Define "win" in the context of an undeclared war half a world away

[cherokeeprogressive]

Half a world... shit; Afghanistan might as well be the moon for all our young people on the ground there know about its culture and way of life.

Define, in 50 words or less (actually I don't care how many words you use, just take a stab at it), what "winning the war in Afghanistan" means. Are we there to fight the Taliban? Are there enough bullets in the world to kill every member of the Taliban, present or future? I don't think so. If Afghanistan wants to be led by the Taliban, who are we to disagree?

Men and women in Nevada, pushing buttons that cause drones in Afghanistan to shoot missiles at people they think are enemy combatants. Men and women in Afghanistan shooting at people they'll never understand because they think those people are enemy combatants. American Men and women in Afghanistan dying because people they didn't think were enemy combatants planted roadside bombs while they were looking the other way. Don't get this veteran wrong; he supports men and women in uniform and will do so until he draws his very last breath. Fuck me running though... Is there anyone here at DU who will step up and say "win" in Afghanistan means X has to happen, causing Y to stop, thereby beginning a period of Z?

When did "democratic" ideology change so as to support an occupation in a country half a world away, where our kids were killing innocent civilians and being killed by people who look like civilians just because a political candidate said he'd "focus" on the war in Afghanistan during his election campaign? Am I missing something here? Was there a memo I didn't get? A memo that read "pssst... OUR guy is getting elected, so go with whatever he decides because he's the only one who understands 16 dimensional chess and will tell us when we've won"?

Come on DU'ers... tell me in your own words what "winning in Afghanistan" means. Don't take the easy way out and tell me that President Obama will know when it happens, like someone who said "I don't know how pornography is defined, but I know it when I see it".

What does "winning the war in Afghanistan" mean? How will we know when it happens? What will happen when we DO win, if that's at all possible (which I don't believe IS possible)?

[noamnety]

1. Winning =

getting control of their natural resources. Doesn't necessarily mean the war against them will end. There's a difference between achieving the real goal and winning or losing military battles on the ground.

[Jennicut]

2. Winning means getting the hell out of there. And paying off whomever we need to pay

off to make it happen. There is no winning to be had there. Even my Republican Mother admitted it to me today. We all know it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Getting the hell out is what I'm all about. There is no WIN possible here.

That should be evident in that no DU'er has yet to step up and define the concept of winning in Afghanistan. And I'm disappointed, because here I find myself in the midst of some of the smartest people I've ever had the good fortune to communicate with, albeit only in words on a computer screen. DU'ers are fucking SCHMART, and by that I mean intelligent to the Nth degree.

Yet, no one is willing to take the challenge and define what the winning strategy might be.

Me? I'd put every scrap of food that fits in the traditional Afghani diet on C-5's and C-17's, and fly that food over Afghanistan, dropping it under parachutes in a grid pattern. Then, while the Afghanis were collecting it, I'd have my troops quietly permanently disable any offensive weapons I had to leave behind, and get the troops the fuck out of the country while the Afghanis were distracted. After that, I'd push congress to authorize big monies to the UN in order to bring Afghanistan out of the 18th century and into the present. There wouldn't be one American rifle with one American bullet in the whole country though.

[Clio the Leo]

12. You might want to try this at Freeperville....

... as Democrats/liberals/progressives (at least those NOT running for public office) dont generally care about "winning" any war.

However, I usually dont follow threads after they get into a great deal of debate/back and forth so if some are saying that here, please forgive.

I certainly know *I* haven't said it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. I don't read "freeperville", nor do I post there.

If President Obama didn't care about "winning" the war in Afghanistan, the troops would be on their way home tomorrow, non?

[Clio the Leo]

17. nope.....

..... he's smart enough to know that no one really wins in war.

But he has a job to protect the security of the citizens of this country (and to a lesser extent, the world. The US helped invent nuclear weapons, we owe an obligation to the rest of the world to make sure that they're not used again.) .... Apparently, he's of the belief that, in order to do so, al qaeda cannot use AfPakistan (as I like to call it) as base to launch operations or to to gain control of Pakistan's nuclear facilities. It's the lesser of two evils.

I certainly dont think the answer is as tidy as we like to make it out to be. "Bring the troops home and then everything will be fine" if you'll allow me to oversimplify the argument that those opposed to the war seem to make. Even if we can keep AQ out of Times Square, how do we keep them away from Kamra and Sargodha?

I certainly dont envy his position.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Yeah, I don't envy his position either. I'm flabbergasted though, to understand that no one really

wins in war. Dang. How could I have not known that?

It's not a tidy answer. It hasn't been tidy since day one, way back when the idiot son started this mess.

"Even if we can keep AQ out of Times Square, how do we keep them away from Kamra and Sargodha?" Wow. Talk about putting the cart before the horse...

First off, we CAN'T keep AQ out of Times Square. No way, no how. That said, what harm comes to Americans if AQ infiltrates Kamra and Sargodha, and why should it be a concern of ours in any instance? I thought the freaking TALIBAN was our objective in AfghaniPakistan?

