Another Surge In A-Stan

PsyOps

Pixelated
Trump is calling for another surge in Afghanistan. The Obama surge didn't work, so let's give the Trump surge a try.

This is a shift in Trump's original stance on Afghanistan - which was to pull out. I don't know what powers influenced his 180, but here we are... more war and more Americans put in harm's way. Tucker interviewed Erik Prince last night and he pretty much stated that no matter how many troops we send in, it's not going to matter. I'm inclined to believe him.

Do you feel this is a good move on Trump's part? Do you believe Trump's strategy will result in anything different? Or is this more of the same... more troops, more body bags, and more failure?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
past time to pull out, let them solve their own problems ... maybe sell them guns and bullets
 

Wishbone

New Member
Error.

The only solution to Afghanistan is a large mushroom cloud.

We never should have tried to rebuild a stone age nation.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
For what it's worth I would destroy the Poppy fields and get out.
Destroy everything America paid for there. The military equipment the buildings, airfields.

Then leave. Leave nothing behind that we paid for in a usable condition.;
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
This is a realization that many missed. We applied US mentality to their country. Huge mistake. They are NOT just like us.

Look at Yugoslavia .... Tito died, the lid came off

Bosnian Muslims
Croatian Christians
Serbian ?


right back to killing each other .... like it was 1910 again [or earlier]
same old Tribal / National / Religious / Ethnic violence


From what I understand of History the conflict goes way back to the Bosnian Crusade and the back and forth following ... Mongols, The Ottoman Empire ... etc
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
This is a realization that many missed. We applied US mentality to their country. Huge mistake. They are NOT just like us.

What does winning even look like anyway? We're used to seeing our enemy come to the table to sign their declaration of surrender. This isn't one of those kinds of wars. There is no central enemy. They don't wear uniforms, so they look like any other person in the region. And they are deeply ingrained in their religion, which motivates everything they do. Their faith will never allow them to surrender. They are called to die for their god.

So, again... what does winning look like?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Did I miss where he indicated he'd at least ask Congressional approval for AUMF?

Lindsey Graham said, in an interview something about an upcoming vote on that. Further stated that any "no" vote would owned by the voter if any future terrorist attacks originated from there.

Not sure I agree with any of that. I was hoping we'd just get out and leave them to their own devices.
 

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
Ad Free Experience
Patron
Offer any non-mooselimbs safe refuge in the US, evacuate them, pull out, and bomb the living #### out of any usable military equipment that can be found.

Offer BLTs and ham sammiches to all refugees as their pre-flight meal. If they refuse, turn them away.

The mooselimb "religion" calls for death to infidels. I don't care if they denounce that part of their faith. They cannot be trusted and shouldn't be allowed safe haven.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
past time to pull out, let them solve their own problems ... maybe sell them guns and bullets

BZZZT. Their terrorist networks are our problem, too. They are a global problem.

My reaction to Trump's agenda, as laid out last night, was FINALLY! Good grief, why was that so freaking hard? And putting Pakistan on notice was a nice touch. We need to get a handle on Islamic terrorism, regardless of what the terrorist mayor of London says. If the Brits and the French like being blown up and killed, more power to 'em, but we don't like it and we don't like their bull#### being made our problem.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. Bush made a great number of mistakes because he was trying to play politics and not have the Left hate him (how'd that work out for you, Dubya?), and the biggest thing I appreciate and admire about Trump is that he doesn't care about that. He's there to do a job, period. Obama was a disaster with regard to Islamic terrorism because he agrees with them - those are his people and I think he showed that repeatedly.

I am thrilled to finally have a president who will take these people on. I thought Bush was that president, then it turned out he wasn't. He was a "hearts and minds" dumbass. Hopefully Trump will be that president.
 

Wishbone

New Member
He was a "hearts and minds" dumbass. Hopefully Trump will be that president.

And everyone can see how well that #### worked out in southeast asia decades ago.

Most of the political ####tards we have had in office over the last 20 years have no sense of history or understanding of enemies.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
And everyone can see how well that #### worked out in southeast asia decades ago.

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to wage wars. They suck at it.

It was either Lindsey Graham or Newt who said last night something about "General Obama" and how presidents are not qualified to plan military strategy and get all up in it. Trump has indicated that he intends to let the military leaders do their job and not micromanage them for political purposes, which was a lot of the reason Vietnam was such a disaster. And why what should have been a simple deal in Afghanistan has been going on for 16 freaking years.

Scream all you want about Trump, you gotta give it to him. He takes a licking and keeps on ticking. All this hate and vitriol being lobbed his way constantly, and he's like, "#### that," nose to the grindstone doing his job. He is not interested in these mythical hearts and minds - not even the ones belonging to his political opponents. He just keeps getting better and better in my estimation, and his hysterical sobbing lame ass haters need to all go find a cliff and jump.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Lindsey Graham said, in an interview something about an upcoming vote on that. Further stated that any "no" vote would owned by the voter if any future terrorist attacks originated from there.

Not sure I agree with any of that. I was hoping we'd just get out and leave them to their own devices.

Trump didn't offer to go to Congress to seek authorization, but the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment last month to end the current AUMF within 240 days and force a new authorization. Then the Rules Committee came along and Lindsey Graham said, in an interview something about an upcoming vote on that. Further stated that any "no" vote would owned by the voter if any future terrorist attacks originated from there.

Not sure I agree with any of that. I was hoping we'd just get out and leave them to their own devices.[/QUOTE]

Trump didn't offer to go to Congress to seek authorization, so I'm not sure what vote Graham is talking about.

Yea, that's a silly assertion. Especially when you consider the AUMF (which came about in 2001) has been used for 16 years on everything from

BZZZT. Their terrorist networks are our problem, too. They are a global problem.

My reaction to Trump's agenda, as laid out last night, was FINALLY! Good grief, why was that so freaking hard? And putting Pakistan on notice was a nice touch. We need to get a handle on Islamic terrorism, regardless of what the terrorist mayor of London says. If the Brits and the French like being blown up and killed, more power to 'em, but we don't like it and we don't like their bull#### being made our problem.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. Bush made a great number of mistakes because he was trying to play politics and not have the Left hate him (how'd that work out for you, Dubya?), and the biggest thing I appreciate and admire about Trump is that he doesn't care about that. He's there to do a job, period. Obama was a disaster with regard to Islamic terrorism because he agrees with them - those are his people and I think he showed that repeatedly.

I am thrilled to finally have a president who will take these people on. I thought Bush was that president, then it turned out he wasn't. He was a "hearts and minds" dumbass. Hopefully Trump will be that president.

Then why is Trump claiming we can force the Afghan govt. and the Taliban to live together in harmony? Seems a bit silly to say terrorism is bad for all of us, that "we are killing terrorists", then say the group responsible for the largest attack on US soil is going to be forced into living alongside the Afghan govt. because"]removed that amendment, so there's no vote that I'm aware of.

Yea, that's a silly assertion. The 2001 AUMF has been used for 16 years on conflicts in A-Stan, Iraq, Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. Hardly used solely to prevent future attacks in hot beds of terrorist activity.

So, after 9/11, we all freaked out and gave the govt. large amounts of power. We gave the President the authority to unilaterally use military force where they please.

BZZZT. Their terrorist networks are our problem, too. They are a global problem.

My reaction to Trump's agenda, as laid out last night, was FINALLY! Good grief, why was that so freaking hard? And putting Pakistan on notice was a nice touch. We need to get a handle on Islamic terrorism, regardless of what the terrorist mayor of London says. If the Brits and the French like being blown up and killed, more power to 'em, but we don't like it and we don't like their bull#### being made our problem.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. Bush made a great number of mistakes because he was trying to play politics and not have the Left hate him (how'd that work out for you, Dubya?), and the biggest thing I appreciate and admire about Trump is that he doesn't care about that. He's there to do a job, period. Obama was a disaster with regard to Islamic terrorism because he agrees with them - those are his people and I think he showed that repeatedly.

I am thrilled to finally have a president who will take these people on. I thought Bush was that president, then it turned out he wasn't. He was a "hearts and minds" dumbass. Hopefully Trump will be that president.

Why we are sending Pakistan billions of aid money is beyond me. Especially if they are supporting terrorism.

Bush failed, not because of the left or politics. He failed because the war on terror is not a winnable one.

If terrorist networks are a problem, why is Trump claiming we can force the Afghan govt. and the Taliban to live together in harmony? Seems a bit silly to say terrorism is bad for all of us, that "we are killing terrorists", then say the group responsible for the largest attack on US soil is going to be forced into living alongside the Afghan govt. because we ask them to.




We came to A-Stan to fight the Taliban. That led to Iraq, which led to ISIS. ISIS didn't come about because of 9/11. They came about because the same AUMF was used to facilitate regime change, which destabilized the region, allowing ISIS to grow. Any bets on who we'll be blowing up next? This "war on terror" has done nothing but metastasize. Our mission creep is ever-expanding, there's no clear direction, and the US keeps being bounced around from conflict to conflict, with multiple ones at once. We continue to be in massive debt, our infrastructure is ####, there's nothing being talked about in Washington that helps Joe Citizen, and there's rumblings of conflict with North Korea. Is that what we want? Puff out our chest enough to end up in multiple conflicts around the globe?

I hope Congress does not offer Trump carte blanche to use military force whereever he pleases. I hope Trump respects the Constitution and at least tries to have a debate about our mission(s). For years, Congress has been unwilling to step up and assert their role in all this. It's about time they do.
 
Top