Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Trump Effect Comes to Afghanistan

Recommended Posts


Before President Donald Trump’s August 21, 2017, speech on Afghanistan (the ‘new South Asian strategy’), in which the President announced a renewed commitment to ‘win;’ to avoid nation-building; and to sta

Afghanistan Today:  Three Wars Being Fought Simultaneously

Currently, there are three distinct military efforts going on simultaneously in Afghanistan, all three of which involve U.S. forces: 

  1. Counterterrorism operations under Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL authorities to defeat the insurgency by the Taliban and Haqqani Network, plus the identification, interdiction, and suppression of 13-21 terrorist groups in Afghanistan (and most especially ISIS-K);
  2. The RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission to Train, Advise, and Assist mission supporting Afghan security force development, sustainment, and operations;
  3. The prevention of high profile attacks across the theater, in particular in Kabul City, designed to foment chaos and undermine popular support for the central government that has the potential to fracture the Afghan National Unity Government, as well as fracture the international coalition providing economic assistance.

 

The Elements of Trump’s New South Asia Strategy

The tenants of the Trump Effect in Afghanistan:

  • A ‘conditions-based approach,’ i.e., no timetable. Strategy is guided by the conditions on the ground, not an arbitrary timetable. The ‘conditions’ for success is a stable, self-sustaining Afghanistan that can secure its own territory so that these 21 terrorist groups cannot use Afghan soil to attack the U.S. and allied interests.
  • A regional strategy (i.e., that involves Pakistan and perhaps Iran and Russia too) that better combines military with diplomatic and economic elements of power. The U.S. military has been successfully re-engaged; whether the State Department can match the renewed commitment with successful diplomacy is unclear.
  • A ‘the Taliban Will Never Win’ military attitude for U.S. and NATO forces. The Taliban may control part of the countryside but will never control large parts of the Afghan population – standing traditional counter-insurgency on its head. The plan: insurgents will be stuck in an endless OODA loop of frustration. Concurrently, GIRoA Information Operations will emphasize that the Taliban ought not fight as proxies for neighboring states – especially given the fact that these states do not want the Taliban to win. Further, precision strikes by U.S. and NATO forces mean that the Taliban will likely kill more civilians every year than Government or Coalition forces – undermining Taliban legitimacy as fighting continues indefinitely. As long as the ANDSF can manage its attrition rates, the U.S./NATO strategy is sustainable indefinitely. The Taliban’s best choice, therefore, if they want any part of Afghanistan’s future, is to reconcile with the Government, like the Afghan insurgent group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin did in 2016.[xix]
  • A tenacious, relentless, year-round assault against ISIS-K in Afghanistan from U.S. and Afghan forces. ISIS-K will be unable to establish any form of foothold or sanctuary; they will be unable to conduct external operations; they will lack freedom of movement; they will remain pariahs in a nation that does not want them.

Trump inscrutability is, perhaps, the most potent element of the new strategy. Whereas Obama had no fight in him for anything, Trumpism involves the risk of U.S. vertical escalation (greater and more lethality); of horizontal escalation (hurting state sponsors elsewhere in the world for their intransigence in Afghanistan); and plain stubbornness. If the state sponsors conclude Trump is in the fight for eight years, their perception of their interests fundamentally change.

more at

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/12/trump_effect_comes_to_afghanistan_113435.html

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:


Before President Donald Trump’s August 21, 2017, speech on Afghanistan (the ‘new South Asian strategy’), in which the President announced a renewed commitment to ‘win;’ to avoid nation-building; and to sta

Afghanistan Today:  Three Wars Being Fought Simultaneously

Currently, there are three distinct military efforts going on simultaneously in Afghanistan, all three of which involve U.S. forces: 

  1. Counterterrorism operations under Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL authorities to defeat the insurgency by the Taliban and Haqqani Network, plus the identification, interdiction, and suppression of 13-21 terrorist groups in Afghanistan (and most especially ISIS-K);
  2. The RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission to Train, Advise, and Assist mission supporting Afghan security force development, sustainment, and operations;
  3. The prevention of high profile attacks across the theater, in particular in Kabul City, designed to foment chaos and undermine popular support for the central government that has the potential to fracture the Afghan National Unity Government, as well as fracture the international coalition providing economic assistance.

....Trump inscrutability is, perhaps, the most potent element of the new strategy. Whereas Obama had no fight in him for anything,

President Obama announced the training and advisory mission Operation Freedom's Sentinel on 12/28/14.

Operation Resolute Support is pretty similar and is a NATO mission started on 1/1/15

Both started under Obama, but as a Trump cheerleader and partisan hack, you weren't touting them back then.  Now you can.

Interesting you mention a NATO mission. Trump called NATO obsolete during his campaign. His position on the future of NATO is completely unknown because his policy positions are based on the last person he spoke to.  I think he supports it now, but I would have to search Google, then fucking sort his positions chronologically.   I realize you have an easier method, supporting the positions that are valid, and discounting the nonsensical ones as "exaggeration and hyperbole".

Otherwise, it is a shame you mistakenly showed support for missions started under Obama. I look forward to your walk back on that. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, benwynn said:

....       ...     ...     ...

Otherwise, it is a shame you mistakenly showed support for missions started under Obama. I look forward to your walk back on that. 