No way in hell would I allow my gay daughter, who can't serve in the military ANYWAY, to enlist in order to keep AQ from infiltrating Kamra OR Sargodha.

ESPECIALLY IF MY PRESIDENT SAID WE COULD WIN BEFORE HE DIDN'T SAY IT.

[Clio the Leo]

21. you want us to put it on blast that we're effectively trying to maintain control ....

... of nuclear facilities in the mid east? Oh yeah ... that PR stunt would go over REAL well with North Korea and Iran.

And in all seriousness, I'm not in favor of nation building or fostering democracy or what ever the Bush crew liked to call it ... but you dont at least think that since we unleashed the nuclear genie from the bottle we aren't obligated to help make sure it stays in there? Obviously the odds of aq launching a warhead aren't high, but dirty bombs are no fun either. .... I guess that's another area where we'll have to agree to disagree. I just cant see us being armed up the ying yang and then tell the rest of the world to go screw off. "hey! it's not in my backyard! what do I care?" Esp. when we turned a blind eye and allowed Pakistan to build those sites because it protected our interests during the Cold War.

And I dont blame you .... if my child tried to join the military, I'd lock them in the basement.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. You slay me Clio, I swear. As IF it's not on blast that we're trying to put the Nuke Genie back in

the bottle.

No, we are NOT obligated to put that genie back in the bottle. If you remember correctly, there were other nations working on unleashing the Genie.

Love ya Doll... and I hate to disagree with you. I'm sure it doesn't win me any points.

It's time to bring Americans home from where they're not welcome, and let world history take its course. We gain nothing by killing innocents in their own country because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or wore the wrong robe. In fact, it's a situation where we take one step forward, and three steps back.

Hypothetically, what would you say to China if you were in control, and the Chinese government told you that their entire country was about to go oil crazy as they became a world power?

[Clio the Leo]

25. now I would never slay a pacifist such as yourself ....

.... seems unnecessarily cruel.

'night

[Clio the Leo]

3. Who are you quoting? Who said "win the war in Afghanistan"? nt

[noamnety]

4. for one:

“I hope that we will be able to sort this out soon and move forward so we can get back to winning the war in Afghanistan.” --House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat.

[Clio the Leo]

8. with few exceptions, the US House of Representatives is filled with loons.....

.... from both parties.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. I did. Last I understood, a Commander in Chief wouldn't increase the troop presence in a war

he didn't want to win.

You know all things Obama; did he ever say "we must win the war in Afghanistan" or anything to that effect? As a Senator, candidate, or as President? I know a few things Obama as well... so don't fudge with your answer.

[Clio the Leo]

6. lol, that's what I'm asking YOU .....

.... when did he say that? (i'm not saying he didn't ... it's a legitimate question) I'm trying to understand what you're hinting at.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Start here, and I'll find more.

I'm not hinting at anything. In fact, I thought I was using a hammer to make a point that should be understandable using a feather: We cannot "win" a war in Afghanistan, and should be formulating plans to get the hell out, starting yesterday.

Every single American life lost in Afghanistan is a wasted life. Every single innocent Afghani life lost is a tragedy that should never have happened.

My position isn't so hard to understand: Get the fuck out of Afghanistan NOW. Show the leadership necessary to make the world know that bush the dickhead fucked up and got us into a conflict that can never be won, and that we're abandoning the military occupation of Afghanistan.

As a Proud American Citizen, I wouldn't be ashamed to admit that we fucked up, and would defend President Obama from the rooftops for his decision to bring American troops home from Afghanistan post haste.

Edited to add forgotten link:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

[Clio the Leo]

11. ok, you're referring to something he said three years ago...

.... you had me confused. There have been several posts (not just you) in the last 48 hours referring to "winning" the war and I can't figure out where that's coming from when no one ... outside of the wingnuts .... is using that phraseology.

And dont forget about the Pakistani lives.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. I politely direct you to the fourth paragraph of my OP.

You can read it for yourself.

What he said is what he said. He's said it since, I just haven't taken the time to find it. I will. I promise. And when I DO find it, I'll gladly post it in a new OP especially for you, so don't feel like you've been called out when I address that post to my friend Clio.

[Clio the Leo]

15. and you do realize that, out of meanness, I know when it was and am not telling you..

;)

That being said, MY point is that even if he said it a THOUSAND times in 2007 ... and a HUNDRED times in the first half of 2009 ... he has gone WAY out of his way to NOT say it since December of '09. So IF you're claiming that "winning the war" is a notion he currently maintains, I'm afraid that doesn't jive with the facts ... at least as I see them.

But he could have said it today for all I know ... personally, I'm trying to recover from "the headquarter of Twitters" ... EGADS!

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. He said it before he didn't say it. Is that what you're saying?

Man oh man. I guess I come from a different time... one when a man's word was his bond.

