Why do you continue to believe that I somehow think the war in Iraq was somehow either justified or well-executed? The fact there was no “insurgency” at the beginning is irrelevant. There sure is one now.

With regard to “limited success” — that’s pretty clear. In the areas where the U.S did try counter-insurgency, it did have some benefits.

With regard to Taliban/Al Quaeda: It seems pretty clear to me. But I’m not your clerk and I’m not going to spend my time digging up stuff on that, nor am I likely to go dig up stuff about “the sun rises in the east.”

And do you have anything regarding the Taliban supporting Al Qaeda or don’t you. I guess yopu don’t.

No more world policeman. The conditions of women, democracy, and “free markets” are just propaganda concerns to cover for the real purpose of war which is ALWAYS land/resource grabs.

Skeeter, where’s your evidence that the Taliban supported Al Qaeda’s acts on 9/11?”

Do you really believe that it open to debate?

I’m in agreement with most of that.

The beauty of an actual counter-insurgency program is that, when properly, it should serve to counter some of those suicide bombers, etc. It had some limited success in Iraq, but the Bush team never really committed to it.

The fact that the Iraq strategy failed is more of an indictment of Bush/Rumsfeld et al. than it is an indictment of counter-insurgency as a means of providing stability.

Of course, it helps to have people speaking the language, and the Bush team seemed to do everything possible to get rid of anyone speaking the language but that’s another matter.

“BUUZZZZZ!!!”

That is the sound of you losing the argument. They call it a False Premise. Following your logic, if we are to deploy troops anywhere in the world, whoever is President has to be the first to go. Nice try, though.

A very disappointing day at TP. We have two threads about how Bush and the media hate each other and one about a freaking TV show, and they garner more attention than what to do in Afghanistan. Very telling. Thank the Gods Obama is going to ignore the far left on this one.

Have a nice day, I’ll check in later.

Why in the world would you assume that?

You left out “and who strongly supported people who caused about 5000 American deaths on 9/11/01 and who have vowed to continue to kill innocent Americans.”

That’s a pretty important detail to leave out.

Nice solution. “We should let the enemy win because we can’t afford the fight.” Some battles are worth fighting, Shayne.

You really need to do some reading on counter-insurgency.

The goal of terrorists is to provide instability.

The goal of counter-insurgency is to provide stability. When put in practice, it effectively counters terrorism. When the people can walk the streets and send their kids to school without fear of Taliban attacks, they are far more likely to cooperate to root out the terrorits. Stability is good and military force can provide it.

Regarding your terrain comment: Denver is in the mountains. Should the US just write off Denver and claim that it is ungovernable?
Seriously, there seems to be an unrelying racism here. “Afghanistanis are ungovernable” had a really offensive sound to my ears.

Or maybe China? Not exactly a bastion of human rights there, gear up the forces. Israel, no, they are fighting the godless Arabs.

Boys, if we try to justify fighting everyone who doesn’t agree with us we have one hellacious list. The world doesn’t live by our rules.