senior congressman calls for withdrawl

[Tide and True]

Remember when Afghanistan was a 'quagmire' with no hope for a democratically elected government.....

ahh...the good ole days.

Not this again. Quease, can you name one prominent figure in the media -- besides Johnny Friggin' Apple -- who said that Afghanistan was "a quagmire with no hope for a democratically elected government"? The truth is, the number of people who ever believed this is ridiculously small. Yet you keep using it as a strawman.

 

[Queasy1]

Not this again. Quease, can you name one prominent figure in the media -- besides Johnny Friggin' Apple -- who said that Afghanistan was "a quagmire with no hope for a democratically elected government"? The truth is, the number of people who ever believed this is ridiculously small. Yet you keep using it as a strawman.

Who's Johnny Apple?

CNN Pentagon reporter Bob Franken: "Sir, as you know, for months, critics have worried about...the possibility that the United States is going to get into – you know the word – a quagmire, similar to Vietnam, where they’re never going to really wipe out the enemy, so to speak. They’re going to conduct guerrilla situations; they’re going to escape; they’re going to go to other countries, et cetera, et cetera. What makes this different?"
General Tommy Franks: "I respect the question, but in my view, what makes it different is – everything."
– Exchange at March 29 Pentagon briefing shown live on MSNBC.

link

On Nov. 4, 2001, Jacob Heilbrunn of the Los Angeles Times assessed our prospects in this way: "The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it."

Link

That was just from a quick google search. I imagine there is more but as most of the predictions of 'quagmire' (especially from the NYT) came during the end of 2001 alot of articles have been archived and require a little more digging to be found.

 

[Piglet]

So if we DON'T pull out, then what happens? How long are we going to keep our boys over there being sitting ducks for every wacko with a bomb?

That Coble guy isn't some mushy liberal. He's a Republican from Greensboro, and he's sick of watching our troops geting killed in a country halfway around the world that doesn't want us.

Personally, I'd like to get out and let those Iraqis use up their ammo killing each other instead of us. Then when they've blown up everything and all the wackos are dead, maybe we'll come back and ask them if they're ready for freedom yet.

 

[bamabake]

So if we DON'T pull out, then what happens? How long are we going to keep our boys over there being sitting ducks for every wacko with a bomb?

That Coble guy isn't some mushy liberal. He's a Republican from Greensboro, and he's sick of watching our troops geting killed in a country halfway around the world that doesn't want us.

Personally, I'd like to get out and let those Iraqis use up their ammo killing each other instead of us. Then when they've blown up everything and all the wackos are dead, maybe we'll come back and ask them if they're ready for freedom yet.

American credibility is at stake. America warned sadam, he had years, then months then day then hours. We acted like we said we would. We will saty like we sadi we would. We will prevail like we said we would. Maybe you became too comfortable under a liberal president that never said what he meant, did what he said he would do and in spite of the common ground between socialist he enjoyed with the old world allies, made us look like international jackasses.

But this is all old ground.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

American credibility is at stake. America warned sadam, he had years, then months then day then hours. We acted like we said we would. We will saty like we sadi we would. We will prevail like we said we would. Maybe you became too comfortable under a liberal president that never said what he meant, did what he said he would do and in spite of the common ground between socialist he enjoyed with the old world allies, made us look like international jackasses.

But this is all old ground.

Bake - It is old ground. No WMDs, no ties to Al-Qaeda...invading because he's a mean man isn't good policy.

 

[Bamaro]

What do you want to bet that Iraq will be a major campaing issue again in 08? If we arent out by the end of this year, which I doubt, we will still be there in 08.
Let them elect who they want and get out ASAP.

 

[bamabake]

Bake - It is old ground. No WMDs, no ties to Al-Qaeda...invading because he's a mean man isn't good policy.

My post has nothing to with who is president. Rather it is our credibilty. It is moot whether it was right or not to invade Iraq now. Our value in our credibility is not moot or static for that matter.

 

[bamabake]

What do you want to bet that Iraq will be a major campaing issue again in 08? If we arent out by the end of this year, which I doubt, we will still be there in 08.
Let them elect who they want and get out ASAP.

We may still be there 50 years from now. What is amazing is that your party still isnt using our presence in Japan, Korea and Germany as campaign issues still.

 

[Bamaro]

We may still be there 50 years from now. What is amazing is that your party still isnt using our presence in Japan, Korea and Germany as campaign issues still.

I dont have a party

 

[jthomas666]

My post has nothing to with who is president. Rather it is our credibilty. It is moot whether it was right or not to invade Iraq now. Our value in our credibility is not moot or static for that matter.

1. I'm not entirely sure how much credibility we have left with the world.
2. I am even less sure that the president cares how much credibility we have left with the world.

That said, I agree with you that we're in Iraq 'til the bitter end. But that is out of moral obligation, rather than credibility.

