"We Can't Win—and Don't Have To—in Afghanistan" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article Ammunition Hill was the most fortified Jordanian position that the Israelis faced in 1967.
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
| Tango01 | 09 Oct 2018 8:59 p.m. PST |
"This month marks the anniversary of America's longest war: 17 years in Afghanistan. On this anniversary we must ask, why are we still engaged in what amounts to a forever war? Even before he was a candidate for president, celebrity citizen Donald Trump tweeted in 2013: "We should leave Afghanistan immediately" and "Let's get out of Afghanistan." But he's done a complete reversal as president.
In August 2017, President Trump acknowledged that his "original instinct was to pull out" but that "our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives." Indeed, the president declared, "We will fight to win," but what President Trump needs to understand is that we can't win and, more importantly, we don't have to win…."
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| USAFpilot | 09 Oct 2018 9:56 p.m. PST |
One thing is for certain, that no matter what the President decides to do, he will be heavily criticized. If there was an easy solution to Afghanistan, it would have been done by now. |
Puster  | 10 Oct 2018 3:13 a.m. PST |
The ability to criticise your head of state and government without the danger of loosing your job, health, life or family is what differs a free country from those who are not. |
| FatherOfAllLogic | 10 Oct 2018 6:19 a.m. PST |
The same logic (and rhetoric) used by WW1 governments. |
| ancientsgamer | 10 Oct 2018 7:46 a.m. PST |
Education and change in economic base must happen there for any positive results. We don't want to be there but they need some stability other than a fascist theocracy they had in place there. |
| USAFpilot | 10 Oct 2018 12:11 p.m. PST |
The ability to criticise your head of state and government without the danger of loosing your job, health, life or family is what differs a free country from those who are not. Thank you Mr. Obvious. I always liked that TR quote about critics. And then there is "those who can't do, teach; and those who can't even teach, become critics." |
| VVV reply | 10 Oct 2018 3:06 p.m. PST |
OK let me try to talk you though this. One day the USA will get out of Afghanistan, that is a certainty.
So the only question is what more will be achieved by staying in and how to do it.
So like any business (or military) plan you set the objective, resources and time-table. If things are not going to plan, you ask why and what can be done about it.
My view is that the USA should have tried the sepoy system in Afghanistan. As we Brits used in India and Africa. Its cheaper than using your own troops and they are locals so they are used to local conditions and know local customs. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 10 Oct 2018 5:38 p.m. PST |
A residual American military presence will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely to ensure that AQ, ISIS and the Taliban do not grow too powerful. "Playing not to lose" in a world police role is a perfectly valid strategy in our post-Cold War reality where wars between great powers are highly unlikely due to the destructiveness and costs involved. |
|
