Now Trump has an agenda

[XT]

@John_Mace

Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Did Trump get elected, or Arnold?

I seriously doubt that Trump, if asked what is the best in life would answer anything like that. Plus, I shudder to think what Trump would look like sitting on a table in a loin cloth edged in fur. :eek::eek::eek:

[wolfman]

@John_Mace

Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Did Trump get elected, or Arnold?

Better than Kipling

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

The ultimatum to Pakistan seemed new, though maybe the change is only in being open about it. I read a sort of strategic alliance with India into the speech, like that is our strategic position now, to shore up “the world’s largest democracy” and be pals. Basically favoring India over Pakistan so plainly seemed new to me.

The objectives seemed clear, if broad. “Win”, prevent the Taliban from retaking Afghanistan, eliminate… bad guys I guess in Pakistan. The means to do this felt open-ended rather than X number of troops. I felt like it could be the start of a major new campaign.

Siding with India seems like an incredibly bad idea. As is an ultimatum to Pakistan- what is Pakistan supposed to do, exactly? The Afghan/Pakistan frontier is not an easy region to police, as many nations (including the United States) have learned to their sorrow.

[XT]

@Hector_St_Clare

Siding with India seems like an incredibly bad idea. As is an ultimatum to Pakistan- what is Pakistan supposed to do, exactly? The Afghan/Pakistan frontier is not an easy region to police, as many nations (including the United States) have learned to their sorrow.

India is and has been for a while now a much closer strategic ally than Pakistan. And I don’t think this is ‘an incredibly bad idea’ in any way, for either side. Doesn’t mean we are going to go to war with Pakistan, but Pakistan is never going to be a close ally to the US, no matter what we do, while India is a natural ally especially wrt relations with China and other regional issues and powers. Our Navy, for instance, often has close exercises with the Indian navy and has built a good relationship between the two, while I don’t see anything like a similar relationship between the US and Pakistan. Then there is the whole trade angle…India is an important trade partner and an important market for the US. Pakistan…not so much.

As to policing the Pakistan/Afghan border, well…even that has been pretty hit or miss wrt Pakistan, and you have to look at how the various factions in Pakistan really interact to see why it’s been that way and why a close relationship between Pakistan and the US is very unlikely, at least as things stand and have stood for the last decade or so.

[snowthx]

@ThelmaLou

Trump is desperate to be able to slap the label “WIN!” on something… anything… I don’t think this will be it, however.

This right here. Reviving the Military-Industrial complex by stoking fears. He will get a twofer: can claim a boost in jobs created, and make us all feel fuzzy-wuzzy that we are better protected. It is kinda scary that he considers the military a constituency and has been fellating them since the get-go.

How long did the Soviet Union try to occupy Afghanistan? What were the numbers of dead young Soviet soldiers? Why do we think the US will be able to forge a different outcome now? No worries, tho, as all the ugly stuff will happen on the other side of the world - “Nothing to see here, move along, move along…”, and our tax dollars will be invested wisely. Believe me!

[Some_Call_Me.Tim]

[QUOTE=Trump]
I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America’s core interests in Afghanistan. First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win.
[/QUOTE]

So, the first of his three fundamental conclusions is that sunk costs are very important, and the fact that we’ve already spent so much already is the first and most important reason he provides for spending more resources there.

I don’t know how much clearer he could be in saying this decision is primarily based on a sunk cost fallacy rather than a dispassionate look at the current situation. We should take the actions going forward that have the best expected results, rather than looking backward at what has happened before (that we cannot change) and making decisions based on what we spent in previous years.

[snowthx]

@Some_Call_Me.Tim

So, the first of his three fundamental conclusions is that sunk costs are very important, and the fact that we’ve already spent so much already is the first and most important reason he provides for spending more resources there.

I don’t know how much clearer he could be in saying this decision is primarily based on a sunk cost fallacy rather than a dispassionate look at the current situation. We should take the actions going forward that have the best expected results, rather than looking backward at what has happened before (that we cannot change) and making decisions based on what we spent in previous years.

Yep. Business 101: It’s not where you spent your last dollar, it’s where you spend your next dollar that’s important.

[XT]

[QUOTE=snowthx]
How long did the Soviet Union try to occupy Afghanistan?
[/QUOTE]

10 years.

What were the numbers of dead young Soviet soldiers?

Officially it was 15,000 dead, 40,000 wounded. Grain of salt though. The US has been there longer and last I recall there had been around 2,000 US deaths in Afghanistan.

Why do we think the US will be able to forge a different outcome now?

As much of a cluster fuck as it’s been, it’s already a better outcome all around than the monumental mess the Soviets left when they tucked tail. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will remain even in the cluster fuck state it is today…things can always get worse. And almost certainly will when/if we bolt.

[ThelmaLou]

@wolfman

Better than Kipling

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.

Brilliant!

[Wesley_Clark]

@carnivorousplant

I’ve wondered if the winning side often resists democracy because they could no longer tell folks what to do.

Depends on the country. The allies implemented democracy in Japan and Germany after WW2, but I don’t know how they made sure the governments wouldn’t ally with the USSR.

Many other nations just implement a friendly dictator though when they invade.

[John_Mace]

@Wesley_Clark

Depends on the country. The allies implemented democracy in Japan and Germany after WW2, but I don’t know how they made sure the governments wouldn’t ally with the USSR.

Germany and Japan had been foes of Russia, and then the USSR, for decades. But we kinda slipped on East Germany, though.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@XT

Doesn’t mean we are going to go to war with Pakistan, but Pakistan is never going to be a close ally to the US, no matter what we do, while India is a natural ally especially wrt relations with China and other regional issues and powers.

I don’t believe in the concept of ‘natural allies’ (for that matter, I’m sympathetic to the old slogan attributed to De Gaulle that countries don’t have allies, they have interests). Pakistan had better relationship with the US during the Cold War than India did, so there are limits to how far the ‘natural ally’ thing goes.

The United States really ought to remain neutral between India and Pakistan and maintain relations with both through trade and things of that nature. Issues like India’s border disputes with China are really not issues that should concern the United States.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@John_Mace

Germany and Japan had been foes of Russia, and then the USSR, for decades. But we kinda slipped on East Germany, though.

East Germany was the part of Germany occupied by the Soviets, so it was never under US/France/Britain influence at all.

In terms of the western part of Germany, the German constitution allows for the suppression (or more precisely, “observation”) of antidemocratic parties of the right and left, so I think that was useful at ensuring the communists (or for that matter ethnic nationalist or right wing parties) didn’t ever become powerful again. The actual German Communist party was banned in 1956.

Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution

[dropzone]

@snowthx

and make us all feel fuzzy-wuzzy

The Fuzzy Wuzzies are back? Are we going to invade Sudan, too?

[igor_frankensteen]

@Little_Nemo

Trump’s plan seems to be doing the same things we’ve been doing for sixteen years.

“Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition, attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”

Really? Like that’s a new plan? Does Trump really think Bush and Obama weren’t trying to do the same thing?

Announcing the goal is easy. Achieving that goal is what’s difficult.

Succinct and accurate. I was going to say that this is just more standard Trumpism: announce that we are continuing to do EXACTLY what we’ve been doing all along, only pretend that it’s all a brand new idea that Trump thought up.

I heard one esteemed critic today (he is an experienced combat veteran, turned military strategy think tank leader) who pointed out that Trumps new “plan,” is to get the Afghans to fight for themselves more by saying

"hey! You’d better learn to do your own fighting, and build a cohesive and effective central government, or, or, or…

or WE’LL keep on doing it all for you, and do all the dying too! That’l Learn Ya!!!"

[asahi]

@Little_Nemo

Trump’s plan seems to be doing the same things we’ve been doing for sixteen years.

“Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition, attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”

Really? Like that’s a new plan? Does Trump really think Bush and Obama weren’t trying to do the same thing?

Announcing the goal is easy. Achieving that goal is what’s difficult.

He got talked into doing this by generals who don’t want to lose and who complained bitterly that Obama and liberals wouldn’t let them fight the war they wanted to. Iraq didn’t happen - but if it did, we can be sure that liberal flower children running around somewhere in the Pacific Northwest with patchouli are to blame.

[guizot]

@igor_frankensteen

Succinct and accurate. I was going to say that this is just more standard Trumpism: announce that we are continuing to do EXACTLY what we’ve been doing all along, only pretend that it’s all a brand new idea that Trump thought up.

Yes. People waste way too much energy trying to ascribe some kind of overriding policy with Trump, when really there’s nothing there.

Pretty much everything Trump does or says is just a dog and pony show to keep his base.

[Little_Nemo]

@asahi

He got talked into doing this by generals who don’t want to lose and who complained bitterly that Obama and liberals wouldn’t let them fight the war they wanted to. Iraq didn’t happen - but if it did, we can be sure that liberal flower children running around somewhere in the Pacific Northwest with patchouli are to blame.

I don’t think this is likely. Most generals are actually pretty realistic when it comes to combat. Usually a lot more so than the politicians who are setting the policy. Most generals can spot an unwinnable war long before the politicians will admit it. And when they see one, they want to get out.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Rick_Kitchen

Please point to those places that were clear and answers.

Here is the text of the speech.

Clear and/or answers:

American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives – and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality.

By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation under God.

The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission, and one shared sense of purpose.

They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together – and sacrifice together – in absolutely perfect cohesion.

The soldier understands what we, as a nation, too often forget that a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together.

Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate.

The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name that, when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

That is why, shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia.

My original instinct was to pull out – and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office; in other words, when you’re President of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David, with my Cabinet and generals, to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives.

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable.

A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.

And, as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks. We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.

Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense. Today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.

For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen.

No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became President, I was given a bad and very complex hand, but I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But, one way or another, these problems will be solved – I’m a problem solver – and, in the end, we will win.

As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology.

Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them, and we will defeat them handily.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear: We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America, and we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter

But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history. As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways:

A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities.

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power – diplomatic, economic, and military – toward a successful outcome.

Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field.

Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.

In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.

But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace.

Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India – the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively and work quickly.

As we lift restrictions and expand authorities in the field, we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will. Since taking office, I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense, and they have done so.

In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us.

Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us. The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do. Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed.

But we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over. Instead, we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interests. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward.

Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country. But strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace.

However, our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited.

In every generation, we have faced down evil, and we have always prevailed. We prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay in eternal rest at Arlington National Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice, and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot on the face of the Earth.

Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan enlisted in the months after September 11th, 2001. They volunteered for a simple reason: They loved America, and they were determined to protect her.

Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives

We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you.

Thank you. May God bless our military. And may God bless the United States of America

That is a lot to quote in one post, but it isn’t every day that Donald Trump, POTUS, delivers such a coherent and content-packed speech. Take it with a grain of salt. Bring a salt shaker. Heck, grab one of those Himalayan salt lamps- Trump has earned a reputation for blathering a lot of bullshit. But we got some policy splainin’ Monday night, like it or not. It is worth at least a look-see.

[AK84]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t think this is likely. Most generals are actually pretty realistic when it comes to combat. Usually a lot more so than the politicians who are setting the policy. Most generals can spot an unwinnable war long before the politicians will admit it. And when they see one, they want to get out.

Disagreed. Generals can never accept that they have lost. They will always say “give my xyz, and we’ll win” or “this time it will work”. Just look at the long list of excuses American Generals made in Vietnam, or just how much blame the WW2 German generals placed on dead Nazi leadership (you have commented on that)

And that is doubly true here. Kelly (who once commanded in Afghanistan), Matthis (who led the first Marine troops into Afghanistan and later commanded CentCom) and McMaster (was a two star in Afghanistan) have all served there and failed. And they have convinced Trump that despite their prevcious failures, they will succeed now cause…

[QUOTE=XT]
India is and has been for a while now a much closer strategic ally than Pakistan. And I don’t think this is ‘an incredibly bad idea’ in any way, for either side. Doesn’t mean we are going to go to war with Pakistan, but Pakistan is never going to be a close ally to the US, no matter what we do, while India is a natural ally especially wrt relations with China and other regional issues and powers. Our Navy, for instance, often has close exercises with the Indian navy and has built a good relationship between the two, while I don’t see anything like a similar relationship between the US and Pakistan. Then there is the whole trade angle…India is an important trade partner and an important market for the US. Pakistan…not so much.
[/QUOTE]

Dear God, someone save these people from themselves. :rolleyes:

You heard of the Hindu Kush? The words mean “Hindu Killer”. Afghans have a long and vircereal hatered of Hindus. You know whats their biggest insult for Pakistanis? Calling them Hindu Converts. And India, is currently being run by a Hindu nationalists, who have banned cow slaughter, one of whose most prominient leaders has ledforced converdsations and calls for dead muslim women corpses to be raped. Modi himself before he became PM was banned from entering the US for 10 years, for organizing the anti-muslim riots in Gujarat..

Add ancient hatreds and current headlines and you have just given the militants in Afghanistan a great rallying cry “the Americans want to put us under the thumb of crazy Hindus”. Plus made India and Indians a taregt A large country with a poor and diasffected muslim population. Jeez what can go wrong. .

Also, you have made Pakistan very happy. You think the prospective that Taliban and India (both of whom they hate like poison) fighting is going to make the ISI/Army/establishment/whatever entity Americans are blaming for their failures now; upset? They probably are having a party.

Pakistan has gone out of its way make sure that the Taliban don’t attack Indian workers, and assets in Afghanistan (since Pakistan does not want two hot fronts) and India has kept a low profile for the same reason, being annoyance to Pakistan, not a threat on the Western border. Now that genius McMaster has decied to pressure India into coming out openly. Making India a direct target because I dunno; “strategic ally” or some such nonsense. Kissinger was right, the worst thing you can be is an American ally.