Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor all the talk about Afghanistan being the "right war," and with both Obama and McCain insisting that they want to send thousands of additional US forces there, our British allies have let the camel, so to speak, out of the bag. Meanwhile, more and more information is coming out to confirm that the government of Afghanistan is negotiating with (gasp!) the Taliban. This is important stuff.
First, here are the quotes from British Ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, whose leaked comments in a French cable were reported at the end of last week. In them he says that sending more troops to Afghanistan would make the problem worse, not better, and that the NATO forces in Afghanistan are "part of the problem, not part of the solution":
"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust. ... The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution. Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis. ..."It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan. [Sending more troops] would have perverse effects: it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets [for the insurgents].
"We must tell [the Americans] that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one."
Equally astonishingly, not leaked but speaking on the record, the UK's Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith says point-blank, as the London Times headline proclaims, "We can't defeat Taliban, says Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith":
"We're not going to win this war. ... It's about reducing insurgency to a manageable level that's not a strategic threat."
He called for negotiating a political settlement with the Taliban. Here's the lead of the Times story:
The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taliban will never be defeated.Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, whose troops have suffered severe casualties after six months of tough fighting, will hand over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines this month.
He told The Times that in his opinion, a military victory over the Taleban was "neither feasible nor supportable."
I guess he didn't get McCain's or Obama's talking points.
You can read the latest news about hush-hush talks between Afghanistan and the Taliban here, here, and here. Various sources, on various sides, are denying parts of the story, but it seems that the effort is being brokered directly by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Sorry, Robert, right now, no one much is seriously interested in Afghanistan at the moment.....
Posted by SooHAPPY at 10/06/2008 @ 11:10am
the afghans are.
ah, but who cares about them. they're only humans after all.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 11:15am
Sorry, Robert, right now, no one much is seriously interested in Afghanistan at the moment.....
Posted by SooHAPPY at 10/06/2008 @ 11:10am
washington's creditors are.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 11:16am
"Following the British capture of Kandahar and Ghuznee Dost Mohammed, whose replacement on the throne in Kabul by Shah Shujah was the purpose of the British expedition into Afghanistan, despairing of the support of his army fled to the hills. On 7th August 1839 Shah Shujah and the British and Indian Army entered Kabul.
The British official controlling the expedition was Sir William Macnaghten, the Viceroy's Envoy, acting with his staff of political officers.
At first all went well. British money and the powerful Anglo-Indian Army kept the Afghan tribes in controllable bounds, pacifying the Ameers with bribes and forays into the surrounding districts.
..............................................
On the afternoon of 13th January 1842 the British troops in Jellalabad, watching for their comrades of the Kabul garrison, saw a single figure ride up to the town walls. It was Dr Brydon, the sole survivor of the column.
Casualties:
The entire force of 690 British soldiers, 2,840 Indian soldiers and 12,000 followers were killed or in a few cases taken prisoner. The 44th Foot lost 22 officers and 645 soldiers, mostly killed. Afghan casualties, largely Ghilzai tribesmen, are unknown.
Follow-up:
The massacre of this substantial British and Indian force caused a profound shock throughout the British Empire. Lord Auckland, the Viceroy of India, is said to have suffered a stroke on hearing the news.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 11:28am
Republicans should understand the Afghans very well. They want no part of government unless it offers them something tangible. Otherwise it's time to pee in the well & say "I've got mine jack. Good luck." And by this time a new slogan might come into use, "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy".
Posted by Sorelish at 10/06/2008 @ 12:11pm
It IS going to be intersting to see all the local "experts" here (and their neo-con "sources")...
who'll know MORE about the situation in Afghanistan than General Carleton-Smith!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 12:15pm
Interesting twist on our foreign policy combined with our financial crisis. How to piss off China and make the Financial Crisis Worse.....Bush (and Congress) trying their hardest to topple the US Economy...
Exerpt :U.S. approves over $6 bln in Taiwan arms sales 10.03.08, 8:01 PM ET Reuters
United States - By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government Friday announced about $6.5 billion in advanced arms sales to Taiwan, including 30 Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ) Co Apache (nyse: APA - news - people ) attack helicopters and 330 Patriot missiles, a move that could well anger China.
The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency told lawmakers that the sale -- which also includes 32 Harpoon submarine-launched missiles -- would support Taiwan's continuing efforts to modernize its military.