Oops.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Britain was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. When Russia was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. It takes a remarkable combination of narcissism, hubris, and Dunning-Kruger to think a continued US military effort will defeat the Afghans. At best, all that can be achieved is a stalemated quagmire with a permanent military presence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, as i see it, is that the Taliban and Haqqani aren't truly based in Afghanistan.  They're based in Pakistan. They just work in Afghanistan.  It's like trying to treat a staph infection when the infection is in the bone.  Unless you're willing and able to actually amputate the infected tissue, the best you can ever do is hold it at bay with antibiotics until your liver gives out.

Trumps strategy is the same as Obama's which was the same as Bush.  Fight a holding action and hope that their "liver" gives out before ours does.  Except they're fighting next door while we're fighting across the world.

The regional support issue is nice - but we're fucking with Iran - you know, the guys that are actually securing the Afgan western border?  That's a total pay-go relationship. Work with Russia?  Why would they help?  Pay-go again.  China?  Also why?  Pay-go.  Those folks will help us as long as we pay them.  We have few actual allies in that area who will fight for their interests against the Taliban.

I only see two realistic options.  Declare success and withdraw.  Or invade Pakistan, with all that entails.  Everything else is just dicking around blowing money.  Personally, I cannot see the later as a realistic option so that leads to declare success and leave. If we have any heart at all, we'll also allow streamlined immigration from Afghanistan for at least 2 years to reward the poor bastards - and their families - who've helped us.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, now that Trump is running things in A'stan, soon, very soon there will be peace in the valleys and women will be able to go to school with their faces uncovered.

300 years of totally unsuccessful outside interference will be successfully resolved by the Orange One.

 

Keeriste you're a Hapless halfwit Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Yep, now that Trump is running things in A'stan, soon, very soon there will be peace in the valleys and women will be able to go to school with their faces uncovered.

300 years of totally unsuccessful outside interference will be successfully resolved by the Orange One.

 

Keeriste you're a Hapless halfwit Jack.

Halfwit is giving him too much credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:

President Obama announced the training and advisory mission Operation Freedom's Sentinel on 12/28/14.

Operation Resolute Support is pretty similar and is a NATO mission started on 1/1/15

Both started under Obama, but as a Trump cheerleader and partisan hack, you weren't touting them back then.  Now you can.

Interesting you mention a NATO mission. Trump called NATO obsolete during his campaign. His position on the future of NATO is completely unknown because his policy positions are based on the last person he spoke to.  I think he supports it now, but I would have to search Google, then fucking sort his positions chronologically.   I realize you have an easier method, supporting the positions that are valid, and discounting the nonsensical ones as "exaggeration and hyperbole".

Otherwise, it is a shame you mistakenly showed support for missions started under Obama. I look forward to your walk back on that. 

Umm Obama was all over the place on Afghanistan. He began his presidency by leaving it in limbo for 7 months before he would decide to run or recommit. The situation deteriorated markedly during his first year while he waffled. Then he had to fight to get back to where we were when he was elected. He declared an end to combat operation more than once. Promised to withdraw only to reverse himself again and again. He defined the endgame in terms of dates instead of goals. Stupid stupid stupid.

image.thumb.png.b863065bb215c1fa3aee496c08d94b00.png

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

Umm Obama was all over the place on Afghanistan. He began his presidency by leaving it in limbo for 7 months before he would decide to run or recommit. The situation deteriorated markedly during his first year while he waffled. Then he had to fight to get back to where we were when he was elected. He declared an end to combat operation more than once. Promised to withdraw only to reverse himself again and again. He defined the endgame in terms of dates instead of goals. Stupid stupid stupid.

Ahh... So it is consistency in policy you are looking for, and you are seeing that in Trump.  Hilarious.  I suppose one advantage to stating this on an internet forum is that nobody can see you. so you don't need to keep a straight face. 

Let's consider Trump's "policy" or "strategy" on Syria.  In late March, he was stating that he would be withdrawing troops "very soon".  He changed his mind by early April.  In late April, at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, he was questioned on withdrawing Troops from Syria, and he tossed up this word salad:

"As far as Syria is concerned, I would love to get out. I would love to bring our incredible warriors back home. They’ve done a great job; we’ve essentially just absolutely obliterated ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria. And we’ve done a big favor to neighboring countries, frankly, but we’ve also done a favor for our country.

With that being said, Emmanuel and myself have discussed the fact that we don’t want to give Iran open season to the Mediterranean, especially since we really control it to a large extent. We really have controlled it, and we’ve set control on it.

So we’ll see what happens. But we’re going to be coming home relatively soon. We finished, at least almost, our work with respect to ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. And we have done a job that nobody has been able to do. With that being said, I do want to come home, but I want to come home also with having accomplished what we have to accomplish."

Now, I am sure that makes sense to at least two people: Trump and you. Just discount the "exaggeration and hyperbole" and guess which position he really means and we are good to go.  If you could decode it for me in that regard, that would be great. 

At least Osama Bin Laden was killed on Trump's watch, so I will give you that.  Please seal the deal and agree with me on that one. At least let me know your thoughts on it. I'm trying to determine if you really are flat out fucking crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Ahh... So it is consistency in policy you are looking for, and you are seeing that in Trump.  Hilarious.  I suppose one advantage to stating this on an internet forum is that nobody can see you. so you don't need to keep a straight face. 