A secondary consideration is that if we leave on anything less than our own terms, then it is a victory for the terrorists, and that is the last thing the world needs. (that might be the credibility you are speaking of)

(As an aside, Richard Clarke contends that when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Afghan rebels--led in part by bin Laden--concluded that they had driven out the invaders, when in reality the Soviets withdrew because theur economy had tanked to the point where they could no longer afford to occupy Afghanistan. The lesson to the Afghans was that insurgents could win against a superpower.)

 

[NYBamaFan]

1. I'm not entirely sure how much credibility we have left with the world.
2. I am even less sure that the president cares how much credibility we have left with the world.

I know that I don't care how much credibility we have left with the rest of the world. If they cannot see the good things that we have done and are continuing to do all over the world - well ____ 'em. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We do not take an opinion poll, then decide what we should do - and I hope that we never do...

 

[bamabake]

1. I'm not entirely sure how much credibility we have left with the world.
2. I am even less sure that the president cares how much credibility we have left with the world.

That said, I agree with you that we're in Iraq 'til the bitter end. But that is out of moral obligation, rather than credibility.

A secondary consideration is that if we leave on anything less than our own terms, then it is a victory for the terrorists, and that is the last thing the world needs. (that might be the credibility you are speaking of)

(As an aside, Richard Clarke contends that when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Afghan rebels--led in part by bin Laden--concluded that they had driven out the invaders, when in reality the Soviets withdrew because theur economy had tanked to the point where they could no longer afford to occupy Afghanistan. The lesson to the Afghans was that insurgents could win against a superpower.)

I think that our cedibility is and will be defined by our actions. Like it or not when we threatened to go to war if certain things didnt happen, and they didnt we had to. Now we have to finish.
Your other thoughts could not be more accurate in my humble opinion. I also have to add that I respect the we in your camments about the war. I know you didnt agree that we should have gone to war but in true American fashion
have focused on what WE need to do from here. There are others here that could learn more about being the statesman you are.

 

[CrimsonNan]

I know that I don't care how much credibility we have left with the rest of the world. If they cannot see the good things that we have done and are continuing to do all over the world - well ____ 'em. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We do not take an opinion poll, then decide what we should do - and I hope that we never do...

Thank you, thank you, thank you...my feelings exactly

 

[bamabake]

Thank you, thank you, thank you...my feelings exactly

Well I centainly feel this way too. Especially when it comes to the UN or when there are not things that are not in our best interest like Kyoto. However I have been thinking alot about this. In my family I try to provide leadership. Sometimes I jut lead, but to have them follow I often need to explain the why. Just as importantly I try and walk the walk, so I can talk the talk. Now, compared to other countries America does a good job, that isnt my point. I do think that it is important that we try and have other countries follow our leadership, and lead without them when we need too. What our allies think is crucial I think. It shouldnt affect what we do that is in our own interest however.

 

[jthomas666]

I know that I don't care how much credibility we have left with the rest of the world. If they cannot see the good things that we have done and are continuing to do all over the world - well ____ 'em. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We do not take an opinion poll, then decide what we should do - and I hope that we never do...

While we should by no means use world opinion to formulate policy, it is foolish and shortsighted to ignore it outright. Other countries have concerns of their own, and it is only decent and prudent to take their legitimate concerns into account, and not run roughshod over the rest of the world.

I suppose that's the difference between self-interest and selfishness.

For clarity's sake: I am speaking primarily of our relationship between individual nations--not the UN.

 

[Tide and True]

That was just from a quick google search. I imagine there is more but as most of the predictions of 'quagmire' (especially from the NYT) came during the end of 2001 alot of articles have been archived and require a little more digging to be found.

I'm still a bit underwhelmed by your results, Quease, but, yes, good job. You found some examples. If we can't agree on the prominence of this view, perhaps we can agree on its errancy.

 

[bamabake]

While we should be no means use world opinion to formulate policy, it is foolish and shortsighted to ignore it outright. Other countries have concerns of their own, and it is only decent and prudent to take their legitimate concerns into account, and not run roughshod over the rest of the world.

I suppose that's the difference between self-interest and selfishness.

For clarity's sake: I am speaking primarily of our relationship between individual nations--not the UN.

I really like the way you worded this. I tried in vain to state this earlier. Dead on.

 

[Pluck and Grit]

(As an aside, Richard Clarke contends that when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Afghan rebels--led in part by bin Laden--concluded that they had driven out the invaders, when in reality the Soviets withdrew because theur economy had tanked to the point where they could no longer afford to occupy Afghanistan. The lesson to the Afghans was that insurgents could win against a superpower.)

That's a good point to bring up. There's no doubt that it would be a similar situation were we to pull out of Iraq now.

TiderinVA made plenty of good points too.

As for me, I'm still optimistic that we can achieve a result something like what we were shooting for. The naysayers are mostly (not all, but mostly) just people with newspaper column space that they have to fill up with something or other. If it was supposed to be easy, we'd have sent the Peace Corps, not the Army.

There's no comparison at all with Vietnam, regarding either the breadth of the conflict or the rate of casualties. Or the clarity of U.S. goals. Or pretty much anything else I can think of.