Libertarianism and the balance between individual rights and anti-interventionism

[The Feral Slasher]

it still would be cheaper than what we are doing now in Afghanistan

comparing something to an epic policy failure isn't really a great selling point. And I don't think you are correct - how much do you think it would cost to station 200,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. And more to the point, what is the objective, why would we do this ?

[The Feral Slasher]

comparing something to an epic policy failure isn't really a great selling point. And I don't think you are correct - how much do you think it would cost to station 200,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. And more to the point, what is the objective, why would we do this ?

Not to mention the dubious proposition of sending our soldiers to a foreign country, and let them kill whoever doesn't want us there. And then sending our soldiers to Germany to determine which ones of them go insane from all the killing and fighting. Weird stuff dude.

[nots]

Not to mention the dubious proposition of sending our soldiers to a foreign country, and let them kill whoever doesn't want us there. And then sending our soldiers to Germany to determine which ones of them go insane from all the killing and fighting. Weird stuff dude.

+1.
I hope he was just trolling with that nonsense.

[The Feral Slasher]

+1.
I hope he was just trolling with that nonsense.

It's beyond ridiculous, wtf

[Fresno Bob]

It's beyond ridiculous, wtf

Our current strategy is ridiculous, I'm just trying to rationalize the military industrial complex into something more "efficient" for military power projection rather than porkbarrel politics.
I'm also willing to grant citizenship to the family of anyone that does 8 years in the military. Is that crazier?

[B-Fly]

I'd love to hear a response from B-Fly in particular of any of the others who supported the endless war in Afghanistan. Or maybe 1J wants to remind us again about all the benefits we got from our victory in Iraq.

I supported the overthrow of the Taliban to end the Afghan state's open sponsorship and housing of Al Qaeda and its operational, logistical, recruitment and training bases, as well as the subsequent hunt to capture or kill the leadership of Al Qaeda following 9/11. I did not support the "surge" or the "endless war" -- I think we probably could have and should have been in and out within a year or two.

[The Feral Slasher]

I supported the overthrow of the Taliban to end the Afghan state's open sponsorship and housing of Al Qaeda and its operational, logistical, recruitment and training bases, as well as the subsequent hunt to capture or kill the leadership of Al Qaeda following 9/11. I did not support the "surge" or the "endless war" -- I think we probably could have and should have been in and out within a year or two.

I may have overstated your support, however, I certainly don't ever recall you posting anything critical about the surge or Obama's policy. I re-read parts of the Obama and Afghanistan thread, and I couldn't really classify you as a supporter or critic I suppose. I just would have thought that that far into the engagement it was pretty clear what the best decision was.

[B-Fly]

I may have overstated your support, however, I certainly don't ever recall you posting anything critical about the surge or Obama's policy. I re-read parts of the Obama and Afghanistan thread, and I couldn't really classify you as a supporter or critic I suppose. I just would have thought that that far into the engagement it was pretty clear what the best decision was.

I went back and read my posts in that thread and they were almost entirely consistent with my post above. On multiple occasions I said I thought the initial removal of the Taliban and the hunting/scattering of Al Qaeda was justified, but I had a hard time understanding what benefit anyone could say was derived from our prolonged military entanglement in Afghanistan after the accomplishment of those initial objectives.

[The Feral Slasher]

I went back and read my posts in that thread and they were almost entirely consistent with my post above. On multiple occasions I said I thought the initial removal of the Taliban and the hunting/scattering of Al Qaeda was justified, but I had a hard time understanding what benefit anyone could say was derived from our prolonged military entanglement in Afghanistan after the accomplishment of those initial objectives.

And I think my amended post above is pretty accurate. I don't recall you ever caring enough to criticize Obama for his decision to implement the surge and continue the war. You wrote earlier in this thread that the intervention in Afghanistan was a success (before retracting), so perhaps that recent comment made my impression less accurate. Anyway, I agreed above that it was inaccurate to call you a supporter of the war. If you consider yourself an opponent of the extended war I'm not going to argue with you.

Edit - After re- reading the first thread of the Obama and Afghanistan thread, I can only conclude that we speak two different languages. http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showt...ht=afghanistan

Here are some quotes from the first page of that thread:

ITC - "While this was the war everyone seemed to think we need to get into, it seems to be getting worse and worse the longer we stay."

Nots - "I think the President's decision to triple the troop levels there was the worst decision of his first term. It didn't make sense to me at the time and it looks even worse in the rear view mirror. I don't see what a 'victory' looks like there and I don't see where the additional troops have done anything beneficial for us or for the Afghans.
I would like to hope the recent incidents would expedite our troops coming home but I'm not sure it will.
As for political ramifications: I don't think this will have much impact at all because a good segment of the GOP supports our being there. The Dems base will continue to be upset, but they don't really have a place to go.
It depresses me that we continue to lose people and spend money on this quagmire.

DMT - "Many people were against it and you are completely right that the situation is deteriorating each week we stay, but as usual we were ignored. By the time we withdraw from Iraq they'll just move on to Syria and/or Iran. Got to keep that war machine pumping."

GITH (to nots) - I totally agree with your entire post.

Senorsheep - "What is it we realistically hope to achieve by the end of 2014 that we ahven't achieved already? I think Iraq was pretty instructive - we were able to maintain a veneer of stability while we were there to enforce it, but when we pulled out, the interfactional bombings and gun battles erupted almost immediately, and months later, the country is descending into chaos. Does anybody really think Afghanistan is going to end differently? If not, then what's the argument for two more years of this?"

B-Fly- " I do have a hard time assessing what, if anything, our continued and expanded sacrifice of blood and treasure in Afghanistan has won us. Perhaps Bob K or someone with more knowledge of the military effort can shed some light on whether it appears we've significantly reduced the threat of a return to power by the Taliban and/or the re-establishment of Afghanistan as a potential safe harbor for Al Qaeda training, recruiting and operations planning. Because those were the most important strategic objectives of the Obama administration's troop surge."



So according to your post today you ""did not support the "surge" or the "endless war" -- I think we probably could have and should have been in and out within a year or two."

These comments are from more than 10 years after we invaded Afghanitstan. I can clearly see how everyone else wanted to end our involvement in the war. I'm just not sure how reading your quote anyone is suppose to think you supported leaving Afghanistan at that time, much less 8 years earlier. Maybe you just have a much more understated way of expressing your points.

[The Feral Slasher]

So Venezuela might be next on the list. can Trump get everyone on board ? Probably he doesnt care.

[B-Fly]

B-Fly- " I do have a hard time assessing what, if anything, our continued and expanded sacrifice of blood and treasure in Afghanistan has won us. Perhaps Bob K or someone with more knowledge of the military effort can shed some light on whether it appears we've significantly reduced the threat of a return to power by the Taliban and/or the re-establishment of Afghanistan as a potential safe harbor for Al Qaeda training, recruiting and operations planning. Because those were the most important strategic objectives of the Obama administration's troop surge."



So according to your post today you ""did not support the "surge" or the "endless war" -- I think we probably could have and should have been in and out within a year or two."

These comments are from more than 10 years after we invaded Afghanitstan. I can clearly see how everyone else wanted to end our involvement in the war. I'm just not sure how reading your quote anyone is suppose to think you supported leaving Afghanistan at that time, much less 8 years earlier. Maybe you just have a much more understated way of expressing your points.

I do have a very measured and deliberate way of expressing my points, yes. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here, lol. I specifically said that I have a hard time assessing whether staying in Afghanistan beyond the ouster of the Taliban and the scattering of Al Qaeda command and control to Pakistan served any of the purported objectives of our continuing operations in Afghanistan. As I've said lots and lots of times, I think that in openly allowing Al Qaeda to establish extensive command and control operations from which to plan and execute terrorist attacks including the 9/11 attack on the US homeland, the Taliban legitimately merited removal by the US. And I think it was justified and reasonable for the US to seek to disable Al Qaeda through military and other means. But I don't see what we gained from all of the blood and treasure we sacrificed in Afghanistan following the removal of the Taliban.

[The Feral Slasher]

I do have a very measured and deliberate way of expressing my points, yes. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here, lol. I specifically said that I have a hard time assessing whether staying in Afghanistan beyond the ouster of the Taliban and the scattering of Al Qaeda command and control to Pakistan served any of the purported objectives of our continuing operations in Afghanistan. As I've said lots and lots of times, I think that in openly allowing Al Qaeda to establish extensive command and control operations from which to plan and execute terrorist attacks including the 9/11 attack on the US homeland, the Taliban legitimately merited removal by the US. And I think it was justified and reasonable for the US to seek to disable Al Qaeda through military and other means. But I don't see what we gained from all of the blood and treasure we sacrificed in Afghanistan following the removal of the Taliban.

That was sort of my point. This was more than 10 years after we invaded. No one else had a hard time assessing whether we should stay or thought they needed an expert like Bob Kohm to weigh in. I think we've probably beat this to death.

[senorsheep]

A bipartisan bill to end the endless war in Afghanistan... Does anybody have an objection to this? Does anybody think it'll pass? Does anybody think it'll even come up for a vote?

Sens. Rand Paul, Tom Udall Introduce Bill to End the War in Afghanistan

Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Tom Udall (D–N.M.) announced this morning that they'd be introducing a bill to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and repeal the legal justification that has been used for numerous other conflicts in our long-running war on terror.

"We've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan and it's time to bring our troops home," said Paul to reporters this morning. "This has been a long war. We've spent over $2 trillion total. 2,300 have lost their lives in Afghanistan, and 20,000 [have been] wounded."

"It is Congress that has failed to conduct its oversight duty of this war. We must step in and step up. We must ensure that another generation of Americans is not sent to fight a perpetual war," added Udall.

The bipartisan American Forces Going Home After Noble Service Act—or AFGHAN Service Act—would require the Secretary of Defense, within 45 days of the bill's passage, to come up with a plan to pull all U.S. military forces out of Afghanistan within a year, save for a small number of troops guarding America embassies, consulates, or supporting "intelligence operations authorized by Congress."

The bill would also repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) either within 395 days of the bill's passage, or after all U.S. troops have left the country—whichever comes first.

The 2001 AUMF was passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has been pointed to as the legal justification for numerous American military interventions including not just the one in Afghanistan, but also Iraq, Syria, Somalia, the Philippines, and Niger. Repealing that legislation could hamper the White House's ability to wage a number of our current overseas interventions, says John Glaser, a foreign policy scholar at the Cato Institute.

"This could have implications for the rollback of the so-called forever war in more countries than just Afghanistan. That would be another huge benefit of this," says Glaser.

Glaser also praised the bill's tight timeline and its authors' willingness to reestablish limits on the ability of the president to fight overseas wars, telling Reason, "it's a good sign that someone is actually reasserting Congress' power over the president's war powers, and it's obviously a long time coming."

[The Feral Slasher]

A bipartisan bill to end the endless war in Afghanistan... Does anybody have an objection to this? Does anybody think it'll pass? Does anybody think it'll even come up for a vote?

Sens. Rand Paul, Tom Udall Introduce Bill to End the War in Afghanistan

Have no idea if it will pass, love to see the bill though. The repeal of the AUMF would also be great, it's about time

[B-Fly]

A bipartisan bill to end the endless war in Afghanistan... Does anybody have an objection to this? Does anybody think it'll pass? Does anybody think it'll even come up for a vote?

Sens. Rand Paul, Tom Udall Introduce Bill to End the War in Afghanistan

I can support that bill, yes.