"The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region," said the agency, which oversees major arms sales.
U.S. lawmakers have 30 days to block the six separate arms deals, although such action is rare since any major arms agreements are carefully vetted before they are made public.
The Pentagon said the arms sales were consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, which obliges Washington to help Taipei defend itself. The deals were announced after what analysts had described as a freeze designed to ease tension between Beijing and Taipei, and were quickly lauded in Taiwan.
In an editorial posted online late Friday, the Taipei Times said any move by Washington to hand off the decision to a new administration would have left either a Republican or Democratic president with an unnecessary burden.............
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2008 @ 12:29pm
onevote,
you forget that a lot of that stuff
is made in china!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
China attacks US arms sales to Taiwan By Kathrin Hille in Taipei and Mure Dickie in Beijing - Financial Times
Exerpt:
Published: October 5 2008 17:38 | Last updated: October 5 2008 17:38
Beijing has denounced US plans to sell Taiwan more than $6bn (£3.38bn, €4.3bn) worth of weapons as a "crude interference" in China's internal affairs that would harm its national security and put obstacles in the way of peace.
However, China's foreign ministry stopped short of threatening any retaliation over the arms package, Washington's biggest for Taiwan in more than 15 years, saying only that Beijing "reserved the right" to respond further..........
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2008 @ 12:55pm
All you Obama supporters need to tell 'your' candidate that he's off on this subject, along with Iran and Russia. Apeing John McCain is not the best policy.
Otherwise, the neo-con DLC centrists around Clinton will be telling Obama what to do ... which looks like what has happened. Clinton lost, but her polticis won. In fact, is there one advisor Obama has that doesn't advocate increasing spending in Afghanistan, Georgia and Israel? One?
Posted by ElyDog at 10/06/2008 @ 1:02pm
Who gives a shit about winning anything?
Go back and check Obama's quotes from a year ago.
We are GETTING OUT of the middle east.
OUT I tell ya! OUT! OUT! OUT!
damn!
(OUT!)
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/06/2008 @ 2:46pm
The Brits are right. There is no way anyone can "win" a guerrilla war in Afghanistan. You can do holding actions, maybe, but not much else, unfortunately. We saw what the Taliban did to the Buddhist monument. Religious fanatics of this sort will fight to the last man. Russia learned that, all too well. The terrain, the Pashtun tribes,the poppy crops, the corruption all facilitate against anyone ever "winning" in this godforsaken hole. Better to just bomb training camps perhaps, but that's about it. Be nice, though, to send Bush's and Cheney's kids in there "to bring 'em on"....
Posted by MickNamVet at 10/06/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/06/2008 @ 2:46pm
I'll predict right now...after November 5th?
bleedingheart disappears off the blog.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 3:26pm
Be nice, though, to send Bush's and Cheney's kids in there "to bring 'em on"....
Posted by MickNamVet at 10/06/2008 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Put em on the front line or how about sniffing out land mines?
Whats the NATO troop level there now - about 50,0000? What the was max boots on the ground for the Soviets....110,000, along with the bells and whistles? Soviets still couldn't get the job done, with more than double the force, and an infinitely more centralized military command structure. Glad the Brits (with cheerleader Blair gone) are being honest and realistic. Wish we had that at home. That includes you Mr. Obama......
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2008 @ 3:28pm
Doesn't it seem odd that every time America goes in and sets up a government it p!sses everyone off? You think we would have learned our lesson from the last...instances. Anyone for Kipling (The Young British Soldier)?
When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East 'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast, An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier...
Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day, You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay, An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may: A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
....
But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead: You must wear your 'elmet for all that is said: If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead, An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
....
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! -- Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both, An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck, Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck, Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck And march to your front like a soldier.
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch, Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch; She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich, An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
....
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white, Remember it's ruin to run from a fight: So take open order, lie down, and sit tight, And wait for supports like a soldier.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier...
Peace Out.
