Darfur, Afghanistan and the failure of the Bush Policy

Why the War on Terror is lost

from JoeUser Forums

The US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates shares a quality with his more famous name sake:studied understatement is his way of speaking and this rhetorical choice was in full dispaly when he announced to the media recently that the NATO is in danger of becoming irrelevant in Afghanistan. There were howls of protest from the NATO capitals, but no one who follows the incresingly dismal news from Kabul can be in any doubt ablut the truth of Bill Gate's statement. The biggest mistake that George Bush made was to take his sight off Afghanistan and focus it on Baghdad and 3 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of wasted lives later the War on Terror is still being faught. A whole new front has now been opened up that did not exist in 2001.

The fact is the NATO countriesd have now got sick of the war and want to opt out. In fact the US Director of Intelligence has admitted that 360 of the 365 districts of Afghainistan have now increased Taleban presence. The President of the nation, Ahmed Karzai is now beginning to look and sound like a puppet and controls less than a third of the city of Kabul. Even the capital has seen resurgence of the Taleban. The tribal regions are now awash with opium and narcotics have become the single most important source of income for the people of Afghanistan. Because of the Iraqi Resistance the Taleban has learnt to harass the NATO troops using IEDs and roadside bombs.In Helmand province 6 british soldiers were killed and the retreat of Prince Harry was the result.

In Darfur, the USA has shown  remarkable patience, a quality it did not show in Kossovo. Most people all over the world now think that US policy with respect of the erst while province of Serbia, Bosnia and Kossovo, in which NATO airforce was ordered to strike at Serbia and militarily defeat the Serbs and further humiliate them by the unilateral declaration of independence of Kossovo was not the policy in Darfur. Are we to understand that European lives will be protected and not Arab and African. Why is the USA adopting a dual policy in Darfur. Bush's policy is a total failure and the Janjaweed Militia has now reequipped and is able to strike terror in the region. China is trying to pull its weight in the region  but Washington is prevaricating as usual.

Bush has left a very complex legacy on the foreign policy front. A never ending war in Iraq, an incomplete war on terror in Afghanistan and trouble spots like the Gaza, Lebanon and Darfur that can flare up at any given time.

foreign policy failure bush
4,646 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

My only comment on Afghanistan is that the Taliban are pouring in in their thousands, mainly from Pakistan and the mountain areas. The reprisals after 9/11 were not enough and the Taliban have been underestimated. They are determined to take back Afghanistan and they may well do so. The only solution is to purge them and there are not enough troops to do so. The war with the Taliban could go on for years.

You mention "remarkable patience' as far as the USA policy in Darfur is concerned. I read that as doing very little apart from food aid, a lot of which is seized by bandits in a country that is lawless with a government which, if not publicly, supports the Janjaweed in ethnic cleansing.

Darfur has been abandoned and we cannot blame the UN for that. 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personnaly, I'd say you lost about 60% of your credibility in your first sentance.

The US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates shares a quality with his more famous name sake:studied understatement is his way of speaking and this rhetorical choice was in full dispaly when he announced to the media recently that the NATO is in danger of becoming irrelevant in Afghanistan.
End of quote


Find your mistake  :) 
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Robert Gates not Bill. Sometimes one does get confused with the two names.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

The U.N. is responsibile for the Darfur situation, not Bush or the U.S.  Amazing how people who criticize the U.S. for military action are  the same ones who "blame" us for not doing anything. 

That is why nobody cares what "the world" thinks anymore.

 

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

It's simple, we had reason to go into Iraq, we had reason to go into Afghanistan.  We have no reason to interfere in Darfur.  It's hypocritial for the left to whine that we aren't involved in Darfur, when they claim we had no reason to go into Iraq.

Darfur is a internal problem.  We have no ceasefire with either side of the problem there, so there isn't one to enforce.  Darfur isn't financing terrorist attacks against us.

It's telling that the left complains that the US isn't interfering in Darfur, yet to do so would actually be doing what the left accuses us of doing in Iraq.

 

The fact the Europe is losing it's will to fight Islamist Extremists merely proves what Isamist Extremist leaders say about the West.  To the extremists, the war has been going on for decades, and they are still up for the fight.  Cowardice and laziness are making the West want to give up after only half a decade.

