Oh, George W. Bush and his esteemed surrogates like Paul Bremer showed us how to nation-build! First you destroy (literally: “Freedom is messy!”) existing infrastructure and culture. Then you impose an Ayn Randian wet dream on the country – privatize everything. Staff the “Iraqi” government with right-wing Republicans barely out of their teens who speak no Arabic. Hold “elections” and — even when major groups boycott the process — send newsmen to take photos of purple fingers and prattle about how America brought democracy to the heathens. Oh, when it’s time to hire contractors to rebuild destroyed infrastructure do NOT hire any of the millions of unemployed Iraqis; it’s time to reward the U.S.A. for its altruistic sacrifice: all the opportunity has to go to American companies and to fellow kleptocrats in the Gulf.
But that was under Bush-43, widely regarded as a poor President. Since Trump is the greatest and most selfless President ever (with the possible exception of Abe Lincoln – “Did you know Abe was a Republican? Not many do!”) I’m surprised he doesn’t want to try nation building — it would be the greatest nation-building ever!
Are you being ironic? I really can’t tell. If you are, then yes, you got me.
If you’re not being ironic and you really think this speech is “content-packed” then where is the content you’re referring to? It’s ninety percent feel-good fluff and ten percent “This is a list of things I’d like to see happen.” What’s missing is any ideas on how the United States is going to make any of those things happen.
It’s not Trump just invented the idea that terrorism is bad and we should put an end to it. Saying that isn’t content. Content is saying what methods you’re going to use to put an end to terrorism. And Trump didn’t have any ideas on that. At least no ideas that haven’t already been tried.
Same thing with his idea that Afghanistan should become a better place. Okay, that’s a good idea. What’s going to be done to make Afghanistan a better place? Keep in mind, Trump explicitly disavowed “nation building”. So apparently we’re going to stand by and watch. And hope that somehow Afghanistan becomes a better place.
And the disavowal of any time tables for withdrawal. Granted, our announced withdrawal date probably wasn’t going to win the war. But at least it was going to end American involvement in the war. Now, the war’s still not going to be won but we’ll get to keep fighting in it.
Or will we? After talking about how he won’t withdraw, Trump then talks about how he might withdraw if Afghanistan doesn’t do its part.
We could do that. We could install a legislature to write a Constitution that would grant absolute political power to Ahmed Karzai. Or Jared Kushner. Or you. Or me.
We removed one dictator from power in Iraq. So we must install another dictator to power in Afghanistan. That way we shall restore balance to the Force.
I’m watching Episode 12 of House of Cards right now and see Frank Underwood saying much the same thing I’ve been saying since the start of the Fake News era:
Welcome to the Death of the Age of Reason.
There is no Right or Wrong. Not anymore.
Yes, but generals, like anyone, can be blind to reality once they are themselves involved in the situation. I guess I don’t see the end game here. We’ve been in Afghan for 17 years now with no end in sight. What is ‘victory’? Maybe the generals said it and I missed it. I get distracted easily.
[QUOTE=AK84]
Dear God, someone save these people from themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Uh…who are you talking to here?
That’s nice and all, but…well, wtf does this have to do with anything I said? Or…well, have to do with anything?
Again…what the hell are you talking about? What’s this got to do with anything in this thread, anything I wrote or, well, anything? If you want to cop to heavy drug use at this point, I’m good with that…I can totally sympathize. I’ll only caution you that heavy use of drugs might not make the Pakistani’s happy, for whatever that’s worth.
Well, I don’t know…what does Alex Jones think? I mean, he’s got to have something to say about India coming out…it’s probably linked to gay frogs or something like that.
Next time you want to just fly off the handle and talk to yourself like this leave me out of it, if you would. But…well, as always, thanks for the input! backs away Have a nice day…
The evidence is that Pakistan, like several other Middle Eastern countries, has made a tacit deal with terrorists. In exchange for the government not seriously fighting the terrorists, the terrorists agree not to target the government.
Does anyone really believe Osama bin Laden could have lived for five years so openly in a safehouse in Pakistan if the Pakistani government had really been trying to capture him?
Exactly. He continues the same thing but then puts on a rhetorical dog-and-pony show to present it as some kind of new, strong stance. Everything he does is just an act for his base.
Even if Trump’s speech is taken at face value, it’s a perfect example of why a country needs political leaders who BOTH provide political direction for the military AND listen to the military about what is realistic.
Trump is letting the military decide for themselves a well-defined military goal, that has no long term political objective attached.
“Find terrorist, kill terrorist. Don’t fret about where the terrorist are coming from, or what will take their place.”
It’s the sort of military goal that could have pragmatic political sense, except that “terrorist” is a political label. You’ve got to have political goals before you can say who the people you want to find and kill are. Is someone who opposes the Afghan government a terrorist? Is someone training to fight against Assad a terrorist? What about a pro-Pakistan government but non-official militia? All of these are designations in pursuit of establishing or propping up particular governments - nation building.
If the US forces are only going to find and attack people directly plotting attacks against US soil, they’re not going to be very busy at all.
Sorry I take so long to respond sometimes- gawd I get busy.
I was serious. A strategic alliance with a country of a billion people is substantial and has long range consequences. So is the announcement to stay and continue fighting the Taliban- I think many hoped we would leave. And rooting out terrorists in Pakistan? Could be a whole new war, with a nuclear power no less.
To say that we want an outcome worthy of the sacrifices of our service personnel is, logically, a sunk cost fallacy, yes, but it is also a resonant appeal to pathos and ethos. Didn’t Vietnam burn all the worse because the whole thing, in the end, might as well have been for nothing? Let the Taliban over run Afghanistan and we"ve seen this movie.
Speaking of avoiding historical errors, if the plan is to expand wars while cutting taxes on the wealthy, then it is fail, Fail,
FAIL!
:mad: