DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Taliban is losing its advantage in Afghanistan

**Pypeassesty** · 08-29-2012, 11:31 PM

That's retarded.

If we could have "won" in '03 we can still win today.

It's not like al Q and the Taliban have improved strategically, tactically, and technologically soooooooo much in the last few years that their defeat is now impossible.

Recent operations have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that if we want to take the Taliban's foothold we can do so pretty much at will.

The only determining factor is whether or not President Obama and his sucessor will leave troops in Astan long enough to follow through on the nation building bullshit.

Much like Vietnam, and defeat the United States sufferes will be a result of politics (both Bush's and Obama's).

As far as I'm concerned though, we won the war in Afghanistan in about three weeks. Everything that's come after have been operations other than war (except perhaps for what's been going on the past few months) with an eye toward building up that shithole. Nation building is not war.

I like Woodward generally, and I haven't read this book, so maybe you're not adequately explaining what he's said. But if your comment is an acurate synopsis of the book then Woodward seriously dropped the ball.

If you wish to call all of our top military retarded, that makes your thoughts not worth a damn. Not only Gates, but every top military man in Afghanistan, in the cabinet and the Chief of Staffs disagree with you. You might try doing some reading about the current situation in Afghanistan, and by those that really know, instead of running off at the mouth.

As I said, our military leaders say that we cannot actually bet the Taliban in Afghanistan, as they are now too deeply entrenched, and the locals know they'll be around when the US goes home, as we must at some point.

The best our combat tested military brass says, we can make them ineffective, but we can no longer beat them, nor win. Well, actually, they say that with somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 more men on the ground there, for several years, we could win. They also say that is impossible.

08-29-2012, 11:31 PM	#6
Pypeassesty Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 382 Senior Member	That's retarded. If we could have "won" in '03 we can still win today. It's not like al Q and the Taliban have improved strategically, tactically, and technologically soooooooo much in the last few years that their defeat is now impossible. Recent operations have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that if we want to take the Taliban's foothold we can do so pretty much at will. The only determining factor is whether or not President Obama and his sucessor will leave troops in Astan long enough to follow through on the nation building bullshit. Much like Vietnam, and defeat the United States sufferes will be a result of politics (both Bush's and Obama's). As far as I'm concerned though, we won the war in Afghanistan in about three weeks. Everything that's come after have been operations other than war (except perhaps for what's been going on the past few months) with an eye toward building up that shithole. Nation building is not war. I like Woodward generally, and I haven't read this book, so maybe you're not adequately explaining what he's said. But if your comment is an acurate synopsis of the book then Woodward seriously dropped the ball. If you wish to call all of our top military retarded, that makes your thoughts not worth a damn. Not only Gates, but every top military man in Afghanistan, in the cabinet and the Chief of Staffs disagree with you. You might try doing some reading about the current situation in Afghanistan, and by those that really know, instead of running off at the mouth. As I said, our military leaders say that we cannot actually bet the Taliban in Afghanistan, as they are now too deeply entrenched, and the locals know they'll be around when the US goes home, as we must at some point. The best our combat tested military brass says, we can make them ineffective, but we can no longer beat them, nor win. Well, actually, they say that with somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 more men on the ground there, for several years, we could win. They also say that is impossible.
	Quote