If Europe hates freedom so much that they aren't willing to fight to maintain it, perhaps the U.S. should pull out of NATO completely and leave Europe to the end they deserve.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Europe hates freedom so much that they aren't willing to fight to maintain it, perhaps the U.S. should pull out of NATO completely and leave Europe to the end they deserve.
End of quote


This sounds really good to me but common sense tells me it is a bad idea, we left them alone and we had to bail them out of WWI, death toll was 25 million, we left them alone again and had to bail them out of WWII, death toll was another 25 million, we stayed and they got us tied up in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, death toll less than a million. We left them alone and the terrorist did there thing all over Europe and then tried to spread their crap on our shores and we are still counting the bodies, so it is best we stay involved even if they are not.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Robert Gates not Bill. Sometimes one does get confused with the two names.
End of quote


thank you, it was simply nagging at me ;)

The U.N. is responsibile for the Darfur situation, not Bush or the U.S. Amazing how people who criticize the U.S. for military action are the same ones who "blame" us for not doing anything.
End of quote


Since the U.N. isn't a thing that exist by itself, and merely the what it's nation-members do with it, I would say we should blame the nation-states in it. Bush isn't responsible for those atrocities, and I find the conservatives in the U.S. who blame the UN of any wrong in the world to be as stupid as the people who blame Bush for every wrong in the world.

But 2 kind of people in the west should be blamed for those:

1) The coward way the governements refuse to acknowledge any form of genocide in Darfur. Since acknowledging a genocide makes a country, by international law, obliged to intervene. No governements want that, so they simply sit by and say : Oh dear, that's awful

2) The short-sighted lefty social groups that makes pressure on oil companies to stop doing business in Sudan because of the Darfur. Those companies mostly have been forced to sell those interest. To whom do you think they sold these interest? China, who simply doesn't care. So.. it means that we lost most economic leverage against Darfur that we could have used, and China got a bargain for oil.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
we left them alone again and had to bail them out of WWII, death toll was another 25 million
End of quote


That's stupid. You didn't intervened in WWII to save their sorry asses, but to save your own sorry asses. You simply saw soon (as opposed to WWI) that it would be better to make a united stand against the Axis.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's stupid. You didn't intervened in WWII to save their sorry asses, but to save your own sorry asses. You simply saw soon (as opposed to WWI) that it would be better to make a united stand against the Axis.
End of quote


That is almost true, our leaders knew we would have to get involved but the people who wanted peace at any price wanted us to stay out of the war because it was in Europe and they had not attacked us. Remember that Japan was the only nation to attack the United States during the entire war. Germany sent spies but they were caught within days of arrival and they never had a chance to attack us. The peace lovers argued that we should only fight Japan and leave Europe to the Europeans. Even after Hitler declared war on us to try to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union he did very little to attack us. We on the other hand as soon as Hitler declared war on us then started flooding Europe and the Soviet Union with troops and supplies. Yes, we bailed out the Soviet Union as well as all of Europe while fighting another war with Japan.

America is the only nation in history to successfully fight two completely different wars at the same time. We did not have to do this and our peace loving citizens wanted us to deal with Japan only because we should not fight and die for Europe, I like the idea but all it would do is make us weak in the long run so we stopped the enemy by fighting on his land not ours.

It is the same strategy we are using today in Iraq an Afghanistan and the peace lovers are giving the same argument that we should not have invaded Iraq and only waged war in Afghanistan.

It is also the reason we are not getting involved in Darfur, although it is a tragedy it has nothing to do with us and does not affect our interest abroad.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is also the reason we are not getting involved in Darfur, although it is a tragedy it has nothing to do with us and does not affect our interest abroad.
End of quote


Remember, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's simple, we had reason to go into Iraq, we had reason to go into Afghanistan. We have no reason to interfere in Darfur. It's hypocritial for the left to whine that we aren't involved in Darfur, when they claim we had no reason to go into Iraq.
End of quote

It's not that simple, you had reason but at the same time your president declared war on terror not Afghanistan or Iraq singled out. I hope that you consider this information carefully.


Darfur is a internal problem.
End of quote

Terror in the world that may effect YOU isn't?


We have no ceasefire with either side of the problem there, so there isn't one to enforce. Darfur isn't financing terrorist attacks against us.
End of quote

Does it always boil down to your own countrymen? When do we have an evolved sense of love for one another and where does this attitude end?