Posted by javaman222 at 10/06/2008 @ 3:37pm
sickening. after 9/11 we did indeed have an opportunity to capture or kill OBL, dump some money on our afghanis, and get out while they still liked us.
the time to dump troops into afghanistan was precisely the time we were dumping most of our available force into iraq in the very beginning.
indeed we probably have missed the window of opportunity in afghanistan because...
idiots in high places failed to prosecute the war against those who attacked us and those who harbored them because they were way too busy fighting someone who did not attack us...
as for me i just wanted us to go into afghanistan and kill as many al qaeda and taliban as possible and hopefully either kill OBL or bring him back for trial - then leave. without iraq i believe we could have achieved that goal, too...
but the limey general's assessment was powerful and we may wel have missed our opportunity. sickening.
i'm still confident obama, once in office, will take an objective, analytic, fact based look at the situation and do what need be done as opposed to the neocon fantasyland ideological based decision making and do what is right.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/06/2008 @ 5:53pm
I'm still confident obama, once in office, will take an objective, analytic, fact based look at the situation and do what need be done as opposed to the neocon fantasyland ideological based decision making and do what is right.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/06/2008 @ 5:53pm
Like he did with FISA...the $700B bailout...bankruptcy reform etc.
Yep...wotta guy.
(Yes,yes, I am still holding my nose and voting for him, as the democrats knew I would, no matter who they put up. That's their M.O.: "Just make sure our candidate doesn't suck, QUITE as bad as theirs. Who else are they gonna vote for. Suckers."
One day, before I die, I would like to vote FOR a candidate, rather than against their opponent.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/06/2008 @ 6:32pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 7:13pm
See? I knew we'd have a Righty show up who knows better on Afghanistan than a top military general who was actually stationed there!
I'm still waiting for Double-Nought Navy Spy LVLIB to show up too with HIS expertise!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:21pm
Wow! Sounds like those on the left are ready and willing to bail out of Afghanistan. I remember when we went in, to much doubting. American Military Might would be bombing that poor backwater UP to the stone age.
So freedom is good for South Africa, for Nicaragua, and for Tibet. But for Afghanistan? Sorry ladies, put on the burkas, and forget about the 21st century. That foot you feel on your neck is the Taliban. they will take it off for a while when they're blowing up a Buddha, but they'll be back. For the stoning. Social Justice is a great concept, but not for the Afghanis. Too bad.
Posted by twillie at 10/06/2008 @ 10:40pm
Negotiate with the Taliban?....would You like to go and try?? Make sure your head is well attached. BTY, how do you negotiate with a rattle snake? I keep having visions of those women being shot in the head, in their cute little blue burkas, at the soccer stadium by the Taliban brave ones. Also, remember those ancient (2500 yr old) Budda statues that were blown up just before 9-11? Please go negotiate for us.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/06/2008 @ 11:23pm
Negotiate with the Taliban?....would You like to go and try?? Make sure your head is well attached. BTY, how do you negotiate with a rattle snake?
Posted by pyeatte at 10/06/2008 @ 11:23pm
The Associated Press will later report that the Enron corporation bribes Taliban officials as part of a "no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan." Atul Davda, a senior director for Enron's International Division, will later claim, "Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials." Presumably this effort began around 1996, when a power plant Enron was building in India ran into trouble and Enron began an attempt to supply it with natural gas via a planned pipeline through Afghanistan (see 1995-November 2001 and June 24, 1996). In 1997, Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas (see December 4, 1997). They are "given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal [goes] through." It is alleged Enron secretly employs CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. According to a CIA source, "Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a ‘tax' on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through a pipeline they planned to build." This source claims Enron paid more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and "a large portion of that cost was pay-offs to the Taliban." Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enron's collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 3/7/2002]
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 01:01am
Sounds like those on the left are ready and willing to bail out of Afghanistan.
Posted by twillie at 10/06/2008
Carleton-Smith, the commander of the British forces, is really just a mole planted the American left.
Damn, twillie blew his cover and now the secret is out.
Posted by Balrog at 10/07/2008 @ 10:56am
Carleton-Smith, the commander of the British forces, is really just a mole planted the American left. Damn, twillie blew his cover and now the secret is out. Posted by Balrog at 10/07/2008 @ 10:56am
Ooh, sorry, balrog. I was most definitely referring to Dreyfuss, not the Brit. I won't fault the Brit for voicing his opinion. i will fault Americans on the left for talking a good game about "social justice" and "freedom", but just not for Afghanis. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.
Posted by twillie at 10/07/2008 @ 1:55pm
but just not for Afghanis. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.
