[andyt]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-moves-toward-exit-afghanistan-000411578.html

I dunno, doesn't seem the right way to go about it. If you're not going to recall all the troops it would seem better to leave them all there. Go big or go home. It would put the remaining soldiers in a bad position as the Taliban ramp up the fight as troops leave. And it's not like the Taliban have been defeated, or that Obama will ramp up troop levels again as the Taliban increase their attacks.

[martin14]

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam fell in 1975.

Guess Barry's history classes missed that.

The Taliban won't fight hard now, they will just wait.

[andyt]

martin14 wrote:

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam fell in 1975.

Guess Barry's history classes missed that.

The Taliban won't fight hard now, they will just wait.

I don't think Barry missed that at all. He just doesn't want to stay stuck in Astan for the next hundred years trying to bring their society up to a level where the Taliban wouldn't take over anymore. And neither do the American people. Nor can they afford it. But while they're there, they should remain in sufficient numbers to minimize any threat from the Taliban. If you're going to fight, give it all you've got. The thing is that the American people have no more stomach for this fight, and who can blame them - it's hopeless.

[bootlegga]

Quote:

Senator John Kerry, the top Democratic voice in foreign affairs in the U.S. Congress, said resolving the problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan needed "more diplomacy, less military effort."

"Everybody has consistently said there is no military solution (in Afghanistan). ... I believe what the president is doing is creating the dynamic where the political has a greater possibility of taking shape," Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on the CBS "Early Show" program.

I think Kerry nailed it on the head. Everyone knows the reason why the Taliban haven't been eliminated as a threat - they have a safe haven in Pakistan. Until hardline elements there understand that the Taliban needs to be excised, no number of troops in Afghanistan will ever eliminate them as a threat.

It's one of reasons the US 'lost' the Vietnam War - as long as the insurgents in a guerilla conflict have a safe haven somewhere outside the battlezone, you'll never be able to fully eliminate them as a threat.

[bootlegga]

martin14 wrote:

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam fell in 1975.

Guess Barry's history classes missed that.

The Taliban won't fight hard now, they will just wait.

Vietnam falling really has no relevance here. It fell to an invasion by two Norht Vietnamese army corps (including hundreds of tanks and other armoured vehicles), not a bunch of insurgents.

The only way Vietnam can serve as a parallel is if Pakistan (or another neighbour) invades and destroys Afghan's armed forces. If that were to happen, even if all US/NATO forces had pulled out, I see no reason why air strikes wouldn't be used to stop such an invasion. Public opinion in the West may not be very supportive of the conflict in Afghanistan, but air/missile strikes are viewed very differently these days (as compared to the 70s and the fall of South Vietnam).

[DanSC]

Give it time. Someone will breathe on Barry the wrong way and he'll change his mind.

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

The only way Vietnam can serve as a parallel is if Pakistan (or another neighbour) invades and destroys Afghan's armed forces. If that were to happen, even if all US/NATO forces had pulled out, I see no reason why air strikes wouldn't be used to stop such an invasion. Public opinion in the West may not be very supportive of the conflict in Afghanistan, but air/missile strikes are viewed very differently these days (as compared to the 70s and the fall of South Vietnam).

Pakistan has no need or desire to invade Astan. All they will do is ramp up support for the Talban as the US almost certainly decreases it's bribe money aid Pakistan. The weakened Taliban may have more of a fight on their hands against the warlords that we built up this time, but will probably prevail. And whether Astan is ruled by warlords or Taliban or a patchwork of same really makes no difference, it will become a failed country.

Maybe the US could have a special team that goes in just to take out any people interested in exporting terrorism from Astan, such as Al Qaeda. Go in fast and get out. The Taliban themselves have certainly never shown any inclination to do so.