Let's consider Trump's "policy" or "strategy" on Syria.  In late March, he was stating that he would be withdrawing troops "very soon".  He changed his mind by early April.  In late April, at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, he was questioned on withdrawing Troops from Syria, and he tossed up this word salad:

"As far as Syria is concerned, I would love to get out. I would love to bring our incredible warriors back home. They’ve done a great job; we’ve essentially just absolutely obliterated ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria. And we’ve done a big favor to neighboring countries, frankly, but we’ve also done a favor for our country.

With that being said, Emmanuel and myself have discussed the fact that we don’t want to give Iran open season to the Mediterranean, especially since we really control it to a large extent. We really have controlled it, and we’ve set control on it.

So we’ll see what happens. But we’re going to be coming home relatively soon. We finished, at least almost, our work with respect to ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. And we have done a job that nobody has been able to do. With that being said, I do want to come home, but I want to come home also with having accomplished what we have to accomplish."

Now, I am sure that makes sense to at least two people: Trump and you. Just discount the "exaggeration and hyperbole" and guess which position he really means and we are good to go.  If you could decode it for me in that regard, that would be great. 

At least Osama Bin Laden was killed on Trump's watch, so I will give you that.  Please seal the deal and agree with me on that one. At least let me know your thoughts on it. I'm trying to determine if you really are flat out fucking crazy. 

How about we consider results.

Question have we made substantial progress against isis in Iraq and Syria under Trump? 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did ISIS exist in Iraq before Bush attacked it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Did ISIS exist in Iraq before Bush attacked it?

So? What does this have to do with Trump's performance in syria? 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan

the list of failed conquerors is long , guess who's the latest addition .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

So? What does this have to do with Trump's performance in syria? 

Where do you think ISIS in Syria came from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

How about we consider results.

Question have we made substantial progress against isis in Iraq and Syria under Trump? 

"We"?

What the fuck did you and trump do in iraq and syria?

You going to take credit for all the hard work done by the locals on the ground? 

Yes, how about we consider results you bone spurred cuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hillary said:

I brown-nose trump's hellish shit hole.

the few, the proud. 

if you have any integrity, go check out the recently created 'scott pruitt' thread, even though it wouldn't be funny or fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hillary said:

The tenants of the Trump Effect in Afghanistan:

Really?

What kind of rent are they paying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RKoch said:

When Britain was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. When Russia was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. It takes a remarkable combination of narcissism, hubris, and Dunning-Kruger to think a continued US military effort will defeat the Afghans. At best, all that can be achieved is a stalemated quagmire with a permanent military presence. 

"When you're wounded and dying on Afganistans' plains

And the women come out to cut up what remians

You roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

And go to your God like a soldier"

-R. Kipling

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mid said:

Afghanistan

the list of failed conquerors is long , guess who's the latest addition .

Only one winner: Ghengis Khan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:
6 hours ago, Mid said:

Afghanistan

the list of failed conquerors is long , guess who's the latest addition .

Only one winner: Ghengis Khan.

 

I dunno, Alexander the Great did OK there. Ghengis Khan was more recent.

General Sherman would have succeeded.

The thing is, we don't have to really 'win.' We just have to make life more miserable for our friends' enemies than we do for our friends. And not get killed.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The thing is, we don't have to really 'win.' We just have to make life more miserable for our friends' enemies than we do for our friends.

Why do we have to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The thing is, we don't have to really 'win.' We just have to make life more miserable for our friends' enemies than we do for our friends.

Why do we have to do that?

Because a generation ago, our friends' enemies flew airplanes into a couple of our buildings, and we don't want that to happen again?

FWIW my enthusiasm for long-term US military presence in so many countries around the world is rather limited. The only plusses I see for it is that it helps stave off future wars (which are very expensive) and it offers great live-fire training in case those wars occur anyway. And it is one way to prove to allies that we care, but that has been written off lately.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Because a generation ago, our friends' enemies flew airplanes into a couple of our buildings, and we don't want that to happen again?

FWIW my enthusiasm for long-term US military presence in so many countries around the world is rather limited. The only plusses I see for it is that it helps stave off future wars (which are very expensive) and it offers great live-fire training in case those wars occur anyway. And it is one way to prove to allies that we care, but that has been written off lately.

-DSK

I think it's at least as likely to cause as to prevent future wars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think it's at least as likely to cause as to prevent future wars.

Well, that's kind of a diaper....... "It Depends."

The fact that we have avoided major wars since WW2, in the areas we have stationed troops anyway, suggests that it works really well.

The fact that we've gotten suckered into other wars suggests that it doesn't work universally, or that our gov't is too much in thrall to warmongers, or a couple of other things, depending on your viewpoint.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RKoch said:

Where do you think ISIS in Syria came from? 

The incompetence of Obama. Mr JV team himself. Obama ran on a platform or ending the wars and withdrawing. He started to make good on that promise by waffling on Afghanistan for 7 months and letting the situation deteriorate dramatically. Then he withdrew from Iraq and ISIS gestated in the vacuum Obama created.

I can just about guarantee that Obama cared only about existing and not succeeding. 

The difference between Obonehead and Trump 

Obraindead "Generals, we can win by leaving."

Trump "Generals, we can leave by winning."