Posted by twillie at 10/07/2008 @ 1:55pm
what about those in equatorial guinea?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by twillie at 10/07/2008 @ 1:55pm
So you have no problem with Carleton-Smith's opinion...
you just don't want the Left to agree with it?!??!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 3:01pm
what about those in equatorial guinea? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 2:39pm
Uh.... no troops in Equatorial Guinea. And I haven't heard the left advocating that they be left high and dry.
you just don't want the Left to agree with it?!??!?!?? Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 3:01pm
I don't know how Carleton-Smith feels about social justice and freedom for the oppressed. I thought I knew how the Left felt about it. Maybe not.....
Posted by twillie at 10/07/2008 @ 5:39pm
"i will fault Americans on the left for talking a good game about "social justice" and "freedom", but just not for Afghanis. "
is THAT what we've been doing over there for six years?
so if the warlords prevail with our help, will that usher in social justice and freedom for the peace loving Afghanis?
you are deluded or a shill, or both.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2008 @ 11:37am
so if the warlords prevail with our help, will that usher in social justice and freedom for the peace loving Afghanis? you are deluded or a shill, or both. Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2008 @ 11:37am
Dammit! You got me. I'm both. You, on the other hand, have the courage of your convictions. That is, anything a repub would attempt is wrong, and therefore cannot be allowed to succeed. So, we'll throw Afghani women back to the fascist Taliban. Hope you sleep well, schl-emile.
Posted by twillie at 10/08/2008 @ 4:01pm
the warlords too want a sharia law country.
six years of war for the benefit of Afghani women? why was I not told? sign me up for at least ten or fifteen years. then Afghani society will resemble that of Switzerland's or Belgiums. war is really the best way to organize another race's country, and the results in Iraq and Afghanistan prove the point, don't they.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2008 @ 4:18pm
On the whole, I would say women in both Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they were under the mass murderer ( 1 million that we know of) and under the Taliban. Or do you think women were better off with the Taliban?
Posted by twillie at 10/08/2008 @ 4:56pm
on the whole you don't know what you're talking about.
is it the foreign policy of the US to make sure that women all the world over are better off than they were before?
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 10:10am
which Iraqi women are so much better off? the women among the four million refugees in the camps in Jordan? the women who are the mothers, wives and daughters of the hundred thousand dead Iraqis?
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 10:28am
which Iraqi women are so much better off? the women among the four million refugees in the camps in Jordan? the women who are the mothers, wives and daughters of the hundred thousand dead Iraqis? Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 10:28am
So, you think we never should have gotten rid of Hussein? That the Iraqis were better off with him? That killing one million of your own countrymen is acceptable, and can be done without consequences? I think that both Iraqi women, and men are better off without him. Do you?
Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 10:50am
Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 10:50am | ignore this person | warn this perso
yours is such a childish reasoning. read my post again.
incidentally, it is impossible to find find hard numbers on exactly how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam's Baathist regime. I presume you are referring to the Kurds, in which case the murders occurred in full view of the world, and in full view of Saddam's ally, the US.
women during Saddam's time, lived in a secular society, attended universities, taught at universities, were doctors etc. this is no longer possible in Iraq.
the Iraq war was and is a fool's errand, sold to the citizens of the US on a pack of lies. in a guerilla war against an occupier, there can be periods of quiet, but it is not a victory of any kind when the political conditions are unchanged.
we have established a puppet gov't of Shia. one that is beholden to our nemesis, Iran. we are paying 100 000 Baathist sunni, Saddam's boys, to keep the peace. for now. the Shia, meanwhile, are trying to stick it to those very same sunnis.
to get back to your jejune question. my answer is
what have we done!
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 11:26am
we hear often about the big pile of oil money the country of Iraq sits on, while the US spends itself into the poor house over there.
what goes unmentioned is the fact that the country of Iraq has huge debts, to Russia, France and to the US too. there was some talk of debt forgiveness for Iraq, but as far as I know a few countries pledged but no one gave.
the American military machine wrecked the country of Iraq. Reconstruction has been small. the Iraqis are going to need that money when the US leaves, and, my friends, the US will leave. we can no longer afford a Wall St CEO foreign policy, we will have to practice a food stamps foreign policy.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 11:33am
I would imagine that there are a great number of Afghanis who had it better under the Taleban in peace time, than with the uS and wartime.
the Taleban forbade opium cultivation and was rewarded for its effort by the US to the tune of $50 million, it has been reported.
