Who Gives a Rat’s…

from JoeUser Forums

Another pock on US leadership is the escapist mess in Afghanistan. Though we and major allies—European, Australian and Canadian—make up the bulk of NATO there, the forces are underfunded as a the stepchild of the Iraqi skirmish and unable to contain the resurgence. To make the matter worse, the remainder of NATO refuses to consider itself a combat force but rather there to do nation building. Moreover, the battle of the poppy fields are doing as poorly, not a surprise, as our own domestic war on drugs. Telling Afghans to stop growing opium is like telling Iowans to stop growing corn.

The way to counter this is to track down the proceeds of the opium going to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yet that, too, is easier said than done; for to search and destroy the criminal element consisting of farm lords rampant in Afghanistan in order to redirect the drug money to nation-building is tantamount to our own weakness in preventing crime here.

Then again, who really cares about this forgotten war?—just another badge of Washington shame.

politics
5,988 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is ironic.  Even where we "have a coalition" (said with dripping sarcasm), we are still blamed when the money is not there. 
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is ironic. Even where we "have a coalition" (said with dripping sarcasm), we are still blamed when the money is not there.


I'd rather blame Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and other heavyweights NATO member who doesn't seem to want to provide their share in this struggle.

On the other hand, any assistance to the USA in Afghanistan is seemed as support to the general USA war effort, which means an indirect support to the Iraqi War, which is simply too unpopular with those population (with good reasons). Even here in Canada, some pacifist want us to get out our troop because they say it's simply to help the USA in Iraq. (which, in a way, is true.. but that's a story for another thread)
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's simply to help the USA in Iraq. (which, in a way, is true.. but that's a story for another thread)


Interesting insight, and I dont doubt you. That must be why none of them are doing a damn thing for Darfur or did anything for Rwanda too!

Yep! Lets kill a few million people to spite that big bad old US!

But it makes me wonder why they did anything back in WWII, as I am sure that helped the US war effort as well.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
That must be why none of them are doing a damn thing for Darfur or did anything for Rwanda too!


Don't be silly, these countries are simply touchy to military take action if U.N. doesn't order it.

And since Sudan is buddy with china...
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't be silly, these countries are simply touchy to military take action if U.N. doesn't order it.


Silly? Yea, to the UN Genocide is a silly thing. That disappears with the stroke of a pen. And all we 9Americans here in the colonies) here is "Why aren't you doing something".

Everybody thought that somebody was doing something, and anybody could. But nobody did.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
to the UN Genocide is a silly thing


What is silly is thinking countries don'T want to interfere in Darfur because it's somewhat what the americans want.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is silly is thinking countries don'T want to interfere in Darfur because it's somewhat what the americans want.


No, what is silly is that they are using the Americans as a lame excuse.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
America should start a matching program with the UN. Whatever resources the other nations put into a project, we'll match it, but we won't put in any extra. So, if they want something done, they have to put in enough to get half of it done, at least. And we'll only match the highest contributor.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
America should start a matching program with the UN.
Interesting suggestion, but most nations aren't interested in policing the world. 
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Interesting suggestion, but most nations aren't interested in policing the world.

Just in bitchin about it.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Name one time the Commander of Operations for Afghanistan has been denied assets because the Commander of Operations in Iraq said he needed them more.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Name one time the Commander of Operations for Afghanistan has been denied assets because the Commander of Operations in Iraq said he needed them more.
They now know better than to ask--supplies are limited, sorry.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting suggestion, but most nations aren't interested in policing the world.


That would solve both problems - we wouldn't police the world, and they couldn't utilize our troops for their stupidity.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stevendedalus:
They now know better than to ask--supplies are limited sorry.


The fact supplies are limited doesn't mean Generals don't put in their requests. btw, The Commander of Operations in Afghanistan doesn't have to justify any need for assets to the Commander of Operations in Iraq. He doesn't even have to check with their higher command. They are the same person. Admiral William J. Fallon is the commander of U.S. Central Command (which covers both Afghanistan and Iraq).

You see, to the incompetent press Iraq and Afghanistan are two different wars, but to CENTCOM and reality, they are two Areas of Operations of the Same War.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You see, to the incompetent press Iraq and Afghanistan are two different wars, but to CENTCOM and reality, they are two Areas of Operations of the Same War.
Tell that to the marines, though with an admiral in charge they might more easily get what they need.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, there are problems with supply at the company and battalian level, but that is a completely different issue. You are trying to say that the Afghanistan Area of Operations is being short changed in favor of Iraq. My point showed that that isn't true.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Adm. Fallon is still subject to the DOD priorities.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, but even the former CENTCOM Commanders, who have every freedom in the world have never said they were shortchanged for Afghanistan in favor of Iraq... Not even those how have been pretty critical of Bush.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
who have every freedom in the world have never said they were shortchanged
Every freedom except to say what they mean. It's not the same as a McArthur raising hell because Roosevelt favored the European theater over the Pacific--it's a whole new ballgame.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
That doesn't even make sense. There have been a lot of retired officers who have spoken out against the president once they retired.