Bush supports Al Qaeda sanctuary in Afganistan

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Taliban attacks up 300%

Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/24/201025/90

[AuH2O]

So you truly believe Bush supports the Taliban?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you truly believe Bush supports the Taliban?

Bush just doesn't give a crap about actually fighting terrorism.

[AuH2O]

So does Bush support Al Qaeda like your thread title states?

[Beet]

Bush is too distracted by Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and domestic politics to care too much whether Al Qaeda is getting a sanctuary in Afghanistan or not.

If Bill Clinton was in Bush's place, the conservatives' heads would have exploded by now.

[AuH2O]

So what would Democrats do differently? The Taliban are losing every battle, very, very badly. Would the Democrats commit genocide against pro-Taliban tribes?

[Beet]

How about revoking the F-16's Bush promised to Pakistan unless they clean out the tribal areas? Or planning on pulling more troops from Iraq into Afghanistan? Or actually trying to build a nation there so that Karzai is more than just a figurehead for corrupt, Taliban-dealing, poppy-growing warlords?

[AuH2O]

Afghanistan isn't just a US operation. Actually it's led by NATO, which you would think Democrats would like because it's "multilateral." Bush even has US troops serving under a foreign command! The US already has the most troops there by far, why shouldn't all the wonderful European governments send more troops?

And pissing off Pakistan, now that's a really great idea. We screw Musharraf and he gets overthrown... and then the Muslim radicals don't have some mountains to hide in, they have nukes and intermediate range missiles.

And the international community IS trying to build up Afghanistan. You know, if it was that easy maybe it would have happened at some point in history. Maybe the Soviets would have won. We're doing a lot better than they did, that's for sure.

[MasterJedi]

Can JFraud go back to DailyKos where he can be in fantasy land with people like himself and BRTD? -_-

[Boris]

My biggest fear is not the resurgent Taliban; NATO forces in the region can easily take them. Rather, it's the resurgence of their radical ideas. We may be winning the Afghani War militarily, but it seems at this point, we (we meaning the U.S. and NATO) are losing it ideologically (aka the ideas war). Also, one shortcoming in the military aspect is the failure to apprehend any of the "big fish." (i.e. Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, etc.)

This is where my biggest criticism of Bush comes in; he is not fighting the ideas war. Everywhere in the world, the U.S. is pretty much hated or seen as a complete joke. If that is to be the attitude that persists for the next few decades, consider the War on Terror lost. Likewise, his tangent (and military failure) in Iraq has inhibited us to effectively focus our efforts on halting Al Qaeda. The European members of NATO are only willing to do so much; we have to take the initiative.

[Beet]

Afghanistan isn't just a US operation. Actually it's led by NATO, which you would think Democrats would like because it's "multilateral." Bush even has US troops serving under a foreign command! The US already has the most troops there by far, why shouldn't all the wonderful European governments send more troops?

The problem isn't that the operation exists, the problem is that the operation has been unsuccessful, after five years, of ending the Taliban, removing Al Qaida from the country, and restoring national order, let alone any kind of real non-drug related economy (recently in a Washington Times article, all that Rumsfeld had to brag about was how they had managed to get one small factory built in Kabul. Whop-de-dee.) The other NATO partners should also send more troops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they are already negotiating and supporting the Taliban who is in turn harboring Al Qaida and if Al Qaida elements have infiltrated the ISI as is probably true, then they aren't a very helpful ally at this moment. Bush needs to put some pressure on Musharraf to renew his commitment to actively fighting the terrorists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have the same problem the Soviets had, only on a smaller scale. The Soviets were dealing with insurgents being armed and trained in safe harbor in Pakistan, and now so are we. If we don't deal with the problem we'll be fighting forever.

[AuH2O]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Building a country from nothing, with internal conflict going on, is not easy. That's why Bush campaigned against nation building in 2000. Five years is nothing for Afghanistan. Kabul isn't so great and outside that, Afghanistan might as well be in the 15th century. Drugs are a problem but there's only so much that can be done. The profit motive is too strong to just easily negate. You're right about the problems but seem unwilling to acknowledge the enormity of the challenge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pakistan is a very touchy situation. Priority #1 has to be keeping that country from falling to Islamic radicals. As you say, those radicals have influence as it is... which is the whole problem. If Musharraf moves hard against them, he might be deposed. They've tried to kill him numerous times, do you really think he WANTS to let them slide? I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the current ones don't really have state sponsorship, which hurts them. And they are faring very, very poorly, which should not be ignored in this discussion. Several major battles have been outright disasters for the Taliban. They can't continue to sustain losses like they have taken in the past 6 months. They certainly could cut back for a while but then they look weak.

It won't be over until the Pakistan side is under control, you're right. And who knows how or when that could happen. But a new US President isn't going to have any magical answers to these problems because they are deep seeded and complex. I think our main difference on this issue is just over what goals are realistic, and over what time period.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Islamic radicals do not have support with the military rank and file, that is why Musharraf has survived and feel secure enough to take tours to the US. I think you're just slightly overestimating the fragility there.

Secondly, Musharraf looks after himself, and if that means negotiating (in effect) with terrorists in order so that they are less hostile to his government, even if they continue to plan attacks against the US in Afghanistan, Musharraf would be fine with that. He hates Karzai anyway. It's up to the US government to pressure him to take more aggressive action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have a state (Pakistan) which grants them safe harbor in tribal areas. That is enough... for them to train, equip, and grow in numbers, in an area where US troops are not allowed to go. The NATO troops could take care of them, and in fact the Pakistani army probably could, if there was the political will to do so. What the US President should do (and Bush still can) is to first, offer more carrots and sticks to Pakistan to take more action against the tribal areas. Secondly, actually invest in trying to build a nation in Afghanistan. Right now, regardless of what they say, they are not really trying. The fact that we are winning the battles ought to be a reason why we should send more troops and be more aggressive, not vice versa.

[emailking]

The problem isn't that the operation exists, the problem is that the operation has been unsuccessful, after five years, of ending the Taliban, removing Al Qaida from the country, and restoring national order, let alone any kind of real non-drug related economy (recently in a Washington Times article, all that Rumsfeld had to brag about was how they had managed to get one small factory built in Kabul. Whop-de-dee.)

You don't want the drug related economy to go away. Afghanistan provides something like 70% of the world's opium or some ridiculous amount. The underground US drug economy is in the trillions and helps to prop up the entire country's economy.

It's not a coincidence that the Taliban outlawed Opium production (with a crackdown) and then we had a global recession.

[GOP = Terrorists]

So you truly believe Bush supports the Taliban?

Why not? They are both far right militant extremists.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Can JFraud go back to DailyKos where he can be in fantasy land with people like himself and BRTD? -_-

So when will you go back to FreeRepublic?