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hillary said:

The incompetence of Obama. Mr JV team himself. Obama ran on a platform or ending the wars and withdrawing. He started to make good on that promise by waffling on Afghanistan for 7 months and letting the situation deteriorate dramatically. Then he withdrew from Iraq and ISIS gestated in the vacuum Obama created.

I can just about guarantee that Obama cared only about existing and not succeeding. 

The difference between Obonehead and Trump 

Obraindead "Generals, we can win by leaving."

Trump "Generals, we can leave by winning."

There was no ISIS in Iraq (or Syria) prior to "Mission Accomplished".  ISIS arose as a result of GWB administration's ineptitude and corruption. Saddam was a beast, but he didn't allow AQ in Iraq nor did he have a WMD program after the Gulf War.  While GWB handled Afghanistan badly, at least a coherent argument could be made to go in and clean out AQ and 'neutralize' OBL (which wasn't a big GWB priority).  There is no such argument that justified invading Iraq. And Iraq spilled over into Syria because GWB didn't seal the border and allowed escaping AQ to flee to Syria and form up ISIS. Obama inherited a shit sandwich from lil' boots.  While he did a fairly poor job handling it, he didn't create it.  That nadir of US foreign policy will forever be a GWB and Republican legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RKoch said:

There was no ISIS in Iraq (or Syria) prior to "Mission Accomplished".  ISIS arose as a result of GWB administration's ineptitude and corruption. Saddam was a beast, but he didn't allow AQ in Iraq nor did he have a WMD program after the Gulf War.  While GWB handled Afghanistan badly, at least a coherent argument could be made to go in and clean out AQ and 'neutralize' OBL (which wasn't a big GWB priority).  There is no such argument that justified invading Iraq. And Iraq spilled over into Syria because GWB didn't seal the border and allowed escaping AQ to flee to Syria and form up ISIS. Obama inherited a shit sandwich from lil' boots.  While he did a fairly poor job handling it, he didn't create it.  That nadir of US foreign policy will forever be a GWB and Republican legacy.

So? you still haven't explained how this is related to Obama's failures and Trump's success. 

It has been over 9 years since Bush was president. 

Obama had 8 years to fix things. He didn't. You are just pissed that Trump may. As painful as losing the election was for liberals and the media, a successful Trump presidency would be far more unbearable. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RKoch said:

When Britain was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. When Russia was an imperial superpower they couldn't defeat the Afghans. It takes a remarkable combination of narcissism, hubris, and Dunning-Kruger to think a continued US military effort will defeat the Afghans. At best, all that can be achieved is a stalemated quagmire with a permanent military presence. 

Just remember, the US were funding and pouring billions of $$$ to back the Afghans at the time.

Whilst also buying weapons from the UK, Egypt, Israel etc. We are all complicit in that fuckup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hillary said:

So? you still haven't explained how this is related to Obama's failures and Trump's success. 

It has been over 9 years since Bush was president. 

Obama had 8 years to fix things. He didn't. You are just pissed that Trump may. As painful as losing the election was for liberals and the media, a successful Trump presidency would be far more unbearable. 

Pres Bush had enough time to win WW II, WW I and the Spanish American War.  He even had so much surplus military he invaded Iraq for fun.   Pres Obama failed to clean up Darth Cheney’s mess.  Let’s let Trump declare victory and run away.   How many Drones must die?    If they attack us again we destroy a village    The war costs us more then the attack did each year.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hillary said:

So? you still haven't explained how this is related to Obama's failures and Trump's success. 

It has been over 9 years since Bush was president. 

Obama had 8 years to fix things. He didn't. You are just pissed that Trump may. As painful as losing the election was for liberals and the media, a successful Trump presidency would be far more unbearable. 

Trump's too busy golfing and hiring/firing lawyers to 'fix' anything.  Given conservative's low bar for defining success,  every day that Trump gets through without accidentally starting a nuclear war has to be a success. From a progressive point of view, much better that Trump be at the control of the train wreck than Clinton. Democrats can sort out their own party division while Trump destroys the Republican brand for them. Although 'not Trump' isn't itself a winning strategy, it will go a very long way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 8:48 AM, Hillary said:


Before President Donald Trump’s August 21, 2017, speech on Afghanistan (the ‘new South Asian strategy’), in which the President announced a renewed commitment to ‘win;’ to avoid nation-building; and to sta

Afghanistan Today:  Three Wars Being Fought Simultaneously

Currently, there are three distinct military efforts going on simultaneously in Afghanistan, all three of which involve U.S. forces: 

  1. Counterterrorism operations under Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL authorities to defeat the insurgency by the Taliban and Haqqani Network, plus the identification, interdiction, and suppression of 13-21 terrorist groups in Afghanistan (and most especially ISIS-K);
  2. The RESOLUTE SUPPORT Mission to Train, Advise, and Assist mission supporting Afghan security force development, sustainment, and operations;
  3. The prevention of high profile attacks across the theater, in particular in Kabul City, designed to foment chaos and undermine popular support for the central government that has the potential to fracture the Afghan National Unity Government, as well as fracture the international coalition providing economic assistance.

