Democrat Jim Moran says US military cannot win the war in Afghanistan
 

HEADLINE: Democrat Jim Moran says US military cannot win the war in Afghanistan




OVERVIEW: Democrat congressman Jim Moran from Virginia declares that the US military is not capable of winning against some primitive Taliban terrorist hiding in their caves in Afghanistan!



LINK: Democrat Jim Moran says US military cannot win the war in Afghanistan - Vancouver American Politics | Examiner.com


What IS IT with these Democrats, right? No matter if there's a Repub or a Dem for president, a good number of them always PUBLICLY declare that the US military is losing! These Dems are such traitors. Totally inept to manage US national security issues, for sure.

Well, the question should be....what part are we losing? What goals or achievement do we have to reach to say we "won"? These are questions that should be asked of him because he obviously knows more than I do to make such a declaration.

I can help you with that: you look at WHY did US go into Afghanistan in the first place and then look at whether or not it achieved it.

The US went into Afghanistan:

1. To take control over Trans-Afghan pipeline (which should've given US a leverage over Asia);

2. To take control over Afghanistan natural resources (the USSR made a good progress in mapping them out and making plans as to their extraction);

3. To take control over Afghanistan to the extent necessary to turn it into a platsdarm for a future invasion of Iran.

1. 2. While US/UK/etc. are dying over there, China quietly made itself comfortable on the Pakistani end of the pipeline and together with Russia, as part of SCO, is working on Afghanistan's economic projects...

3. Is Afghan's central government strong enough and pro-US enough to consider the country a safe platsdarm for US agression against Iran?

So a bunch of conpiracy stuff, eh?

??? What "conspiracy"????

It's called "INTERESTS". For the purpose of getting masses on site, it sometimes called "state interests"; but we know that "state" means "power clans"...

So what you're saying is that 9/11 was planned and executed by the American government.

It is a reasonable question - can the Afghanistan issue be solved militarily? I can see an argument for "no."

It was pretty clear that we couldn't win the war in Afghanistan in 2001, before Bush launched the war, but it was a politically motivated war, based on popular polling, not a defensive war, and not a war in the best interests of the country, and not a war that our military is capable of winning.
That was true then, it's been true every single day since then, and it will be true tomorrow.

Yeah , and we went to Iraq to take their oil too........so tell me, where the hell is it?

Goob, sorry but I gave the last of the kool aid to Alma. Riddle me this.....how does America win a war when we provide the enemny our exit date? just sayin'.....http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

Better to ask how you expect a little league team to beat the Yankees.
It's the longest war in American history, and we haven't won, because we can't win, we don't have the forces capable of winning.
That was clear from before the first shot was fired.

We would have had to win to get their oil, but, we didn't win, we lost, get over it...

He's right and we should get out, but he's a lousy American congressman for saying publicly that it's a lost cause.

Gawd No!, we don't want truth from politicians.....
What we needed was more guys saying we couldn't win back when we got into this fiasco, and others.
But to admit that our military is completely unsuited to todays battlefields would be to lose essential pork from the district...

What does winning look like in Afghanistan? We have no idea. Our military is suited to the battlefield. Afghanistan is not a battlefield. Its the sound of one hand clapping.

We are sending soldiers to do a teacher's job.

9/11 might not've been executed by an American government (there is never any shortage of nutters ready for suicide missions), but it was planned cunningly in tune with the musings of Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski who outlined in detal American Geostrategic Imperatives in his book "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD. American Primacy and Its -. Geostrategic Imperatives."

Among other things, he wrote:

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being." (p.35)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)


Did 9/11 give you a sense of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat to your domestic well-being, and provided your power elites with much needed popular passion and consensus on foreign policy issue such as invasion of Afghanistan?

Well, you tell me, in whose interests was a murder of 3000 nobodies in order to gain Afghanistan (see my previous post: 1-3)?

No, you went into Iraq to take their WMD... so tell me, where the hell is it?

As for oil and reconstruction bonanza, ask Bush and C0.

There isn't a "war" in Afghanistan. There's never been a "war" in Afghanistan. (There's hardly an "Afghanistan" either - just a collection of tribes, ethnicities, languages, religions ...)

The people who pay attention knew perfectly well that Afghanistan is hardly a state. & they knew perfectly well that - after years of fighting off the Soviets & then fighting over the spoils - there was barely any government @ all there. W had to do something, & so we bombed & drove off the Taliban & then Al Queda.

But we never intended to "fix" Afghanistan. & W made no bones about it; the war was strictly to strike back @ Al Queda.

"Win" in Afghanistan. You might as well talk about "victory" from the point of view of the ball in a game of buzkashi - Afghan polo with a headless sheep carcass. No matter who "wins", the sheep is still dead, headless, & bleeding all over the field. Which is, come to think about it, a pretty fair description of our man in Kabul ...

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

You are kidding, right? Do you really believe GW did either?