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

The only way Vietnam can serve as a parallel is if Pakistan (or another neighbour) invades and destroys Afghan's armed forces. If that were to happen, even if all US/NATO forces had pulled out, I see no reason why air strikes wouldn't be used to stop such an invasion. Public opinion in the West may not be very supportive of the conflict in Afghanistan, but air/missile strikes are viewed very differently these days (as compared to the 70s and the fall of South Vietnam).

Pakistan has no need or desire to invade Astan. All they will do is ramp up support for the Talban as the US almost certainly decreases it's bribe money aid Pakistan. The weakened Taliban may have more of a fight on their hands against the warlords that we built up this time, but will probably prevail. And whether Astan is ruled by warlords or Taliban or a patchwork of same really makes no difference, it will become a failed country.

Maybe the US could have a special team that goes in just to take out any people interested in exporting terrorism from Astan, such as Al Qaeda. Go in fast and get out. The Taliban themselves have certainly never shown any inclination to do so.

My point was that South Vietnam fell to invasion from another nation, not an insurgency. As such, unless a neighbour invades Afghanistan and takes over, the fall of south Vietnam is not relevant to this discussion at all.

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

The only way Vietnam can serve as a parallel is if Pakistan (or another neighbour) invades and destroys Afghan's armed forces. If that were to happen, even if all US/NATO forces had pulled out, I see no reason why air strikes wouldn't be used to stop such an invasion. Public opinion in the West may not be very supportive of the conflict in Afghanistan, but air/missile strikes are viewed very differently these days (as compared to the 70s and the fall of South Vietnam).

Pakistan has no need or desire to invade Astan. All they will do is ramp up support for the Talban as the US almost certainly decreases it's bribe money aid Pakistan. The weakened Taliban may have more of a fight on their hands against the warlords that we built up this time, but will probably prevail. And whether Astan is ruled by warlords or Taliban or a patchwork of same really makes no difference, it will become a failed country.

Maybe the US could have a special team that goes in just to take out any people interested in exporting terrorism from Astan, such as Al Qaeda. Go in fast and get out. The Taliban themselves have certainly never shown any inclination to do so.

My point was that South Vietnam fell to invasion from another nation, not an insurgency. As such, unless a neighbour invades Afghanistan and takes over, the fall of south Vietnam is not relevant to this discussion at all.

Oh, it is. It's another quagmire. The insurgents could hide and get support from a neighboring country which the US won't or can't attack full on. The regime the US is supporting is corrupt and does not have the support of the people. The people who don't want the insurgents to win don't seem to have the heart to fight for themselves.

I bet the Viet Cong could have taken South Vietnam all by themselves once the US left. The south just had no appetite for a fight.

[martin14]

bootlegga wrote:

My point was that South Vietnam fell to invasion from another nation, not an insurgency. As such, unless a neighbour invades Afghanistan and takes over, the fall of south Vietnam is not relevant to this discussion at all.

Your point missed my point, being that after the US left, things went
down the tubes. Coming from inside / outside is irrelevant.

[EyeBrock]

Too right, time to fuck right-off from that shit-hole.

If it becomes another safe haven for terrorists attacking us, air strikes, drones. Let's bring the boys back home.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 wrote:

The Taliban won't fight hard now, they will just wait.

No, the Taliban are stupid illiterate hash addicts. They'll trumpet this as their having defeated America and the hajis will go nuts trying to kill Americans before there aren't any left to kill.

I'd really prefer that Obama issue secret orders for a mass withdrawal and then get it done quickly and quietly before the hajis know we've left.

[Thanos]

Can't stay there forever so this is the right thing to do.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

Can't stay there forever so this is the right thing to do.

That country has been a meat grinder for 3,000 years and the people there are a collective pain in the *** to everyone in the region.

The "right thing to do" then is to expel them all from their lands the same way the Romans did with the pesky Jews in Israel after the 70AD revolt.

[andyt]

Thanos wrote:

Can't stay there forever so this is the right thing to do.

Except they should then leave en masse. This way they could take more casualties as their strength is reduced.