 

The Elements of Trump’s New South Asia Strategy

The tenants of the Trump Effect in Afghanistan:

  • A ‘conditions-based approach,’ i.e., no timetable. Strategy is guided by the conditions on the ground, not an arbitrary timetable. The ‘conditions’ for success is a stable, self-sustaining Afghanistan that can secure its own territory so that these 21 terrorist groups cannot use Afghan soil to attack the U.S. and allied interests.
  • A regional strategy (i.e., that involves Pakistan and perhaps Iran and Russia too) that better combines military with diplomatic and economic elements of power. The U.S. military has been successfully re-engaged; whether the State Department can match the renewed commitment with successful diplomacy is unclear.
  • A ‘the Taliban Will Never Win’ military attitude for U.S. and NATO forces. The Taliban may control part of the countryside but will never control large parts of the Afghan population – standing traditional counter-insurgency on its head. The plan: insurgents will be stuck in an endless OODA loop of frustration. Concurrently, GIRoA Information Operations will emphasize that the Taliban ought not fight as proxies for neighboring states – especially given the fact that these states do not want the Taliban to win. Further, precision strikes by U.S. and NATO forces mean that the Taliban will likely kill more civilians every year than Government or Coalition forces – undermining Taliban legitimacy as fighting continues indefinitely. As long as the ANDSF can manage its attrition rates, the U.S./NATO strategy is sustainable indefinitely. The Taliban’s best choice, therefore, if they want any part of Afghanistan’s future, is to reconcile with the Government, like the Afghan insurgent group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin did in 2016.[xix]
  • A tenacious, relentless, year-round assault against ISIS-K in Afghanistan from U.S. and Afghan forces. ISIS-K will be unable to establish any form of foothold or sanctuary; they will be unable to conduct external operations; they will lack freedom of movement; they will remain pariahs in a nation that does not want them.

Trump inscrutability is, perhaps, the most potent element of the new strategy. Whereas Obama had no fight in him for anything, Trumpism involves the risk of U.S. vertical escalation (greater and more lethality); of horizontal escalation (hurting state sponsors elsewhere in the world for their intransigence in Afghanistan); and plain stubbornness. If the state sponsors conclude Trump is in the fight for eight years, their perception of their interests fundamentally change.

more at

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/12/trump_effect_comes_to_afghanistan_113435.html

Do you even remember your mother's name assuming you have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hard On The Wind said:

Do you even remember your mother's name assuming you have one.

It takes a village to raise an idiot. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

Pres Bush had enough time to win WW II, WW I and the Spanish American War.  He even had so much surplus military he invaded Iraq for fun.   Pres Obama failed to clean up Darth Cheney’s mess.  Let’s let Trump declare victory and run away.   How many Drones must die?    If they attack us again we destroy a village    The war costs us more then the attack did each year.    

 

You are still hung up on Bush. You mention that Bush had more time than it took to fight WW1 and WW2. The same is true of Obama. But in partisan fashion it was Bush/Chaney's fault not Obama's.

15 months in Trump is doing better than either of them. He has the will to win. They didn't.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hillary said:

You are still hung up on Bush. You mention that Bush had more time than it took to fight WW1 and WW2. The same is true of Obama. But in partisan fashion it was Bush/Chaney's fault not Obama's.

15 months in Trump is doing better than either of them. He has the will to win. They didn't.

How is he doing better? Specific examples? And what makes you think he has a greater will to win...again, examples required.

Youre just parroting Fox talking points. Any unbiased observer can't help but conclude Trumps presidency is a train wreck. 15 months in, he's fired half his staff...remember, these were the 'best people'.  He's repeatedly embarrassed the country on the world stage. Some of his peeps are already indicted, the rest under multiple investigations. He's pushed through no legislation except a tax cut for the wealthy, which is already straining the budget. And with gas up $1/gal since he took office and another re market about to burst, we're looking at another recession soon. Heck of a job, Brownie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the hard work was done. Trump is the lucky bastard who made it in time to cut the ribbon.

Actually,  I expect some yoo hoo action come the next presidential election. Anyone want to bet that American boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are gone by 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RKoch said:

How is he doing better? Specific examples? And what makes you think he has a greater will to win...again, examples required.

Youre just parroting Fox talking points. Any unbiased observer can't help but conclude Trumps presidency is a train wreck. 15 months in, he's fired half his staff...remember, these were the 'best people'.  He's repeatedly embarrassed the country on the world stage. Some of his peeps are already indicted, the rest under multiple investigations. He's pushed through no legislation except a tax cut for the wealthy, which is already straining the budget. And with gas up $1/gal since he took office and another re market about to burst, we're looking at another recession soon. Heck of a job, Brownie!

The us is now the second biggest oil producer in the world. Why the fuck is gas so expensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

. Why the fuck is gas so expensive?

Republican president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

You are still hung up on Bush. You mention that Bush had more time than it took to fight WW1 and WW2. The same is true of Obama. But in partisan fashion it was Bush/Chaney's fault not Obama's.

15 months in Trump is doing better than either of them. He has the will to win. They didn't.

I think the edge Jack has on all of us is his ability to read minds. He knew what Obama was thinking and now he knows what Trump is thinking.  Never mind the fact that in his list of initiatives presumably demonstrating Trump's accomplishments, those missions were started under Obama. I'm not so sure this is something Trump can even pull off as he can't seem to make his mind up about anything or have his personnel stay around more than a couple of months without them resigning, getting canned, or getting indicted.  

