Oh snap, Pruden calling it!!!

[ElfBane]

Why do you insist that I have called the Iraq war a "crime"? I called it "unjust". The Iraq war was "legal" by most criteria; the international community did not protest overmuch, and some nations even helped out. But the legality of the war does not change my opinion that the war was unjust.

BTW, what would you do? Here's the scenario... RTB has just been inaugurated PotUS, and has inherited 2 wars... the winding down of Iraq and the nasty mess of Afghanistan. You are now Head of State, and the prestige of the US is reflected in your actions, whether you like it or not. What to do?

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by robertthebard It is, however, impossible to say the war is a crime committed by Bush, and then applaud Obama for fighting it w/out being a hypocrit. Either it's a crime, or it isn't. That is what I said in my previous post as well. While one can indeed end wars by sending in more troops, and just turning the whole country into a parking lot, the usual system for ending hostilities involves a cease fire, negotiations for peace and a withdrawal of troops. So by which scenario do you put forward that he's ending the war? Since we know that more troops are being trained, and sent in, are we to assume that he's going to do the former to end it?

FYI: As of today, there is no official cease fire or fancy named treaty in place. Our troops are in transition from knock and blast, to teach, coach and mentor (Advise and Assist).

Of the "reduction" of boots on the ground, the 50K "withdrawn" are located in the Kingdom(s) of SA and Kuwait. From there, they can conduct "security" patrols, perform "routine" Traffic Control Points (TCPs), provide a "Reactionary Force", and provide a "show of force" into Iraq as needed. America has been duped to believing that those 50K troops withdrawn returned home. Don't forget about the 40 odd thousand boots physically on the ground in Iraq! That equates to 90 odd thousand troops on the ground, up slightly from W's less than 90K, and slightly down from the almost 110K surge. All in all, more troops on the ground in the region.

Real numbers for A-stan are in a 'need to know' category...

As far as the war, I supported getting in, kicking ass and taking names, then rapidly departing with dignity. I did not support 5+ years of petty operations followed by almost 3 years of please can't we all just get along and thank you!

[Azred]

Originally Posted by ElfBane BTW, what would you do? Here's the scenario... RTB has just been inaugurated PotUS, and has inherited 2 wars... the winding down of Iraq and the nasty mess of Afghanistan. You are now Head of State, and the prestige of the US is reflected in your actions, whether you like it or not. What to do?

I don't know what he would do, but I would completely withdraw as quickly as humanly possible, even if my military advisors didn't like it. I wouldn't even care if they don't like it; I'm their boss so they'll just have to deal with it.

As far as our prestige in the world or how others view us...I'm certain that once they realize that I am pursuing a doctrine of not involving our country in the internal affairs of other countries--self-determination was good enough for us so it is good enough for other people--that they will agree that it is a wise decision. After that, if some country does want our military help then they can pay for it up front.

[ElfBane]

Originally Posted by Azred I don't know what he would do, but I would completely withdraw as quickly as humanly possible, even if my military advisors didn't like it. I wouldn't even care if they don't like it; I'm their boss so they'll just have to deal with it. As far as our prestige in the world or how others view us...I'm certain that once they realize that I am pursuing a doctrine of not involving our country in the internal affairs of other countries--self-determination was good enough for us so it is good enough for other people--that they will agree that it is a wise decision. After that, if some country does want our military help then they can pay for it up front.

That should go over well in elementary schools... right about the part where they say "with liberty and justice for all". You know, kids just might pick up on that 'we'll do the right thing if you cross our palm' concept.

But anyway, once a new Prez gets in power, they never seem to go thru with the withdrawals of our military from (insert nation here). Why is that? What do they learn in the briefing process that changes their mind?

[Azred]

Originally Posted by ElfBane That should go over well in elementary schools... right about the part where they say "with liberty and justice for all".

My ideas are a damn sight better than the ones you come up with. Oh, wait...I never see you coming up with any solutions, only complaining that you don't like other people's solutions.

