Obama staying the course set by Bush...discuss

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I wasn't blaming them for what happened so much as blaming them for the nutty remarks of the Obama appointee. 

Ah. In that case, blame away.

[taurusowner]

I'm predicting that this policy will make him Bush a one-termer, once the scope of the disaster that is Iraq and Afghanistan begins to feature more in the press.

That just seemed funny since it's the same thing people used to say about Bush and Iraq.  I seem to remember the term "quagmire" being mentioned a few million times...

[De Selby]

That just seemed funny since it's the same thing people used to say about Bush and Iraq.  I seem to remember the term "quagmire" being mentioned a few million times...

Yeah, except Iraq was slightly over 1 year old at the time of Bush's re-election.  Afghanistan has been going on for a little over 8 years now.  And there isn't Iran to help its puppets manage security and stability in Afghanistan like there is in Iraq.

Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents.  Not sure how that turned out to be a long-term win, although it's certainly better than what's happening in Afghanistan where there is no chance of the same. 

[roo_ster]

I don't believe I've heard that one.

It was a Carter appointee, Zbigniew "I'd like to buy a vowel" Brzezinski.

He insinuated that we ought to do so if Izzy strike planes cut through air space controlled by the USA.

He has always been on the lookout to toss Israel under the bus, just like Jimmah.  He sure loves him some Muslim thugs.

It probably isn't true, but it would be the smart policy for American interests.  An attack on Iran would instantaneously un-do every bit of gain that's been had in Iraq over the past two years. 

Not sure about that.  Iran & Iraq haven't been overly fond of each other for a good, long time.

Besides, maybe hte USA needs an education in the proper application of, "Bomb them to rubble and then leave" power projection.

Obama's policy is identical to Bush's policy on these matters.  I'm predicting that this policy will make him a one-termer, once the scope of the disaster that is Afghanistan begins to feature more in the press. 

Afghanistan was a disaster before we went there, it is a disaster now, and it will be a disaster after we leave.  "Disaster" is the normal state in Afghanistan, a country that has never built its own paved highway outside of Kabul. 

I am surprised few back home noticed.  I am surprised we are still there. 

I am rather in favor of killing militant Muslim barbarians, but we don't need a large ground component to do that in the disaster-state (as opposed to "nation-state) of Afghanistan. 

IMO, after we overthrew AQ & the Taliban, we should have blown the crap out of some more stuff, just to show we are serious, and then gotten outta there.  Playing third fourth nth-world social workers in a near stone-age "civilization" is not my idea of a proper policy objective.

Who knows if Afghanistan will be a big issue for BHO's election? Unless it turns sour, he'll coast along.  The economy, cap & tax, and the health care abortion are all more likely to be a mill stone about his neck.

[De Selby]

jfruser,

Yeah, it's true that Iran and Iraq were great enemies - when the religious minority headed by Saddam was in power, that is.  Now Iraq's government is run by people who used to live in Iran, were entirely trained and patronised by Iran, and who take every opportunity to praise the benevolence of Iran at the moment.  Check out a bio on Nuri al Maliki sometime - especially, take a look at what he was doing before Saddam fell.

I'm with you on Afghanistan.  It should have been focused on catching or killing Bin Laden, destroying his hosts, and then leaving.  What's happening now is that it gets more deadly every month, with absolutely no realistic hope of a strategic win in the future. 

Obama is in a bind on Afghanistan - if he leaves, the Taliban will certainly retake the country in a matter of months and celebrate victory.  If he stays, the Taliban keep killing people and gaining strength in every place where the allied forces are not present in force.  They may even become strong enough to over-run significant outposts, which, if it happens, is the end of Obama's hopes. 

My bet is that Obama is going to have to explain in the next couple of years why yet another big escalation in the war is necessary, and the case simply will not be convincing. It's a lose-lose situation.

[taurusowner]

The economy, cap & tax, and the health care abortion are all more likely to be a mill stone about his neck.

I don't agree.  Looters outnumber producers in the US these days.  The majority wants the kind of crap BHO is shoveling.  And it's a cycle.  The more leftist ideas he implements, the more dependent wards of the state he creates.  And that means ever more voting for his kid of policies.  The scale has tipped in the Looters favor, and I don't see it coming back without something BIG happening.  And I don't mean big as in "the recession is pretty big" or "the Obamacare plan is a big deal to people".  I mean "cars on fire in the streets" big. But that's just my opinion.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I just had a thought. Since it's past midnight, it's probably idiotic... but how many of the troublemakers in Afghanistan are based in Pakistan? From my very limited understanding of the issue, US ground troops aren't supposed to go into Pakistan - the Predator drones do, but troops don't. Bin Laden is supposed to be in northern Pakistan (or so Geraldo says). How much of the Afghanistan trouble is due to half-measures in Pakistan?

[MicroBalrog]

Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents. 

That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.

[De Selby]

That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.

I think it would be more weighty to accuse them of being independent, seeing that they are members of a religious party with long standing ties to Iran's clerics, and that they were mostly trained and supported over the past decades by....Iran.  The Islamic Dawa, which Al Maliki heads, is openly pro-revolutionary-Iran. 