So when it comes to a round up of how Trump is doing, Jack mentions FREEDOM’S SENTINEL and RESOLUTE SUPPORT.  Actual missions and policy started by somebody else.  Trump should start a mission of his own. Suggested title: "MISSION WHAT I HEARD ON FOX AND FRIENDS THIS MORNING". Suggested person in charge: Thirty Day Shifts by each Person of the Month coming in the revolving door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have to give Trump some credit, he is fulfilling his promise to run government like his business...his six bankruptcies business. In coo-coo land, that's supposedly a 'win', but it's the best conservatives can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hillary said:

So? you still haven't explained how this is related to Obama's failures and Trump's success. 

It has been over 9 years since Bush was president. 

Obama had 8 years to fix things. He didn't. You are just pissed that Trump may. As painful as losing the election was for liberals and the media, a successful Trump presidency would be far more unbearable. 

You give true depth and meaning to the term "Idiotically partisan"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You give true depth and meaning to the term "Idiotically partisan"

Look, it's ok. It really is. Not everyone can form an actual coherent argument. No need for you to be ashamed of that. I'm sure you have other talents. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooohhh - ZING! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

Look, it's ok. It really is. Not everyone can form an actual coherent argument. No need for you to be ashamed of that. I'm sure you have other talents. 

Good point. What are your other talents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Good point. What are your other talents?

Licking Trump's prostate, for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Licking Trump's prostate, for starters.

Just when I was going to tell him "No need for you to be ashamed of that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Just when I was going to tell him "No need for you to be ashamed of that".

Somebody has to do it. Hope's gone and Kelly's tongue is too short. Sarah's willing, but Trump isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Somebody has to do it. Hope's gone and Kelly's tongue is too short. Sarah's willing, but Trump isn't.

Come on...you know Moscow wasn't the first or last Golden Showers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Somebody has to do it. Hope's gone and Kelly's tongue is too short. Sarah's willing, but Trump isn't.

No offense, but if I want to know who is willing to do anything, I'll defer the mind reading to Happy Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 3:34 AM, benwynn said:

President Obama announced the training and advisory mission Operation Freedom's Sentinel on 12/28/14.

Operation Resolute Support is pretty similar and is a NATO mission started on 1/1/15

Both started under Obama, but as a Trump cheerleader and partisan hack, you weren't touting them back then.  Now you can.

Interesting you mention a NATO mission. Trump called NATO obsolete during his campaign. His position on the future of NATO is completely unknown because his policy positions are based on the last person he spoke to.  I think he supports it now, but I would have to search Google, then fucking sort his positions chronologically.   I realize you have an easier method, supporting the positions that are valid, and discounting the nonsensical ones as "exaggeration and hyperbole".

Otherwise, it is a shame you mistakenly showed support for missions started under Obama. I look forward to your walk back on that. 

And here I thought Hapless Jack had a story about the Afghans starting to isolate and harass their brown folk with a yuge spike in hate crimes. 

You know...Trump effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, benwynn said:

Good point. What are your other talents?

I'm a universal expert, know it all and political savant. My spelling and typing may be an exception. 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

And here I thought Hapless Jack had a story about the Afghans starting to isolate and harass their brown folk with a yuge spike in hate crimes. 

You know...Trump effect

Why was Trump so respected and honored by New Your's Black community if he is such a racist?

The photo is Trump receiving the 

The Ellis Island Medals of Honor

The Ellis Island Honors Society is the proud sponsor of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor which are presented annually to a select group of individuals whose accomplishments in their field and inspired service to our nation are cause for celebration. The Medal has been officially recognized by both Houses of Congress as one of our nation’s most prestigious awards and is annually memorialized in the Congressional Record.

The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their salute to tolerance, brotherhood, diversity and patriotism. Honorees may be native-born or naturalized, but most importantly, they are individuals who have made it their mission to share their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity with those less fortunate. 

 

trump immigrant

 

Maybe you recognize some of the others with him that year, Mohamed Ali, Rossa Parks ... 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my guess is that this continues to follow all but the first three years of our afghan mission, i.e. helping only the IMC. should be extremely interesting to see our leaderships response once the current grooming of hamza bin laden is complete and AQ comes back bigger, badder and meaner than ever with a new charismatic leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other awards and Reconition

  • Tree of Life Award by the Jewish National Fund (1983)
  • Ellis Island Medal of Honor in celebration of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity" (1986)
  • Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (2007)
  • Muhammad Ali Entrepreneur Award (2007)
  • The Algemeiner Liberty Award for contributions to Israel–United States relations (2015)
  • Marine Corps–Law Enforcement Foundation Commandant's Leadership Award (2015)
  • Friends of Zion Award by the Friends of Zion Museum (2017)
  • Sports Business Journal Most Influential Person in Sports Business (2017)
  • Temple Coin featuring Trump (alongside King Cyrus) from the Mikdash Educational Center in honor of Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the country's capital. (2018)
  • Beitar Trump Jerusalem F.C., renamed themselves, adding Trump's name for recognizing Jerusalem as country's capital. (2018)

State or Government Honors and Awards[edit]

 

  • Collar of The Order of Abdulaziz al Saud from Saudi Arabia (2017)
  • Medal of Bravery, from the Afghan people by Logar Province (2018)

 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I always wanted to get the Purple Heart.  This was much easier."

