Politics TRUMP VOWS CONTINUED FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN; REVERSING STANCE

[barfo]

https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-nation-building-boom-obama-years/

The Secret Nation-Building Boom of the Obama Years
As the infrastructure of many U.S. cities crumbles, the Pentagon continues to pump over a billion dollars into military bases throughout the Middle East.

The Pentagon awarded $667.2 million in contracts in 2012 and more than $1 billion during Barack Obama’s first term in office for construction projects in largely autocratic Middle Eastern nations, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Middle East District (USACE-MED). More than $178 million in similar funding is already anticipated for 2013. These contracts represent a mix of projects, including expanding and upgrading military bases used by U.S. troops in the region, building facilities for indigenous security forces and launching infrastructure projects meant to improve the lives of local populations.

The figures are telling, but far from complete. They do not, for example, cover any of the billions spent on work at the more than 1,000 U.S. and coalition bases, outposts and other facilities in Afghanistan or the thousands more manned by local forces. They also leave out construction projects undertaken in the region by other military services like the U.S. Air Force, as well as money spent at an unspecified number of bases in the Middle East that the Corps of Engineers “has no involvement with,” according to Joan Kibler, chief of the Middle East District’s public affairs office.

Fascinating, but how is upgrading and expanding our military bases "nation building"?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

I want the troops to come home. Screw Afghanistan! But... that is where the our opposition chooses to center. One day probably not so far off, it will be another on the EBF list.
We have never won this conflict and we have been in it since the Days of Jefferson and the creation of the US Marine corp to go with our brand new Navy. Then it was North Africa, we never won, but the conflict moved on. Then the French took over for a while, the British in another place. So called World Wars disrupted the conflict or at least distracted our attention, but it never ended.
We got a taste of it again between the world wars in the Philippians, then again some after WWII, but no winners. Afghanistan is just the current place and we will not win. But the place in the center of attention will move.

I am pleased to see President Trump, understand Nation building is not the goal and it is not our job. Damn! That is a major step forward. All we have to do it battle those that would do us in. Forget about making piece with them, you can't make peace with another morality set. I am pleased to see this step forward in understanding. I wish there was a way, I would like to see the young war fighter come home, but the only way I see that come to be, is with a new leader, like the last, that has no idea what is happening.

 

[Minstrel]

I criticized your post. It is moronic.

I'm not saying you broke any rules, I'm just saying that you whine a lot about your feelings being hurt for a person who tosses around words like "moronic."

This one is slightly better

It's exactly the same point as before, which is why I said "you still haven't addressed it."

Leaving now doesn't put our troops in harm's way any longer.

But that's not the basis for which you criticized Obama's "incompetent fucked up strategy." If you've already forgotten, this was your argument: "announcing an end date so the bad guys can sit tight and wait it out"

If the bad guys knowing that in 6 months, they have free reign is your basis for a strategy being "incompetent and fucked up," then the bad guys knowing that immediately they have free reign is also incompetent and fucked up. Basically, your basis for attacking Obama's strategy made no sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fascinating, but how is upgrading and expanding our military bases "nation building"?

barfo

Reading is fun-da-mental

"building facilities for indigenous security forces and launching infrastructure projects meant to improve the lives of local populations."

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not saying you broke any rules, I'm just saying that you whine a lot about your feelings being hurt for a person who tosses around words like "moronic."



It's exactly the same point as before, which is why I said "you still haven't addressed it."



But that's not the basis for which you criticized Obama's "incompetent fucked up strategy." If you've already forgotten, this was your argument: "announcing an end date so the bad guys can sit tight and wait it out"

If the bad guys knowing that in 6 months, they have free reign is your basis for a strategy being "incompetent and fucked up," then the bad guys knowing that immediately they have free reign is also incompetent and fucked up. Basically, your basis for attacking Obama's strategy made no sense.

You simply point out the folly of pretending announcing an end date has any merit.

Again, your logic is painfully strained.

 

[barfo]

Reading is fun-da-mental

"building facilities for indigenous security forces and launching infrastructure projects meant to improve the lives of local populations."

Yeah, it mentioned that, but it seems the focus is on military bases. Even the headline disagrees with itself:

The Secret Nation-Building Boom of the Obama Years
As the infrastructure of many U.S. cities crumbles, the Pentagon continues to pump over a billion dollars into military bases

So, I don't think the article is terribly helpful. Besides, my point was that Obama said pretty much exactly the same thing Trump did about nation building. And most likely, Trump will actually do pretty much the same as Obama in terms of nation building, because he's following Obama's Afghanistan policy pretty much completely, despite pretending to change direction. The only real change is that he's sending 4000 more troops over.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, it mentioned that, but it seems the focus is on military bases. Even the headline disagrees with itself:



So, I don't think the article is terribly helpful. Besides, my point was that Obama said pretty much exactly the same thing Trump did about nation building. And most likely, Trump will actually do pretty much the same as Obama in terms of nation building, because he's following Obama's Afghanistan policy pretty much completely, despite pretending to change direction. The only real change is that he's sending 4000 more troops over.

barfo

It "seems" hundreds of $millions or $billions are spent on things we'd leave behind when we do leave, as well as outright nation building.

Obama bombed Pakistan. Trump said we'll be asking Pakistan to take a much bigger role. That's a really big difference.

Obama's policy extended the war by 8 years and expanded the war by about 6 countries (I didn't count, but it may be a couple more even).

EDIT: looks like 5 countries we have been bombing that we weren't when Obama took office.

 

[Minstrel]

You simply point out the folly of pretending announcing an end date has any merit.

I wasn't saying announcing an end date has merit or doesn't. I'm saying that whenever you actually recall the troops, the enemy is going to know they're unopposed by those troops, so the "emboldening the enemy" thing you keep trotting has never made any sense unless you believe the troops should be there forever.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wasn't saying announcing an end date has merit or doesn't. I'm saying that whenever you actually recall the troops, the enemy is going to know they're unopposed by those troops, so the "emboldening the enemy" thing you keep trotting has never made any sense unless you believe the troops should be there forever.

Maybe the troops should be there forever, like they've been in S. Korea. That's a very different question. We're not dropping bombs in S. Korea and killing civilians.

No matter when you leave, any enemy might regroup and gain strength. Thus announcing some timetable months or years in the future is utterly stupid and indefensible. Indefensible, but you will.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, yes, that makes a lot of sense. Saying "We'll be leaving in 6 months" emboldens the enemy to wait it out. Saying "They're already on the way home," on the other hand, means the enemy doesn't have to wait at all. Denny's all about making things as convenient as possible for the enemy.

Your choice of words, not mine.

But keep arguing that I said it - it's a winner if I actually did.

 

[Minstrel]

Your choice of words, not mine.

But keep arguing that I said it - it's a winner if I actually did.

Weird thing to call out as a strawman. I didn't think you'd consider it a mischaracterization of "like announcing an end date so the bad guys can sit tight and wait it out." I thought emboldening them because they know when the troops were leaving was your whole point. But if that's sticking in your craw, I can cheerfully withdraw the word "emboldening." It wasn't central to my point that whenever you announce the troops are leaving--effective in 6 months or effective in 0 minutes--the "bad guys" know when they're no longer opposed by those troops.

 

[barfo]

It "seems" hundreds of $millions or $billions are spent on things we'd leave behind when we do leave, as well as outright nation building.

Are we leaving all our military bases in the middle east? I don't think we are.

Obama bombed Pakistan. Trump said we'll be asking Pakistan to take a much bigger role. That's a really big difference.

Ha ha. You think Trump isn't bombing Pakistan? You think the Obama administration didn't try to get Pakistan to do more?

There's no change there, only words.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Weird thing to call out as a strawman. I didn't think you'd consider it a mischaracterization of "like announcing an end date so the bad guys can sit tight and wait it out." I thought emboldening them because they know when the troops were leaving was your whole point. But if that's sticking in your craw, I can cheerfully withdraw the word "emboldening." It wasn't central to my point that whenever you announce the troops are leaving--effective in 6 months or effective in 0 minutes--the "bad guys" know when they're no longer opposed by those troops.

Reason escapes you still.

Leaving now doesn't put our troops in harm's way any longer. Leaving at any time might mean the enemy might strengthen (though they're getting stronger as is, and lots of troops or minimal numbers of troops hasn't won this thing in 17 years).

We can still bomb the shit out of the bad guys with drones and from aircraft carriers, should they regroup.

I don't want to leave behind a stash of weapons that the Taliban will end up using. THAT would be repeating a mistake of the prior administration.

 

[Minstrel]

Reason escapes you still.

You keep trying to defend your original, illogical comment ("the bad guys know they can just sit and wait it out") with an unrelated (and far more reasonable) argument that the sooner the troops are out of harm's way, the better.

 

[Denny Crane]

Are we leaving all our military bases in the middle east? I don't think we are.



Ha ha. You think Trump isn't bombing Pakistan? You think the Obama administration didn't try to get Pakistan to do more?

There's no change there, only words.

barfo

I think Obama was a miserable failure and a war monger.

Have a clue:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases
Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal

 

[Denny Crane]

You keep trying to defend your original, illogical comment ("the bad guys know they can just sit and wait it out") with an unrelated (and far more reasonable) argument that the sooner the troops are out of harm's way, the better.

Setting a date in the future doesn't accomplish anything good. I've said that over and over, no matter how you want to twist it (because you're so wrong).

I made no illogical comment.

Reason still escapes you.

 

[Minstrel]

Setting a date in the future doesn't accomplish anything good. I've said that over and over

What you've also said over and over is that it accomplishes something bad (that the bad guys know when the troops are gone) that your preferred strategy would also accomplish. That's what is illogical.

