Steele is right on Obama and Afghanistan

**kmiller1610** · 2nd July 2010 04:31 PM

Steele right Republican's wrong

I have been saying this for months, so I agree with Steele and disagree with TPTB. There is no tradition, no center, no culture to build on in Afghanistan. You cannot nation build there. We are wasting lives and treasure. The best thing to do is to maintain a force nearby and interdict when we have intelligence about AQ's forces.

**Rare Patriot** · 2nd July 2010 04:47 PM

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='02 July 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1278109887' post='163172']

Steele right Republican's wrong

I have been saying this for months, so I agree with Steele and disagree with TPTB. There is no tradition, no center, no culture to build on in Afghanistan. You cannot nation build there. We are wasting lives and treasure. The best thing to do is to maintain a force nearby and interdict when we have intelligence about AQ's forces.

[/quote]

I agree with Steele too...You cannot change those people's minds...They have had numerous countries try and fail...It's not that our soldiers aren't doing all they can, but all they can do is a waste of lives and money...

It looks bad on the U.S. when we claim to have all this military might, but can't win in these third world countries.I'd rather take my chances fighting them here.

**anonnymous** · 2nd July 2010 06:33 PM

If we fail to dominate them then how are we going to exploit their resources and provide a first line of defense against China? As well as finishing encircling Russia and providing a back door to Iran?

2nd July 2010 09:22 PM

I do not credit Mr. Steele with an overabundance of intelligence. Afghanistan is a money pit. The people there are living a thousand years behind the times. If we stay, we will have to make the hard choices as far as population control and resign ourselves to the fact that it is an open-ended commitment. That is a high price to pay for a site of limited strategic significance when it could be easily dispatched otherwise.

**Chief** · 2nd July 2010 09:33 PM

This reminds me of how so many people were insisting that we couldn't win in Iraq. It's true that the people are not "as" united as Iraq is. There are a few things holding back the US... attempting to inflict as few civilian casualties as possible, which is a neat trick given how well the militants blend in with the rest of the citizens... the unclear status of most of the citizens themselves... and as always, the political manuvering and infighting within the US.

But regardless of this stuff... The United States has such overwhleming firepower and resources that the only thing that will cause us to lose is if our citizens and politicians decide to pull out early. Just look at the numbers. If the current trends continue, and if it turns out that every last man, woman, and child are militants, at the rate they are killing each other and the rate we are killing them, we'll win by attrition before they get the American forces out.

I think what we are lacking is a clear enough goal. All we really should have to do is find out who wants to control the whole thing, make whatever binding alliance, agreements, etc... we need, and then build them up enough so that they can conquer the rest of the country on their own. We leave, we win, they win, and the other Mid East countries can go back to hating us for more legit reasons, like rock music.

**kmiller1610** · 3rd July 2010 03:27 AM

Good points Gabe,

So you think we should stay primarily because we don't want to "lose?"

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think the original W policy was right. We are fighting terrorists of "international reach" and those who harbor them. That's the right focus. We have friends in the region that will let us have more or less permanent bases. Can we not interdict against terrorists of "international reach" from those bases? Does the Taliban qualify as that kind of enemy?

I think Afghanistan doesn't qualify as a terror nation or as a nation that harbors terrorists. Are there some terrorists there. Yes. The same can be said about many nations around the globe. Is the Taliban a threat to Iraq? I don't think so. Will they invade Kuwait? No again.

So it appears to me we have gone nation building crazy. And we can't afford it.

**Devil505** · 3rd July 2010 05:08 AM

[quote name='gabebrooks' date='02 July 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1278127998' post='163196']

This reminds me of how so many people were insisting that we couldn't win in Iraq.

[/quote]

We couldn't WIN in Iraq & we didn't. Violence is already rising there again & it will turn into a full scale civil war when we leave...until a new strong-man takes over.

Afghanistan may or may not have been a good idea at first....but we should have declared victory as soon as we pushed Al Quieda & the Taliban out. No one can "Nation Build" that godforsaken country & that's what we're trying to do.

**anonnymous** · 3rd July 2010 05:18 AM

Yawl just don't get it. We are their for strategic reasons, both economic and militarily. Take a look at the map.

**kmiller1610** · 3rd July 2010 05:25 AM

[quote name='Devil505' date='03 July 2010 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1278155316' post='163214']

We couldn't WIN in Iraq & we didn't. Violence is already rising there again & it will turn into a full scale civil war when we leave.[/quote]

What particular bit of information is this based on?

**kmiller1610** · 3rd July 2010 05:25 AM

[quote name='anonnymous' date='03 July 2010 - 07:18 AM' timestamp='1278155917' post='163215']

Yawl just don't get it. We are their for strategic reasons, both economic and militarily. Take a look at the map.[/quote]

We don't need a presence in both countries.