Donald J. Trump, August 2, 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Why was Trump so respected and honored by New Your's Black community if he is such a racist?

The photo is Trump receiving the 

The Ellis Island Medals of Honor

The Ellis Island Honors Society is the proud sponsor of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor which are presented annually to a select group of individuals whose accomplishments in their field and inspired service to our nation are cause for celebration. The Medal has been officially recognized by both Houses of Congress as one of our nation’s most prestigious awards and is annually memorialized in the Congressional Record.

The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their salute to tolerance, brotherhood, diversity and patriotism. Honorees may be native-born or naturalized, but most importantly, they are individuals who have made it their mission to share their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity with those less fortunate. 

 

trump immigrant

 

Maybe you recognize some of the others with him that year, Mohamed Ali, Rossa Parks ... 

 

Wow, I didn't know Victor Borge was black!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Wow, I didn't know Victor Borge was black!

-DSK

Yup 23 and me made it official 2%. But then someone told me just about everyone that takes the 23 and me test is 2% black. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mohamed Ali, Rossa Parks

What a fuckin' illiterate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

I'm a universal expert, know it all and political savant. My spelling and typing may be an exception. 

"Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is a concept in psychoanalytic theory, which was popularly introduced in Sigmund Freud's essay On Narcissism (1914). The American Psychiatric Association has listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania.

Narcissism is also considered a social or cultural problem. It is a factor in trait theory used in various self-report inventories of personality such as the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. It is one of the three dark triadic personality traits (the others being psychopathy and Machiavellianism). Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person's or group's relationships with self and others. Narcissism is not the same as egocentrism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump effect?  Afghanistan?  

 

Married guys can fuck porn stars while their wife recovers from childbirth?  Wasn't that the law in Afghanistan before?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Mohamed Ali, Rossa Parks

What a fuckin' illiterate.

Hey I readily admit spelling is my downfall. 

There are nunneries studies that link poor spelling to high IQ. Seems us Smarties use our knowledge of other words to spell with instead of rote memory.

Famous Thinkers Who Couldn’t Spell

  • Alfred Mosher Butts inventor of Scrabble
  • William Faulkner
  • F. Scott Fitzgerald
  • Ernest Hemingway
  • John Keats
  • Jane Austen
  • Albert Einstein
  • Winston Churchill
  • Leonardo Da Vinci
  • John F. Kennedy Jr.
  • Benjamin Franklin

http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/

 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 

1 minute ago, Hillary said:

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

I have no doubt that you fail to see the hypocrisy in those back to back posts, Dum Dum.  Well done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Hey I readily admit spelling is my downfall. 

There are nunneries studies that link poor spelling to high IQ. Seems us Smarties use our knowledge of other words to spell with instead of rote memory.

Famous Thinkers Who Couldn’t Spell

  • Alfred Mosher Butts inventor of Scrabble
  • William Faulkner
  • F. Scott Fitzgerald
  • Ernest Hemingway
  • John Keats
  • Jane Austen
  • Albert Einstein
  • Winston Churchill
  • Leonardo Da Vinci
  • John F. Kennedy Jr.
  • Benjamin Franklin

http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/

 

 

I don't see you displaying high IQ. I do see Dunning-Kruger, willful ignorance, and constant parroting of RW utter bullshit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Hey I readily admit spelling is my downfall. 

There are nunneries studies that link poor spelling to high IQ. Seems us Smarties use our knowledge of other words to spell with instead of rote memory.

Famous Thinkers Who Couldn’t Spell

  • Alfred Mosher Butts inventor of Scrabble
  • William Faulkner
  • F. Scott Fitzgerald
  • Ernest Hemingway
  • John Keats
  • Jane Austen
  • Albert Einstein
  • Winston Churchill
  • Leonardo Da Vinci
  • John F. Kennedy Jr.
  • Benjamin Franklin

http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/

 

 

The partial list of Dumbasses around here who can't spell:

Nailing Malarkey

U Bent Stom

Dagger Board

Killery Again Man

Simple Jack

Hillary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hillary said:

I'm a universal expert, know it all and political savant. My spelling and typing may be an exception. 

As a universal expert and know it all, do you know if you have posted under any of the following IDs?

Nailing Malarkey

U Bent Stom

Dagger Board

Killery Again Man

Happy Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

As a universal expert and know it all, do you know if you have posted under any of the following IDs?

Nailing Malarkey

U Bent Stom

Dagger Board

Killery Again Man

Happy Jack

Cool names. 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

As a universal expert and know it all, do you know if you have posted under any of the following IDs?

Nailing Malarkey

U Bent Stom

Dagger Board

Killery Again Man

Happy Jack

 

30 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Cool names. 

That wasn't the question.  But you knew that already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, benwynn said:

 

That wasn't the question.  But you knew that already.

You inspired me. I kinda like the change. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You inspired me. I kinda like the change. 

Are you going to do all of them before you answer?   There does not seem to be a limit as to how far you go in being disengenuous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Are you going to do all of them before you answer?   There does not seem to be a limit as to how far you go in being disengenuous. 

It's just a screen name Ben. Has zero to do with the content of my posts. 

Here is an idea for all of you. Tape a piece of cardboard over the left side of your monitor hiding the poster's names. 

I guarantee if you don't know  who the poster is it will change how your interpret the content. Sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. 