 

[barfo]

I think Obama was a miserable failure and a war monger.

But you'll like it when Trump does the same things.

Military bases aren't nation building whether or not we abandon them later. And we certainly aren't abandoning every base we have in the middle east.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What you've also said over and over is that it accomplishes something bad (that the bad guys know when the troops are gone) that your preferred strategy would also accomplish. That's what is illogical.

Yes, our troops in harm's way is bad. Killing civilians is bad.

Staying for any amount of time, exit date announced or not, accomplishes that.

Announcing a date in the future accomplishes no good. The enemy can wait it out, instead of trying to make it painful for us to remain. I don't call that emboldening anyone, but it does save them from a bloody fight.

 

[Denny Crane]

But you'll like it when Trump does the same things.

Military bases aren't nation building whether or not we abandon them later. And we certainly aren't abandoning every base we have in the middle east.

barfo

I've already said I don't like it that we're staying.

You have no clue what "I'll like."

You dig yourself deeper when you say things like handing military bases built by the finest military organization in the world over isn't nation building. Military and defense are such a massive part of a nation that about 2/3 of our constitution is about military and defense.

 

[barfo]

Announcing a date in the future accomplishes no good. The enemy can wait it out, instead of trying to make it painful for us to remain. I don't call that emboldening anyone, but it does save them from a bloody fight.

So if the enemy waits, and nobody fights, that seems like a win. What's your problem with it?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

So if the enemy waits, and nobody fights, that seems like a win. What's your problem with it?

I'm not sure, but I think the answer has a "Hussein" in it.

 

[barfo]

You dig yourself deeper when you say things like handing military bases built by the finest military organization in the world over isn't nation building. Military and defense are such a massive part of a nation that about 2/3 of our constitution is about military and defense.

That isn't what people mean when they say nation building, and you know that.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Maybe Trump will stop bombing our ally (Pakistan).

You mean the same ally that sold Making Nuclear Weapons for Dummies books to North Korea and Iran? The same ally that supports the Taliban?

Hell of an ally to have.

 

[Further]

I really don't know how to evaluate militaristic foreign affairs. It seems to me that we simply aren't privy to the vast majority of the info we would need to reach we'll-reasoned conclusions. Sure, everyone would like to see our troops home and the war over, but that doesn't speak to the merits of continuing or ending the fight.

Regardless of my evaluation of Trump making countless fundamental mistakes domestically and internationally (non-military) I can't honestly assess this most recent declaration.

 

[e_blazer]

So, as I understood Trump's speech last night, he's saying that he had to reconsider his campaign promise to pull our troops out of Afghanistan primarily because doing so would open the country up to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations using it as a staging ground for future attacks on the US. He also says that we're not going to engage in nation-building. What I don't get is if the existing Afghani government is too wobbly that it can't be trusted to provide defense against future terrorist bases, and if we're not engaging in nation-building, what's going to be different in X number of years that will provide for security against terrorists using Afghanistan as a base? I get that we're going to unleash the military and we're going to be into WINNING, but does anyone really think that means eradicating the Taliban and other terrorists to such a degree that they won't rebuild as soon as we leave?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

In the past if we thought the Taliban was hiding in a hospital or school we would blow them and it up. Which is the right thing to do.

Then we would rebuild the hospital or school. Which again, is the right thing to do.

No more nation building means we'll still blow up the hospital or school but we will no longer rebuild it.

I can see that helping the Taliban more than our troops.

 

[barfo]

So, as I understood Trump's speech last night, he's saying that he had to reconsider his campaign promise to pull our troops out of Afghanistan primarily because doing so would open the country up to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations using it as a staging ground for future attacks on the US. He also says that we're not going to engage in nation-building. What I don't get is if the existing Afghani government is too wobbly that it can't be trusted to provide defense against future terrorist bases, and if we're not engaging in nation-building, what's going to be different in X number of years that will provide for security against terrorists using Afghanistan as a base? I get that we're going to unleash the military and we're going to be into WINNING, but does anyone really think that means eradicating the Taliban and other terrorists to such a degree that they won't rebuild as soon as we leave?

The answers are (a) we aren't ever leaving, or (b) when we leave all hell will break loose. Take your pick.

I kind of think since Trump admires Nixon, he's going to try to do what Nixon did in Vietnam. Drop a lot of bombs, kill a lot of people, declare 'peace with honor' and leave.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

The reality is that no President wants to engage in "nation building," because that carries a responsibility that isn't appropriate to either side (not to mention the costs) but every President, dealing with existing conflict (or in Bush's case, conflict thrust upon him), is forced to engage in some amount simply out of expedience (and, sometimes, because it's the right thing to do as Sly alludes to above).

 

[Denny Crane]

So if the enemy waits, and nobody fights, that seems like a win. What's your problem with it?

barfo

We're still in harm's way, and we're still bombing civilian weddings.