I'm not sure why this is considered an "accusation", or even controversial.  Al Maliki himself takes every opportunity to praise Iran and point out that his government will not allow its interests to be harmed. 

[makattak]

I don't agree.  Looters outnumber producers in the US these days.  The majority wants the kind of crap BHO is shoveling.  And it's a cycle.  The more leftist ideas he implements, the more dependent wards of the state he creates.  And that means ever more voting for his kid of policies.

Seen a poll lately?

Edit: By that, I'm meaning things aren't as dire as you suggest. There may be a cycle. It is not sustainable and, at least according to polls, people realize that. The majority does NOT want this crap.

[longeyes]

What Obama has in common with Bush is that both prefer to set the living room on fire to oust the elephant. 

[taurusowner]

I think we like to tell ourselves it will never get to that point, and we'll pull ourselves out of the fire before it's too late because that kind of thought is comforting.  But even Rome fell.  And the true reason for its collapse, was from within, and much in the same way we are.

[makattak]

I think we like to tell ourselves it will never get to that point, and we'll pull ourselves out of the fire before it's too late because that kind of thought is comforting.  But even Rome fell.  And the true reason for its collapse, was from within, and much in the same way we are.

I have no doubt we can foster our own demise. I have doubt that we are to that point.

The current state is not only unsustainable, but the liberals are breeding themselves out of importance (that is, not breeding).

That is why they want to indoctrinate the youth: they don't breed so they want to steal other's children.

The passing of the baby boomers may be the beginning of the end for the current problems. We shall see if our country can survive that long. I certainly hope so. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm with you on Afghanistan.  It should have been focused on catching or killing Bin Laden, destroying his hosts, and then leaving.  What's happening now is that it gets more deadly every month, with absolutely no realistic hope of a strategic win in the future. 

Y'all were saying the same thing about Iraq, too, not that long ago. 

It is possible to win these things.  But wanting to win is a necessary prerequisite.

[Perd Hapley]

Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents.

That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.

I'm not sure why this is considered an "accusation", or even controversial. 

shootinstudent has been saying this for a long time now.  A lot.  I'm surprised that forum regulars would respond as if it were something new. 

As for why it's controversial, well, it's not a viewpoint one hears very much and it makes the whole Iraq War sound very pointless.  I'm surprised you, shootinstudent, would not just acknowledge that such a thing is controversial. 

[De Selby]

fistful, certainly the implications are controversial, but the facts themselves are not seriously in dispute.

Iraq's government is headed by the Islamic Dawa (a longtime Iranian sponsored, Khomeini supporting organisation) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (renamed, but its pre-media name is not accidentally similar to its neighbor's "revolutionary" organisations...).

Al Maliki himself worked for the Iranian government for the long period before his return to Iraq.  The militias loyal to the Iraqi government are Iranian-trained. 

When the one Shia organisation that is not close to Iran challenged Al Maliki's authority, it was a delegation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who met with its leader on behalf of Al Maliki to stop the fighting.  That's what ended the battle with Muqtada al Sadr - Al Maliki was rescued by his co-workers and the trainers of his militia in the the IRGC.   

My point was that it would take a number of controversial and tough to believe arguments to make the case that Iraq is not run by Iranian agents. 

[roo_ster]

SS:

For the sake of argument, let us assume what you wrote is true and think on the implications & related issues.

Iran, Proxies, Sectarian & Racial Strife

That would make the top Iraqis in that party roughly equivalent to Hamas & Hezbollah.  IOW, Iran's agents (like you wrote).

Thing is, I think that the relationship Iran has with its proxies in the Muslim world is not as sanguine or brotherly as you imply.

For the Iranian part, Iraqi *expletive deleted*it Arabs are just that: stinky Arabs clearly inferior to the flower of Islam, the Aryans.  Sunni Arab Iranian proxies (Hamas) are not even *expletive deleted*it, so they are twice-damned underlings.

For the Iraqi *expletive deleted*it Arab part, I see a whole new dynamic if/when they can consolidate & hold power of their own, apart from Iran's patronage.

For Maliki & related critters to be a success on America's terms does not require them to be angels, it merely requires them to be willing to grasp and wield power in a relatively independent fashion.  Backstabbing former patrons is not exactly unheard of in the ME.

Neither Hamas & Hez have not been able to achieve power without the support of Iran, so I fully expect them to toe the line while on the Iranian tit.  Maliki & Co will be left with a much better-trained military & security establishment than found in Iran.  They will not need to be subservient to Iranian patrons.

I guess I could sum up my take (sect & race-wise) as this:
1. Iran's proxies align with Iran because of Iran's support.
2. The natural religious (*expletive deleted*it vs Sunni) and racial (Aryan vs Arab) animosities are controlled only for so long as the proxy is dependent on Iran.
3. The natural state (religious & ethnic strife) will re-assert itself once proxies are no longer dependents.

Iran's Not-So-Free Hand

Then there is the current state of play in Iran. Iran can still support proxies with cash & material, but I think its ability to project conventional power regionally is at an all-time ebb.