A very useful addition to forum software in general would be the ability to turn on an anonymous button that hides posters names with random substitutes so you can choose to read without authorship bias.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It's just a screen name Ben. Has zero to do with the content of my posts. 

Here is an idea for all of you. Tape a piece of cardboard over the left side of your monitor hiding the poster's names. 

I guarantee if you don't know  who the poster is it will change how your interpret the content. Sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. 

A very useful addition to forum software in general would be the ability to turn on an anonymous button that hides posters names with random substitutes so you can choose to read without authorship bias.

 

Well I agree...the content of your posts is zero. You are entertaining in a village idiot sort of way. It's like watching Rimas attempt to sail while he proclaims himself a world record sailor. Observing stupidity is funny, and you're just a barrel of laughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Well I agree...the content of your posts is zero. You are entertaining in a village idiot sort of way. It's like watching Rimas attempt to sail while he proclaims himself a world record sailor. Observing stupidity is funny, and you're just a barrel of laughs.

I guess you were not a fan of Bloomberg's speech?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It's just a screen name Ben. Has zero to do with the content of my posts. 

Here is an idea for all of you. Tape a piece of cardboard over the left side of your monitor hiding the poster's names. 

I guarantee if you don't know  who the poster is it will change how your interpret the content. Sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. 

A very useful addition to forum software in general would be the ability to turn on an anonymous button that hides posters names with random substitutes so you can choose to read without authorship bias.

Authorship bias based on reputation is completely legitimate.  On a simply practical note, it establishes areas of expertise. For example, I can pretty much take Tom Ray's posts on firearms laws as fact.  As for you...  No matter how many accounts  you start, you cannot seem to carry a reputation of being objective, honest, and forthright.  So when you post something, we can decide to either take the time to verify it, or just assume it's subjective bullshit.

You have a problem that no amount of cardboard is going to fix 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Authorship bias based on reputation is completely legitimate.  On a simply practical note, it establishes areas of expertise. For example, I can pretty much take Tom Ray's posts on firearms laws as fact.  As for you...  No matter how many accounts  you start, you cannot seem to carry a reputation of being objective, honest, and forthright.  So when you post something, we can decide to either take the time to verify it, or just assume it's subjective bullshit.

You have a problem that no amount of cardboard is going to fix 

I just assume Jack's full of shit...why waste time fact-checking him?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Authorship bias based on reputation is completely legitimate.  On a simply practical note, it establishes areas of expertise. For example, I can pretty much take Tom Ray's posts on firearms laws as fact.  As for you...  No matter how many accounts  you start, you cannot seem to carry a reputation of being objective, honest, and forthright.  So when you post something, we can decide to either take the time to verify it, or just assume it's subjective bullshit.

You have a problem that no amount of cardboard is going to fix 

Like every other rabid partisan you can rationalize anything. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jack at least had the good manners this time to change his I.D. in such a way that I didn't even have to put in a new ignore - the old one from his Hillary I.D. seems to have just carried over.

How many is this now - 5?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Like every other rabid partisan you can rationalize anything. 

I make a case for being factual, objective, honest, and forthright.  You take that as partisan, just like you did over in the "Essential reading..." thread.  Fascinating. 

Birds of a feather.... You are a lying hypocritical fuck.  And you have found a welcome home in your party.  According to you.  At least by your latest posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 5:43 AM, Steam Flyer said:

I dunno, Alexander the Great did OK there. Ghengis Khan was more recent.

General Sherman would have succeeded.

The thing is, we don't have to really 'win.' We just have to make life more miserable for our friends' enemies than we do for our friends. And not get killed.

-DSK

Alexander’s anointed failed. Afghanistan continued to send taxes to Peking long after Kahn died.  Do not forget, China has a border with Afghanistan.  And they are building a highway through the area.  Now whether the Muslim problem will infect Western China?  

Right.

Sherman might have some, tactical, short term success, but I would say with our present predicament (Republican southern strategy) we have enduring success?  Nope.  It takes more than scorched earth.  Anywhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amati said:

Alexander’s anointed failed. Afghanistan continued to send taxes to Peking long after Kahn died.  Do not forget, China has a border with Afghanistan.  And they are building a highway through the area.  Now whether the Muslim problem will infect Western China?  

Right.

Sherman might have some, tactical, short term success, but I would say with our present predicament (Republican southern strategy) we have enduring success?  Nope.  It takes more than scorched earth.  Anywhere....

The border shared by Afghan and China is less than 50 mi long. There is a mountain pass there, part of the legendary Silk Road used for millennia. The border is presently closed, afaik. There's nature preserves on either side, unknown if either country willing  to disturb them. There's civil unrest there on the China side, I kind of doubt they'd be willing to risk exacerbating that by opening the border. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Well Jack at least had the good manners this time to change his I.D. in such a way that I didn't even have to put in a new ignore - the old one from his Hillary I.D. seems to have just carried over.

How many is this now - 5?

5 what?  

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

I make a case for being factual, objective, honest, and forthright.  You take that as partisan, just like you did over in the "Essential reading..." thread.  Fascinating. 

Birds of a feather.... You are a lying hypocritical fuck.  And you have found a welcome home in your party.  According to you.  At least by your latest posts. 

That essential reading is rife with political partisanship in a speech supposedly arguing against partisanship. Hypocrite Bloomers just could not restrain himself. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites