General Abizaid warned Congress just a few days ago that a timetable would tie the military’s hands making any lasting success in Iraq impossible. He also said he did not think things in Iraq were as bad as they were in August; although they haven’t improved much. He further elaborated that he fully believes lasting stability can be achieved in Iraq, but only through the continued training and improvement of the Iraqi military.
Abizaid was widely praised by liberals and anti-war people in general in August when he bluntly said the situation in Iraq was terrible. His military acumen and overall intelligence has been lauded by people on both sides of the aisle, yet I’ve seen little mention of this particular aspect of his analysis on these forums or most other liberal strongholds.
I’m sure that soon enough Abizaid will be labeled a Republican shill by the same liberals who clapped heartily when he made his report to Congress in August.
As for the quote in question, I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that it was in response to “what have we learned from Vietnam?”
As a Republican who voted for Bush in 2004 and wouldn’t change that vote if given the opportunity; I’ll admit the man says things that are downright knuckle headed, I see no reason to distort or event things that he never said.
So let me get this straight, Martin. In August, he “bluntly said the situation in Iraq was terrible.” Now he “did not think things in Iraq were as bad as they were in August; although they haven’t improved much.” About right?
So the wonderful news of progress is that things used to be terrible, but are now a little better?
There’s something wrong when Afghani tribesmen armed with home-made Lee-Enfield and AK-47 rifles can beat organised, professional militaries.
You know what would be a better use of everyone’s time and money? Simply offering non-Taliban Afghanis a free ticket to a life somewhere else. There are plenty of uninhabited islands in the Aegean Sea or somewhere that would be more than suitable…
So in August he says things are “terrible”. Now he says things are not as bad, but not by much. Which is very different from saying things are “a little better”.
And China today has economic incentives all over. Makes a buttload of stuff for WalMart and has actual WalMarts there. S.K. has the hottest border on Earth and are one sucessful launch away from annihilation… Good thing we helped prop up the little domino who could… :rolleyes:
And what? You’re among the McArthurites who believed we should have pushed thru N.K. and into China with the nuclear option??? That woulda helped matters…
You see a bold foreign policy. I see a deranged, rogue general.
Ah, I was actually referring to your entire post, not just the part before, “About right?” Sorry for the confusion, I’ll take credit for that due to the wording of my response.
What are you talking about? Intervening in South Korea had nothing to do with what MacArthur did later.
When we “intervened” North Korea had invaded South Korea without provocation and without cause (other than Kim just wanted to be dictator of all of Korea, not just the North), it was a war of conquest. The precise kind of war the concept of “collective security” was supposed to put a stop to; before MacArthur’s amazing victories in South Korea only a very small part of the country was still unoccupied by NK forces.
Do you actually know what started the Korean War?
Once we had pushed North Korea out of South Korea there was also a consensus to take the fight to the North, but MacArthur took it farther than he had the authorization to do. No, I wouldn’t have supported nuking China and trying to go on a rampage in Southeast China. I think MacArthur’s decision to advance toward’s China’s border was bad on two counts, it was for one an overstepping of his authority and two it was a bad move strategically. If we had stayed at the neck our line of defense would not have been so terribly spread and we could have possibly held North Korea when the Chinese invaded. As it is, in advancing to China we significantly spread ourselves out, and hadn’t even properly supported our forward troops logistically. It’s not surprise at all the Chinese started rolling us South, so much so that we had to actually drive them back out of a small pocket of the South before finally settling on the current borders.
Actually there isn’t anything wrong with locals conducting successful guerilla warfare against an occupying foreign force that doesn’t speak the language and supports corrupt Governments.
And although your suggestion is no doubt well-intended (and non-violent), have you really thought it through?
You won’t get a bunch of tribesman with centuries of history successfully fighting invaders to leave theri own country and travel somewhere with different climate, crops and no communications / infrastructure.
Also, how would you tell who was Taliban?
That is what I heard quite clearly from an commentator on National Public Radio that morning. You can probably find a recording of the broadcast at their website. Since this is not GD, I don’t feel obliged to do it for you.
No, I haven’t. I just look at the cost of fighting the war in Afghanistan, and wonder if it wouldn’t be easier simply to move all the women, children, and non-extremists away from the Taliban. If we care enough to invade their country to “end terrorism”, we care enough to either do it properly (ie, crush the Taliban once and for all), or accept that the Taliban aren’t going anywhere and it’s going to be easier to move the non-Taliban somewhere else. As for identifying the Taliban, that’s a task best left to people with more knowledge of the cultural and political situation in Afghanistan than I.
However, it is worth mentioning that the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the USA have all thoroughly failed to bring Afghanistan under their control (or establish a benevolent, democratic government there), which tells me that the country really is a lost cause- or that the people WANT to be ruled by Islamic Fundamentalists who are so extreme even other Islamic Fundamentalists cringe at their antics.
I meant to say “What’s interesting is that the Afghani tribesmen were using home-made or antique guns against the latest technology, and they still won despite that”.
You need to study a bit more history before making comments like this. Enforced repatriations are inevitably disaster. The locals won’t want to leave any more than you would want to leave Australia just because a bunch of radicals was making things difficult here. You can’t move people around like chess pieces. They will react against it just like you would.
Someone with that knowledge would tell you I suspect that the nice shining clear cut line between the baddies and the goodies doesn’t exist. Those nice clear delineations happen in only two places: movies, and propaganda. People (you can guess who) with particular political motivations try to draw those lines to make the goals and tactics they pursue acceptable. There are terrorists and Taliban: they are a distinct group, they are bad, and you can do to them whatever you want because they deserve it. The reality is a wee bit more complicated.
You have an incomplete grasp of relevant history. So do I, but at least I know that extremist fundamentalism is a recent phenomenon in Afganistan, so it doesn’t make sense to suggest that other foreign attempts at subjugation have been defeated by a preference for it.
I’d be first in line for a plane ticket, so that’s probably not a good analogy.
I’m not seriously advocating a forced reparatriation, either. It’s just one of those things you idly think when you turn on the news and hear about more death and destruction in Adghanistan, and wonder “wouldn’t it just be cheaper to relocate anyone who wanted to leave?”
I realise it’s not practical or even realistic, but you have to admit the whole thing seems to have turned into a War For The Sake Of A War…
I just look at the cost of fighting the war in Afghanistan, and wonder if it wouldn’t be easier simply to move all the women, children, and non-extremists away from the Taliban. If we care enough to invade their country to “end terrorism”, we care enough to either do it properly (ie, crush the Taliban once and for all), or accept that the Taliban aren’t going anywhere and it’s going to be easier to move the non-Taliban somewhere else. As for identifying the Taliban, that’s a task best left to people with more knowledge of the cultural and political situation in Afghanistan than I.