GOP pushes Romney to break from Obama's Afghan strategy
Source: The Hill
Republican defense hawks are urging Mitt Romney to separate himself from President Obama on Afghanistan and back an extended presence for U.S. troops in the country.
The advice comes as the White House hits the halfway point in its timeline to withdraw all U.S. troops and after Romney faced criticism for not mentioning the Afghan conflict in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Hill on Wednesday the Romney camp needed to distance itself from the Obama administration's goal of pulling all American forces from Afghanistan by 2014. They should, instead, pursue a war plan focused on "what we leave behind" in the country, not just ending the war as soon as possible, according to Graham.
"It's about getting it right," the South Carolina Republican said. Getting it right, he added, almost certainly means keeping U.S. forces in country past the administration's deadline.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/251113-gop-pushing-romney-to-break-from-white-houses-afghan-strategy-
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)letting the Afghanis turn OBL over for trial like they offered and never beginning these illegal immoral occupations.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Afghanistan was absolutely a moral war, under definitions from Thomas Aquinas and international law. The Tali-ban was providing not only shelter and training grounds/material support to Al qua-da. So scratch illegal and immoral. As for being an occupation, the replacement government, chosen by voters, desires our presence. Like any civil war, the rule of thirds apply. 1/3 for, 1/3 and 1/3 don't give a damn. This rule applied to our Revolutionary war as well.
Our failure was to have an end game. Personally, it should have been earlier had we gone in with the idea to change governments and encourage a democracy (or reasonable equivalent thereof), whether we got Bin Ladin or not.
Now I would agree if you used those adjectives to Iraq. Just not to Afghanistan. That would be oversimplifying.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)other reason. As for the shelter and training, how come they can't seem to shelter and train their own troops?
BTW if we had provided them with the aid we promised after they kicked the USSR's ass we would not have the issues we do today. On that line wasn't OBL our CIA stooge? Didn't we funnel millions to set up and train the resistance when it fit our purposes? Wasn't Al gua-ad the data base of offers OBL got to aid in the defense of their land against Russian imperial aggression? Inquiring minds want to know.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)But I guess I'm not following them. First sentence about shelter and training. Are you familiar with Afghan history. How tribal their outlook. When the Russian first came in, there were more than a few martini-martins left over from the British in use. Didn't have much of an air force. And air mobility does have a lot to do with counter insurgency warfare. I mean the Afghans are the masters of insurgency/guerrilla warfare. Stopping such a war does require training and equipping.
You're right, once the Russians pulled out with their tails between their legs, we quit supporting the Afghans. Then again, the cold war was over and we ain't gonna study war no more, again. What did we do, circle the wagons and cut foreign aid, again.
What pipeline?
And I just do not understand what your inquiring mind is talking about? Yes, we supplied OBL and compatriots with weapons and training as guerrillas. On the other hand, the enemy of mine enemy is my friend. What we failed to do with OBL was keep him our friend.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)[link:http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6901310|
We did keep OBL as our friend. Research PNAC. I wonder what their "pearl Harbor like event" was?
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Something like international Jewry, the Bilderburg group, nwo and such like.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)let him put his feet where his mouth is
skeewee08
(1,983 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I'll be damned if we're gonna stay there.
The British...The Russians...
We need to get out.
Grins
(7,227 posts)You can't "win" because there is nothing to "win" These Bush wars violate every one of Clausewitz's principles for war.
There is a way this could be framed, though.
We'll immediately suspend troop withdrawals as soon as you pass into law the tax increase to pay for it.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)The war in Afghanistan might be even more unpopular than Mitt Romney. If his electoral strategy is to advocate prolonging that war, he'd have to be really desperate.
PossumSqueezins
(184 posts)Doesn't matter what it is as long as it is opposite of Obama.
If Obama said that oxygen is good, you need to say it is bad!
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)"Why don't you bring the troops home tomorrow morning?"
The GOP delegates shouted approval.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)Boost it right on down the toilet......
#Toilet%20Bowl%20is%20with%20Mitt
Johnyawl
(3,205 posts)...the republicans know they're losing, and they've finally figured out that the economy is not a good issue for them. Medicare isn't working for them, and the American people don't want more tax breaks for the rich, and they've got all the racists. They're fucked, they're desperately casting about for an issue, ANY issue, to gain some traction.
I hope they go with this one. Or maybe war with Iran. Mitt will be lucky to carry the deep south, Utah and Idaho.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Who would have guessed.