Winston, I haven't twisted anything. It has, however, been enjoyable watching all of you squirm and insist that I stop bringing up the facts. Now, to your question, we are leaving a contingency force of 8,000-10,000 soldiers who will not be in direct conflict with the enemy, who will act as trainers and support for the Afghan Army, and I would imagine, if I was a betting man, that the Afghans will ask us to leave well before that date just as the Iraqi's did. This is absolutely no different than what we have done to close every other war we've had since the Revolution. You act like we are committing hundreds of thousands of soldiers for another decade. This is how I know this is cheap partisanship on your part: you are taking the most minor and mundane detail and trying to make a mountain from it. I suppose we should expect no less: given that you guys have seen fit to make every little minor issue into "watergate." Let's see how many "watergates" I can count since Obama has been in office: Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, NSA, etc. You guys are like the boy who cried wolf at this point.
So why are American soldiers still there then? Why do we keep shelling out billions upon billions of dollars on Afghanistan. Why are we training their military, this story has been played out before. Sure technology has advanced to where we are using less troops, and more drones, but the premise is the same and it's going to fail the same.
They are there because you don't just cut and run in a war or you risk the televised images like when we left Vietnam and they were literally shooting at us as we left, we don't cut and run because we are the strongest nation on earth and we leave on our own terms, not when Karzai or anyone else says.....when WE say. There is a deadline for a withdrawal next year with the exception of the contigency force that I discussed previously of eight to ten thousand troops, nothing different than we've done in every other war we've ever fought.
No NC I gave up trying to use facts to make my points because you ignore them and spout your fantasy as if you could mold it into an argument. For example. You talk about what we are doing is the same as in every war since the revolution. Between that comment and the one on why Rome fell you knowledge and analysis of history is so lacking and flawed that your conclusions are laughable. I suggest you read a little real history and not rely on "Spartacus" and the like. Rather that derail this thread I'll start a couple to enlighten you. One on Rome the other on US experience in wars on foreign territory. As to the point here you make it sound so antiseptic and clean to stay. You don't acknowledge the cost and risk. How much does a light division(8000-10000 men & women) cost to maintain in country? How much will the forts and logistic train cost? You ignore the fact that most of the casualties recently have caused been by our supposed allies. If as you say they'll be in camps behind walls...what good will they do cooped up like that? I have friends and relatives who have been in country as fighters, diplomats, trainers and councilors and to a man they say it is a hell hole we should have left as soon as we kicked the Taliban out in 2001. They know it isn't clean as you imply and never will be. IT is a hell of a strain on our armed services both to individuals and structurally. Again other than so called pride and the honor of walking out with our heads held high what will it do? Will it change Afghanistan? Will it make us safer at home? Will it make Pakistan stable? Will it improve our standing anywhere? NC you continue to avoid the question. This is not the "cheap partisan" issue you claim but a bi partisan issue as many Neo Con Rs support the same thing. SO don't think it is partisanship. It is fundamental question of foreign policy and our future.
So NC what is to prevent us from saying to Karzai "Its yours now sport have fun?" I bet he is trying to have it both ways threaten us with eviction while wanting us to stay. It is an old tale but to survive he needs us more than we need him. Actually when our fighting forces left Vietnam it was under a truce and there was no fighting. It is when S Vietnam fell to the North and we evacuated civilians and those who had stood by us that the images you are using.
Read this NC. This is the voice of the people of Afghanistan. They are so very alien from us and have a totally different way of thinking. The 10,000 troops kept in Afghanistan will be targets of a people who are willing to do whatever is required to get foreigners out. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-loya-jirga-bilateral-security-agreement.html
Winston, I do get it. I probably get it better than most as I am a veteran myself. It sucks and it's hell. That said, there are right and wrong ways of doing things and we have to be responsible in how we leave the country. Like I said earlier, they may choose to have us leave altogether next year and according to a few articles I read this morning that seems likely to be the case as Karzai is thus far unwilling to sign the agreement. It is a matter of responsible warfare that you do not go into a country and make war without helping to rebuild that country afterwards. When I stated that this has been the case with every war we've fought since the Revolution I was correct. Can you name a single foreign war where we didn't stay after the fighting stopped to ensure that the country got back on it's feet unless they asked us not to do so? I cannot. Right or wrong, it's what we do. Don't get me wrong, Winston, there are days when I share your sentiment but for the most part, when I am feeling most reasonable, I understand that we have to do our due diligence to ensure that we do what we can to leave them in a better position than what we found them in. What they choose to do with that later down the road is, sadly, none of our business. As to the historical facts I presented, I stand by them. I've never seen the movie Spartacus as I am not much of a television or movie watcher unless it is Duck Dynasty, Moonshiners, Gold Rush or Sports. I am more of a book reader. Do you deny that the Romans were indeed sacked repeatedly by the Vikings, Vandals, Gauls and Visigoths? Do you not see the parallels between what the terrorists of that day and those of today and what they were trying to accomplish? I don't see what the dispute is here? You can keep your "enlightening" threads if you cannot agree to this very simple piece of history. I am not opposed to listening to someone else because I surely do not know it all but not to someone who cannot understand that very straightforward and simple parallel. Those sackings crippled the Roman economy, much like the attacks were intended to do to ours, and to some extent did. I've tried to imagine where you might find this historically inaccurate but thus far have failed to do so. There were obviously a host of other factors that led to Rome's decline but the straw that broke the camels back were the sackings that took place between 410 a.d. and 470 a.d. by the aforementioned attackers. Sure, the "Empire" would live on, much the same way the British "Empire" existed until just a few years ago, but in effect they were done. The Huns also did a lot of sacking of other Roman cities, even those within the closest confines of the Empire in what is modern day Italy.
and if you will go back and read my posts I have been very clear that at any point they could ask us not to stay and we could pack it up and come home.
