I think the biggest thing we are learning during these events is that the US needs a major shift in our foreign policy. The amount of financial aid pumping to Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc is simply absurd. The US embassy's are being attacked- these are NOT isolated incidents. The Ambassador in Libya was brutally murdered, yet the reaction in DC is really a "sit tight and see how it plays out" mentality. Shameful.
Can anyone offer me a good explanation as to why we still have troops in Afghanistan? Is President Obama holding our feet to the fire here? Is this a "you only get troops withdrawal if I am re-elected"? WHY ARE THEY STILL THERE? I demand to know what the mission is- as in, what is the end-result? The left screamed at Bush as our men and women were getting killed over there and they are STILL THERE getting killed for no reason. The green on blue combined with the blatant attacks on our embassies tell me that the enemy smells box and they are going after it. If the mission is to sit tight over there in Afghanistan and wait till the election is over so we can set the conditions to come home, I, as a Commander, would tell my men to stay on the base. No patrols, stay alert, maintain a security posture and let the Afghans kill eachother when we leave here for good. Hamid Karzai is an unappreciative piece of shit. The guy condemns the movie but says nothing about our Ambassador getting murdered. I'm disgusted.
The current US Middle East foreign policy continues to be a muddled mess because of the failure to established any continuity or coherence in its overall direction.
Since 1975, there have been about five basic philosophies for Middle East policy. It started with Carter who believed in a handsoff current established governments. After that, Reagan/Haig advocated for the so-called "American Doctrine" i.e. we will support your government if you support us. Reagan did not believe in the establishment of democracies as long as the government was in our interest. Bush I continued much of Reagan's policies and was quite reluctant to ever overtly overthrow an existing government (think Iraq). Bush I did commence the use of the CIA to create resistence among governments we targeted for removal. Clinton/Albright followed Bush I policies but began to use economic pressures more than other administrations. Ironically, fellow Reagan Republicans Bush/Bolton essentially established the antithesis of Reagan/Haig by adocating and supporting the overthrow of governments to create democracies. It was Bolton's vision that democracy can spread through individual revolutions, as it did in Eastern Europe.
Obama has, more or less, followed the Bush/Bolton line of thinking less overtly. This policy, while seemingly American in ideal, proves less protective of American interests when measured against the historical backdrop of religious theocracies. Unlike Eastern Europe countries, where religion was exorcised from any participation in government, Islamic Middle East countries even with quasi-democratic forms of government, are established based on sect. It is nearly impossible, if not absolutely impossible, to have a continuom of democracy under such conditions.
The current US Middle East foreign policy continues to be a muddled mess because of the failure to established any continuity or coherence in its overall direction.
Since 1975, there have been about five basic philosophies for Middle East policy. It started with Carter who believed in a handsoff current established governments. After that, Reagan/Haig advocated for the so-called "American Doctrine" i.e. we will support your government if you support us. Reagan did not believe in the establishment of democracies as long as the government was in our interest. Bush I continued much of Reagan's policies and was quite reluctant to ever overtly overthrow an existing government (think Iraq). Bush I did commence the use of the CIA to create resistence among governments we targeted for removal. Clinton/Albright followed Bush I policies but began to use economic pressures more than other administrations. Ironically, fellow Reagan Republicans Bush/Bolton essentially established the antithesis of Reagan/Haig by adocating and supporting the overthrow of governments to create democracies. It was Bolton's vision that democracy can spread through individual revolutions, as it did in Eastern Europe.
Obama has, more or less, followed the Bush/Bolton line of thinking less overtly. This policy, while seemingly American in ideal, proves less protective of American interests when measured against the historical backdrop of religious theocracies. Unlike Eastern Europe countries, where religion was exorcised from any participation in government, Islamic Middle East countries even with quasi-democratic forms of government, are established based on sect. It is nearly impossible, if not absolutely impossible, to have a continuom of democracy under such conditions.
I think the biggest thing we are learning during these events is that the US needs a major shift in our foreign policy. The amount of financial aid pumping to Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc is simply absurd. The US embassy's are being attacked- these are NOT isolated incidents. The Ambassador in Libya was brutally murdered, yet the reaction in DC is really a "sit tight and see how it plays out" mentality. Shameful.
Can anyone offer me a good explanation as to why we still have troops in Afghanistan? Is President Obama holding our feet to the fire here? Is this a "you only get troops withdrawal if I am re-elected"? WHY ARE THEY STILL THERE? I demand to know what the mission is- as in, what is the end-result? The left screamed at Bush as our men and women were getting killed over there and they are STILL THERE getting killed for no reason. The green on blue combined with the blatant attacks on our embassies tell me that the enemy smells box and they are going after it. If the mission is to sit tight over there in Afghanistan and wait till the election is over so we can set the conditions to come home, I, as a Commander, would tell my men to stay on the base. No patrols, stay alert, maintain a security posture and let the Afghans kill eachother when we leave here for good. Hamid Karzai is an unappreciative piece of shit. The guy condemns the movie but says nothing about our Ambassador getting murdered. I'm disgusted.
Scalabrine- your hard-on for me continues.
I think the biggest thing we are learning during these events is that the US needs a major shift in our foreign policy. The amount of financial aid pumping to Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc is simply absurd. The US embassy's are being attacked- these are NOT isolated incidents. The Ambassador in Libya was brutally murdered, yet the reaction in DC is really a "sit tight and see how it plays out" mentality. Shameful.
Can anyone offer me a good explanation as to why we still have troops in Afghanistan? Is President Obama holding our feet to the fire here? Is this a "you only get troops withdrawal if I am re-elected"? WHY ARE THEY STILL THERE? I demand to know what the mission is- as in, what is the end-result? The left screamed at Bush as our men and women were getting killed over there and they are STILL THERE getting killed for no reason. The green on blue combined with the blatant attacks on our embassies tell me that the enemy smells box and they are going after it. If the mission is to sit tight over there in Afghanistan and wait till the election is over so we can set the conditions to come home, I, as a Commander, would tell my men to stay on the base. No patrols, stay alert, maintain a security posture and let the Afghans kill eachother when we leave here for good. Hamid Karzai is an unappreciative piece of shit. The guy condemns the movie but says nothing about our Ambassador getting murdered. I'm disgusted.
Established in 1995,
Dictators keep the Taliban and extremist groups in line, yet we keep removing the dictators. I think the USA is much better off if these Muslim countries remain dictatorships instead of theocracies.
You know that.
Hot Forum Topics