Oh, there are sizable military units in Iran, but from what I have read, I don't think the mullahs are about to make them flush with arms & supplies and be used as a threat against old dependents who get uppity. 

There does seem to be a significant risk that instead of deploying on the Iran/Iraq border, they might deploy in Tehran.  It also seems like not even all the Revolutionary Guard units are solid and that the burden of dealing with protesters has fallen on a small subset of the RGs and the Basij irregulars.  Neither of which would be much use against an armored brigade used Ataturk-style against the mullahs.

Also, ever RG member in use vs internal threats is a RG member that can't be sent to Iraq to keep Iran's former vassals in line.

I think the mullah's mad race for nukes is partly a quest to replace ebbing conventional power projection with nuke power projection.  The mullahs need far fewer dependable bodies to maintain a nuke force than a conventional force.

[roo_ster]

Y'all were saying the same thing about Iraq, too, not that long ago. 

It is possible to win these things.  But wanting to win is a necessary prerequisite.

HTG:

There isn't near as much quality human capital to work with in Astan.  It is a country of cartographic convenience, stuffing variegated obnoxious ethnic groups who detest each other on to a spot on the map.

I wasn't kidding when I wrote that the native Afghans have not paved a mile of highway outside of Kabul.

It is the sort of country that makes Haiti look prosperous by comparison. Hell, Haiti is prosperous by comparison with GDP/capita of $1300 vs Astans $800.  (Iraq: $3200)

Literacy
Iraq 74%
Haiti 53%
Astan 28.1%

Haiti also (relative to Astan):
* Is more ethnically homogeneous
* Speaks the same language

Really, would you make the same argument about Haiti, that you are about Iraq?  That the only thing lacking in Haiti is American Will and a "Haiti Surge" so we can unify the country, give it rational government, and put it on the path to modernity?

If not, I wonder where you get the idea that if only we polished the Astan turd hard enough and used enough Brasso, we'd end up with a gleaming token of our success, rather than just a turd with Brasso slopped over it.

Another way to think about it:

Iraq is a rough & rowdy 18YO male.  There's some potential, but how do you know unitl you kick his ass and smack his head on straight?  Might turn out to be a solid citizen after that.  We see plenty of that type go enter the service as callow youth to emerge men.

Haiti is a "developmentally delayed" 12 year old.  He's not so bright and if he graduates high school, it will be something worth celebrating.  Never will amount to much and would need a waiver to get into the service because his ASVAB score is so low.

Astan is the 8YO who rides the short bus to school and wears hockey equipment...but does not play any sports.  He still has to wear diapers and the only one who can communicate with him at school is an uncommonly patient special ed teacher who triumphed and managed to teach him to hold a pencil this year.


Now, I think it worthwhile to kill our enemies in Astan and to make it painful to those who support our enemies. 

Thing is, there are plenty of other cesspools that deserve some of our attention: Yemen, Somalia to name just two.  They are just as broken and doing what Astan did back before 9-11.  Both could use some B-2 therapy and a short visit by our infantry to drain the swamp a bit.

[longeyes]

We are still in Afghanistan so we won't have to be where we might actually begin to turn things around, albeit at serious cost.  The War is coming from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran; this is where the major threats are localized.  Afghanistan is a way of seeming to use military force while really pursuing otiose police actions; it's also a good way of grinding down our military and further turning them from warriors into social workers.  Obama needs some theater of action to show he has cojones, even if it's completely inappropriate strategically.  We can fight around the fringes for decades or we can go to the real sources and use the trillion-dollar military we are so loath to employ, even for our own national survival.  Personally, I do not see this Commander-in-Chief ever sending a tough message to the Muslim world about the consequences of delinquent behavior.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

HTG:
<snip>

I see no reason to conclude we can't achieve a positive outcome in Afghanistan.  Obviously the final result in A-stan would look different compared to what's in Iraq or Haiti or anywhere else.  Fact remains, Afghanistan is no more a lost cause than any other military effort we've ever undertaken.  We've achieved far more impressive feats in our nation's history, and there's no reason we can't do it again here.  If we want to.

My point was that we can't achieve anything if we don't want to.  And right now we don't want to.  (And by 'we' I mean our current Commander in Chief.)

[De Selby]

I see no reason to conclude we can't achieve a positive outcome in Afghanistan.  Obviously the final result in A-stan would look different compared to what's in Iraq or Haiti or anywhere else.  Fact remains, Afghanistan is no more a lost cause than any other military effort we've ever undertaken.  We've achieved far more impressive feats in our nation's history, and there's no reason we can't do it again here.  If we want to.

My point was that we can't achieve anything if we don't want to.  And right now we don't want to.  (And by 'we' I mean our current Commander in Chief.)

What's the realistic "win scenario" even look like in Afghanistan?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You have to ask, why, exactly?

 

[De Selby]

You have to ask, why, exactly?

 

To illustrate that it doesn't exist, even in concept.

[Perd Hapley]

Again, something that was said about Iraq for years. 

[makattak]

Again, something that was said about Iraq for years. 

By the same poster, I believe.