I think the US should withdraw, become a peace broker, and they should simply buy the annual opium crop. a few years of that, and then we can talk crop substitution.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 1:01pm
Your logic is childish. Under Hussein, society was secular, now the "shias are trying to stick it to the sunnis. Did we import islam into Iraq? Where did all those sunnis and shia come from?
This is akin to saying, in 1943, we are wasting our time invading North Africa, when we want to overthrow the Nazis. We're at war. The hope is to leave Iraq when it stabilizes. Will it stabilize? Who knows. But, you don't care. Pull out now, and let Iraq go to pieces.
"I would imagine that there are a great number of Afghanis who had it better under the Taleban in peace time". Are you serious?!?
"women during Saddam's time, lived in a secular society, attended universities, taught at universities, were doctors etc. this is no longer possible in Iraq." Why is it no longer possible? the Iraqi constitution does not prevent women from these activities. What's your source?
To withdraw from Afghanistan, tells the Taliban, "OK, we're done, you can have it back now."
What have we done? We eliminated a dictator who killed 1 million of his own countrymen, of all stripes, who invaded 2 neighboring countries, and who refused to live by the sanctions imposed by the UN. In Afghanistan, we eliminated a misogynist, xenophobic clique of religious nuts who provided cover for an organization that wants to destroy the US.
Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 1:32pm
In Afghanistan, we eliminated a misogynist, xenophobic clique of religious nuts who provided cover for an organization that wants to destroy the US.
the US has done no such thing. attempting it is not accomplishing it. your mind is filled with John Wayne movies.
the north africa invasions, larger than D day, accomplished very little strategically.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 1:49pm
BUDAPEST (Reuters) - The United States would be prepared to reconcile with the Taliban if the Afghan government pursued talks to end the war, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday.
see what a fossil you are.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/09/2008 @ 6:13pm
emile, your posts drive me nuts. Your grasp on facts and logic is tenuous at best, but you dismiss my posts with a blithe arrogance so typical of lefties. It makes me want to laugh and cry.
"the US has done no such thing. attempting it is not accomplishing it. your mind is filled with John Wayne movies."
Oh, so the Taliban still governs? Huh.
"the north africa invasions, larger than D day, accomplished very little strategically."
"Two great armadas would carry more than 100,000 troops to the invasion beaches" Source: Rick Atkinson, An Army at Dawn. "On D-day, the Allies put some 175,000 men ashore at Normandy" Source: Stephen Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers.
See what I mean about your tenuous grasp on facts? Why don't you go back to your university, where you can puff out your chest, and everyone will agree with you?
Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 6:51pm
Gates said reconciliation would be the political end to the conflict in Afghanistan, but it must happen on the Afghan government's terms and the Taliban must commit to subject itself to the sovereignty of the government.
emile, you sneaky devil. You didn't think I'd look up the article, did you? So, let's review: Taliban, no longer in power. Women, no longer subjugated by said Taliban. emile, still thinking that the Afghani women should just put their burkas back on, and suck it up. Sad, pathetic, and defeatist.
Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 7:02pm
Oh, so the Taliban still governs? Huh.
the Taleban controls more than 50% of the country which is twice the size of Texas. they have not been in your words "eliminated"
operation Torch was launched in three countries, and it was a larger invasion than D day. and it accomplished very little in terms of the larger war raging in Europe. by the time Torch was launched, the Brits had already stopped the advance of the Germans towards Egypt.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/10/2008 @ 11:15am
both of America's present wars have been and are unmitigated disasters, tactically and strategically. they are both open ended, stretching out for years and even decades if we let them.. we must bring the soldiers home. neither Iraq or Afghanistan is a threat to us, no matter who rules them.
twillie , while I count many universities and colleges among my clients, I am not, nor ever have been an academic. you must be pretty insecure when you think that professor or teacher is an insult.
while more troops were landed in Normandy, the Torch operation was larger and used more ships and materiel. it took place in three countries and five locations.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/10/2008 @ 1:17pm
while more troops were landed in Normandy, the Torch operation was larger and used more ships and materiel. it took place in three countries and five locations. Posted by emile duBois at 10/10/2008 @ 1:17pm
I gave you my sources. What are yours?
Posted by twillie at 10/10/2008 @ 6:28pm
take a look at a map.
you foolishly claim that we eliminated the Taleban. nothing could be further from the truth. we kicked them outta Kabul, and installed a puppet gov't. which has little power outside of Kabul. the soviets did that too. with deleterious results.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/10/2008 @ 8:07pm