I'll say this: If he keeps Americans in harms way while thinking in his heart that they're fighting a war that can't be won, he's not a good leader. And that's the understatement of the fucking century.

I like you Clio, you post lots of nice pictures of the Obama family, and I know that's important to lots of people here. But I think you're more than a little misguided if you'd make the argument you made in your last post. I've read it fast, and I've read it slow... I've laughed every time.

YES! we have no bananas... we have no bananas today...

[Clio the Leo]

18. the whole notion of "a war that cant be won"....

... it just odd though. You may be from a different time, but I'm from a different gender. I dont care about pissing matches. I dont care about who scores the most points. I dont care about who plants his flag into what hill.

I wont say that ALL women but I'd say a LOT of women dont care about winning or losing a war. We care about whether our kids are safe at night. Now, for some, it's more important to keep our kids safe in Anywherevill, OH ... some it's more important to keep our kids in uniform safe, and both notions have merit. We have to decide as a people which is more important at any given time.

And rarely do I post photos of the Obama family. ;)

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. This post would lead me to believe that you 'd be calling for the troops to come home NOW, as I am.

But you don't. You defend their presence in Afghanistan, albeit in a roundabout way.

No person stationed in Bumfuck, Iraq, or Nowhere, Afghanistan is involved in keeping kids safe in Anywhereville, Ohio. That shouldn't be too hard to understand. If Soldiers can be killed on an Army base in Texas, by a soldier they thought of as one of their own but who secretly held hatred in his heart for the American presence in the middle east, then people can be killed in any 7-11, Circle-K, AM-PM, Howard Johnson's, or any other place in the United States by anyone who hates Americans for occupying their homeland.

It's not a pissing match. It's a losing battle. President Barack Obama is perpetuating that losing battle by keeping Americans in the middle east with rifles in their hands, whether he said it then or said it now, or didn't say it, or thought it but hoped it would be picked up by his aides telepathically. Whether he said it in April, November, or September, and disavowed saying it in May, December, or October is totally irrelevant. He's perpetuating the whole pissing match. He is, after all, "in charge".

I'm sorry for saying that you post pictures of the Obama family. How silly of me.

[Clio the Leo]

23. so then what's the point of the military?

shall we withdraw all the troops in Europe and Asia and bring them home to lay boom? what's the point of civil authority if we cant guarantee that violence NEVER occurs?

And here's one of my infamous "Obama family" threads I think you missed ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=31344

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Wow you hit that nail right on the head. Bring the troops home from Europe and Asia TODAY.

You do realize that the bases our troops occupy overseas cost the American government money, right? Billions of dollars in lease agreements?

Bring ALL the troops who are "forward based" home and yes, have them "lay boom". Have them fight fires. Have them build new infrastructure. Have them link cities with ultralight rail. Base them close to our borders.

Clio, my love, no one can ever guarantee that violence will not occur.

I hate arguing with you. I love your posts and consider myself lucky to be part of a bunch of people that includes people like you.

Can we just agree to disagree? Because I don't see this coming to any resolution where you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa. I like you that much.

[Amonester]

7. The expression "winning the war in Afghanistan" is repeated to the "small people"

who still believe in the illusion that the US is a democratic country governed by and for the "small people" (the current Rulers' demeaning words between themselves at millionaire cocktails).

The US is not a democratic country ANYMORE since it has become an empire run by private companies, "in partnership" with the governments they have purchased.

These private companies have NO intention to abandon their current and future imperial domination of that entire region's resources EVER.

The only way to change that would be to FORCE the politicians of whichever party to take back the US for the people by launching a nation-wide hunger strike of at least 95% of the population for at least one month or two.

Ain't gonna happen (soon).

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. Not ONE definition of what "win" means in the context of killing Afganis...

Is that strange, or what? In this place of Obama defenders, Obama detractors, Obama lovers, Obama haters, and Obama tolerators... No one will or can step up and say THIS IS WHAT OBAMA's strategy is attempting to or will accomplish...

Wow, that leads me to believe that we as a group are more than willing to be led by the nose...

Not sure I like that.

[golfguru]

27. Relax, troops are NOT coming home anytime soon from Afghan

Appointment of general Petraeus confirms that. Obama is making
the right moves, which is reduce troop levels in Iraq where
stability has been achieved albeit with 90,000 American troops
still in the theater, and execute a surge of sorts in AfPak.

As to what constitutes a win in Afghanistan.....
It will be a win for US if Afghanistan does not go back under
Taliban control. To achieve that goal Petraeus will use the same
formula he used in Iraq. I hope nobody has forgotten that it was
Taliban rulers in Afghanistan who made 911 possible for AQ.

AQ is being systematically dismantled by various
means including drone attacks and is no longer able to mount serious
attacks like 911.

[LatteLibertine]

28. Successful war profiteering

[DCBob]

29. Reduce the ability of the Taliban to make violence to the point they are a minimal threat..

to us and to the Afgan people and government. Of course that is judgment call and I am not sure who makes that call but I think that's the goal.