HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Has our government define...

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:10 PM

Has our government defined what it means to "win" in Afghanistan?

Is it leaving them with a viable government? Conquest? Destruction? I know we wanted to punish the Taliban after 911 for aiding Al Quaida. What are we doing now?

17 replies, 2032 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Has our government defined what it means to "win" in Afghanistan? (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff Aug 2017 OP
ProudLib72 Aug 2017 #1
guillaumeb Aug 2017 #2
global1 Aug 2017 #3
doc03 Aug 2017 #4
Algernon Moncrieff Aug 2017 #6
Locut0s Aug 2017 #5
Algernon Moncrieff Aug 2017 #8
7wo7rees Aug 2017 #7
Algernon Moncrieff Aug 2017 #11
bigtree Aug 2017 #9
7wo7rees Aug 2017 #13
NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #10
Docreed2003 Aug 2017 #12
Hoyt Aug 2017 #14
Algernon Moncrieff Sep 2017 #16
NCjack Aug 2017 #15
Algernon Moncrieff Sep 2017 #17

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:12 PM

1. We are committed to providing tRump with a photo op

Him posing in front of a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:12 PM

2. Succeeding in removing the spotlight from Trump's many crimes and mistakes

is what is intended. So if the "war President" can remove that focus and improve his ratings that counts as a win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:17 PM

3. What Constitutes A Win?.....

Trump winning re-election in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:17 PM

4. No but it will be great, beleive me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:22 PM

6. We can celebrate with Trump steaks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:20 PM

5. A Starbucks on every corner. Nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locut0s (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:23 PM

8. I wanted taco trucks on every corner, dammit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:22 PM

7. Never. They have not a f'ing clue.

What again is the definition of insanity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7wo7rees (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:26 PM

11. Even 'Nam ostensibly had a goal

Preserving the Saigon government and preventing dominoes from toppling. It was a bad goal, but a goal nonetheless. I have no idea what the end game is supposed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:24 PM

9. I don't believe there was ever anything to 'win' in Afghanistan

...as President Obama once declared there was, and as Trump asserted yesterday.

There has been, however, much to lose in this repeated flailing of our military forces against the Afghan people; against the remnants and ghosts of al-Qaeda. We have already been shown, repeatedly, that our government-building efforts behind the force of our military in the Middle East has produced more individuals inclined or resigned to violent expressions of resistance than it's succeeded in establishing any of the 'democracy' or 'stability' promised.

For an economically crippled superpower pushing up against the admitted limitations of our military, that's enough for the U.S. to declare 'success' and 'progress,' and leave when the president says he will -- if not ahead of time. Instead, these successive presidencies have been content to tolerate the self-escalated sacrifices of our our soldiers as our troops eventually hunker down in Afghanistan, tolerating the tragically wounded and killed and waiting for some moment to declare 'victory' out of their desperate defense of their own lives against the Afghans that the presidents and the Pentagon claim we've been liberating.

read more:

Perpetuating the Afghanistan Folly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:33 PM

13. Forever "graveyard of empires" always has been, always will be.

Forever and forever......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:24 PM

10. He's continuing the war to avoid being called as loser.

It's all about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:26 PM

12. No...there is no definition of "win" in Afghanistan.

Any hope of a stabilized country in Afghanistan was killed when Massoud was assassinated in the days before 9/11. With him died the hope of a modernized Afghanistan, at least for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:33 PM

14. Avoid withdrawing on my watch, and admitting we can't win invading countries

where the people don't trust us. Unless something drastic happens, there is no reason to invade another country. It is possible we have to strike occasionally, but not often and it has to be done with a lot of support from other countries. No more george war bush Crusades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 4, 2017, 12:40 AM

16. Could not agree more.

In WWII, we were greeted as liberators because we were liberators, and we were fighting nations that had declared war on the US. Once we got to Germany and Japan, we had an equally clear and compelling goal - conquest and destruction of the existing regime by any means necessary.

Since WWII, we have gotten involved in several types of invasion/war:

- "Banana Republic" invasions to effect regime change (Haiti, Panama, Grenada, the DR) - usually low risk/low reward affairs

- Anti-communist intervention (Korea, 'Nam) - the best we did was a stalemate in Korea. Generally, an unworkable strategy.

- Middle East invasion. Kuwait worked because it was a war of liberating one state from an aggressor, and we had a broad coalition of support. not so with the Iraq invasion.We have no idea what we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan at this point, so we are accomplishing nothing. We are trying to support the Iraquis in their liberation of Islamic State -- with limited success.

- Intervention to prevent genocide. The invasion of the former Yugoslavia (with the support of NATO) to prevent the further slaughter of the Kosovar Muslims by the Serbs was largely successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Tue Aug 22, 2017, 06:49 PM

15. I think that Trump's definition of winning is:

1. He is able to limp along and lose no more ground in Afghanistan during his presidency, and
2. A future president is forced to withdraw and be tagged as the guy who "lost Afghanistan to the Taliban." (Triple crowing points will be claimed by Trump if the the "loser" is a DEM.) [TRUMP: "My plan was working, then the DEMs wrecked everything!"]

It is bad enough to die there, but to die with no plan to win is also like killing their families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCjack (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 4, 2017, 12:40 AM

17. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread