert back to its original lawlessness.
  
  These governments will not cooperate with the US. Fuck 'em, let them fend for themselves.
• fish82

  

  dwccrew;1114779 wrote:I can't disagree with this, however, the mismanagement after we initially went in has really presented a major problem. The focus should have always been Afghanistan. When Iraq came into the picture, Afghanistan was neglected and now it is a big mess over there and once the US leaves, it will revert back to its original lawlessness.
  
  These governments will not cooperate with the US. **** 'em, let them fend for themselves.

  Had we not gone into Iraq, it would have made zero difference in Afghanistan. We'd still be sitting exactly where we are today.
• jhay78

  

  I blame some of the Afghan problem on the strategy of trying to nation-build before the enemy has been thoroughly defeated. Last time I checked, neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda nor anyone else has surrendered, yet we spend our blood and a small fortune trying to rebuild a nation that hates us.
  
  I get the problems mentioned by P-town above, there's no easy way to go after terrorists who are united under a banner of ideology rather than the usual nation-state that's united under a flag (like Germany, Japan, etc.). But there is a way to send a message to regimes that aid terrorists without becoming enmeshed in a hopeless rebuilding project.
• HitsRus

  

  I blame some of the Afghan problem on the strategy of trying to nation-build before the enemy has been thoroughly defeated.

  That was a LARGE part of the problem....not enough troops on the ground to crush the resistance and secure infrastructure and institutions. This is more true in Iraq, which was a well developed country, less true in Afghanistan...but no doubt the war in Iraq took troops away from Afgh. Still, both could have been done, but misjudgements and politics overruled.
• dwccrew

  

  fish82;1114864 wrote:Had we not gone into Iraq, it would have made zero difference in Afghanistan. We'd still be sitting exactly where we are today.

  I disagree. Fighting on two fronts usually leaves one of the fronts neglected, which in this case was Afghanistan. Had we focused all of our efforts, time, money, resources and personnel to the real threat that was in Afghanistan, this war would have ended 6 years ago. It has been mis-managed from the beginning.
  
  I am genuinely interested in your opinion on why you believe there was no effect on the Afghanistan effort by going into Iraq though. Being prior service, it makes no sense to me how dividing your forces has no effect.
• fish82

  

  dwccrew;1115723 wrote:I disagree. Fighting on two fronts usually leaves one of the fronts neglected, which in this case was Afghanistan. Had we focused all of our efforts, time, money, resources and personnel to the real threat that was in Afghanistan, this war would have ended 6 years ago. It has been mis-managed from the beginning.
  
  I am genuinely interested in your opinion on why you believe there was no effect on the Afghanistan effort by going into Iraq though. Being prior service, it makes no sense to me how dividing your forces has no effect.

  Afghanistan is an un-winnable theater for ground forces...period. Any Military Tactics 101 class teaches this. The Soviets found this out the hard way in the early 80s, (using the full brunt of their military) and we're finding it out today. Combine the tactics used by the opponent, the terrain/theater, and our propensity to fight a "diplomatic" war vis-a vie a "military" one, and it doesn't matter the level of resources we dump into it. The result will be the same.
• HitsRus

  

  The object in Afgh. is/was to simply create a nation state that was capable of reasonably controlling its own territory such that it wasn't a haven for terrorism and anarchy. The 'war' was won when the Northern Alliance, with our help, threw the Taliban out. What has been the failure is that in 11 years, we/they(the Afghans) have not been able to create a government capable of policing it's terrotory without our massive assistance. Now, we've lingered so long that we have become occupiers.
• jhay78

  

  fish82;1115760 wrote:Afghanistan is an un-winnable theater for ground forces...period. Any Military Tactics 101 class teaches this. The Soviets found this out the hard way in the early 80s, (using the full brunt of their military) and we're finding it out today. Combine the tactics used by the opponent, the terrain/theater, and our propensity to fight a "diplomatic" war vis-a vie a "military" one, and it doesn't matter the level of resources we dump into it. The result will be the same.

  The Stinger missiles (given by the US to the mujahadeen) blasting the Soviets out of the sky helped a little too.
• dwccrew

  

  fish82;1115760 wrote:Afghanistan is an un-winnable theater for ground forces...period. Any Military Tactics 101 class teaches this. The Soviets found this out the hard way in the early 80s, (using the full brunt of their military) and we're finding it out today. Combine the tactics used by the opponent, the terrain/theater, and our propensity to fight a "diplomatic" war vis-a vie a "military" one, and it doesn't matter the level of resources we dump into it. The result will be the same.

  My point exactly. Had we focused on Afghanistan from the beginning and used all of our resources and troops, we could have crushed them into submission. The US military is the most advanced fighting force in the history of the world, with no one supporting the Taliban i.e. advanced weaponry supplies, we would have totally crushed them through airpower. Instead, they focused on Iraq.
  
  Afghanistan could have been winnable had they fought the war and focused on it instead of fighting a political war in Iraq.
• fish82

  

  dwccrew;1116088 wrote:My point exactly. Had we focused on Afghanistan from the beginning and used all of our resources and troops, we could have crushed them into submission. The US military is the most advanced fighting force in the history of the world, with no one supporting the Taliban i.e. advanced weaponry supplies, we would have totally crushed them through airpower. Instead, they focused on Iraq.
  
  Afghanistan could have been winnable had they fought the war and focused on it instead of fighting a political war in Iraq.

  The theater of operations trumps all. Airpower would be next to useless in the mountains.
  
  And you misunderstand my point vis-a-vie "diplomatic war." By that I mean our current strategery of pussyfooting around the civilians, trying to curry favor of other nations regarding tactics, etc. We'd still be doing same stuff had Iraq never happened, and still be at a stalemate in Afghanistan.
• dwccrew

  

  I respectfully disagree. We could still hit mountain targets with PGM (precision guided munitions). I do agree with you that it wouldn't be easy, but Afghanistan was winnable had they had the right focus. I also agree with you that they pussy foot around too much, but I think Iraq deterred from the real problem which was Afghanistan and now increasingly Pakistan.