It isn't "do the right thing only if you pay us". It is "we will no longer interfere with the internal politics of other nations", which is the opposite of nation-building; I was under the impression that you were not in favor of nation-building, so I would have guessed that you would approve of this. *shrug*

New Presidents are probably told in their briefing sessions that they have been bought and paid for and that they now need to scratch the backs of the ones who got them elected.

[ElfBane]

Don't get mad. I like your idea. I would do that too... but these hard-ass approaches never seem to get implemented.

My style (or lack thereof) irritates some people. I have the ability (curse?) to see both sides of almost any argument, and the temptation to play devil's advocate almost always wins out.

I'm not so much against nation-building as I'm against the forced importation of our culture onto another. So I guess I'm basically against nation-building.

[Azred]

I don't get mad on the Internet...but I can misinterpret and/or overreact, which appears to be the case here.

If done correctly, the art of irritating people can be a joy to watch.

I am definitely against nation-building, especially since all our attempts at doing so for the last 50 years have failed utterly. It is past time to stop that behavior.

[Chewbacca]

Seems pretty clear to me this is a case of the "you break it, you buy it" rule.

Abruptly leaving either Iraq or Afganistan in a state of "U.S.-caused politically de-stabilized combat-torn mess" would simply be irresponsible. Sucks we put ourselves in those messes like we did to begin with.

The OP isn't even worth commenting on beyond pointing out it is a kind of bunch race-baiting drivel as bad as the bunch of race-baiting drivel it points out. The "takes one to know one" rule applies here IMO.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by ElfBane Why do you insist that I have called the Iraq war a "crime"? I called it "unjust". The Iraq war was "legal" by most criteria; the international community did not protest overmuch, and some nations even helped out. But the legality of the war does not change my opinion that the war was unjust. BTW, what would you do? Here's the scenario... RTB has just been inaugurated PotUS, and has inherited 2 wars... the winding down of Iraq and the nasty mess of Afghanistan. You are now Head of State, and the prestige of the US is reflected in your actions, whether you like it or not. What to do?

If I was elected with one of my campaign promises being to end the wars, I'd end them by the most expedient means possible, even if that did mean withdrawing, and leaving them to sort out the mess that they've been trying to sort out for 2000 some odd years. Especially if, immediately after getting into office, I'm suddenly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

I've said this before, and it bears repeating, as Azred pointed out, if they want our help, they can foot the bill. This is not "Pay to Play" per se, but more pay our expenses for getting in your business, with a clear start/end of service date. There would also be a contract, showing that the government in question did indeed request our aid, and did indeed agree to the terms. I am frankly tired of being bashed on online sites simply because I'm an American, and being treated like every decision made by my government was signed off by me. I would take the steps to insure that these people understood that my actions were taken, and paid for, by the foreign government in question, so that there can be no mistake who's responsible for me doing what I'm doing. Then these people can unload on their own governments, at their own risk, of course, since in some countries, speaking out against your government means you disappear...

We were told that Obama was going to end our involvement in the ME, and frankly, that has yet to happen, and isn't even being realistically discussed. Instead, troops are being moved from one part to another, and trained for even more insertions. We were lied to, for whatever reason. A Nobel Peace Prize was awarded based on that lie, and yet, here I am defending myself because I find that reprehensible. The man's race has no bearing on it. The truth has no race, it simply is. The truth is that we are still fighting every day in the ME, and we're still there because the current PotUS isn't doing anything to get us out. He is, instead, riding the gravy train of that war, Bin Laden, and milking it for all it's worth.

[Azred]

"You break it, you buy it" will serve only to keep troops involved there for another 10 years. I would rather save lives and money by removing all troops and then helping the Afghan people rebuild their own country.

Rebuild how? Simple. The responsible thing, as noted, is to pay to fix what we broke so we seek out local construction companies in Afghanistan--if they don't exist then we help form them--and give them the bids to rebuild roads and bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. This will not only help modernize their country but put money into their economy. I suspect that cost is significantly lower than what we are currently paying for military operations there so we would save money, as well--a classic win-win scenario.