It's telling that the left complains that the US isn't interfering in Darfur, yet to do so would actually be doing what the left accuses us of doing in Iraq.
End of quote

The Left, The Right... the unsavory middle. If life were oh so simple as Right And Wrong... I mean there's this division in politics Right or Left... both grinding the axe between what is right and wrong. We're all human we all make mistakes, but there are two choices in every matter and all we should do is try to do the right thing and do no harm.

When I speak of "us" I do not mean to imply I'm American because I'm not. I think "us" really stems down to people of all nationalities, being "American" is hardly the justice to the word "us". Just think of what goes through your mind when I inform you that I am Canadian, do you sense the stereo types surfacing? Or do you draw the line logically between what I say?

As I have said before as I will reiterate again, there is right... the desire to do good and do no harm and there is wrong the desire to do harm and not care about the choices being made whilst shrugging the shoulders passing along excuses for making poor choices when in fact it should be "I made them, I hope for forgiveness however the only thing in my interest is to continue forward making the right choices instead" and do it despite opinion or malice directed towards you. All this is all good and said, but all I can do is pray that we all have the strength to go forth with positive and forthcoming qualities.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Webnavigtor:
Does it always boil down to your own countrymen? When do we have an evolved sense of love for one another and where does this attitude end?
End of quote


It comes down to the use of scarce resources. "We" (as in everyone who wants to "do good") can't stop every atrocity in every nation. "We" have to pick and choose what is worth fighting for and what isn't.

Since it takes scarce resources to "fight the good fight", no matter how many good fights there are, "We" don't have the resources to fight them all.

Darfur isn't the worst hell hole in the world, so what it is about it that makes it worth using our resources to "fix". Sudan itself is a hell hole of slavery and atrocity, why would we "fix" one area over the rest of the country?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please don't tell me you are 100% behind that outlandish statement made by... who was it? Bush? "You are either for us or you are against us". How exactly can you speak with such pretense Ted?

Do you sincerely believe the people in the "Hell holes" you speak of are not people at all but insects to be ignored? I don't think I'm deluded but obviously people who want to be helped will help themselves or try to with a little encouragement/temporary assistance. I think a lot more can be done than simply admitting defeat before any attempt is made at helping the world to become a better place.

Making a difference doesn't mean you have to have hundreds of thousands of troops on the soil and not to criticize the Afghanistan/Iraq situation either.

A lot can be done, if 'we' as in people of all nations, Americans,Africans,Asians,Canadians even.... whatever whoever wherever... put our minds to it. "We" < remember this word is not exclusive to one nation] can make a difference. I sincerely hope that there can be a difference made however. A challenge to be had, a challenge I know not even I can solve in so many words myself. (To admit situations are more complicated than my words of spite against bad xenophobic attitudes)
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
No web, I never bought into the whole "if you're not for us you're against us" thing from Bush. Yes, there are things that can be done for the people of Darfur, but not a whole lot. Why? Because any "aid" we send will only end up in the hands of those who are making the place a hell hole. We can support efforts by private organizations working in Darfur (which is help, but part of the "not a whole lot" category.

But the fact is, other than secondary support, there isn't much we can do, or even should do. It's not that the people of Darfur don't deserve or need help, the fact is, there is no national interest for the U.S. to lend primary aid.

As the left likes to point out, we can't play policeman to the world. We shouldn't even try. That doesn't mean we hide our heads in the sand and help no one, but if our resources are going to be used to help people in other countries, there has to be some kind of national interest involved.

You and I should be out helping everyone who needs it in our own cities too, but the fact is, we have to decide how our own resources are best used. If we don't then we aren't much help to anyone, especially ourselves, for very long.

There are attrocities going on all over the world, and Darfur isn't even the worst hell hole on earth. So what is it about Darfur that demands our aid, when other need them just as much... maybe even more?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I speak of "us" I do not mean to imply I'm American because I'm not. I think "us" really stems down to people of all nationalities, being "American" is hardly the justice to the word "us". Just think of what goes through your mind when I inform you that I am Canadian, do you sense the stereo types surfacing? Or do you draw the line logically between what I say?
End of quote


I am a Canadian (actually, I would prefer to be called a Quebecois) myself, and I have to reflect a little what you just said.

But if you really want our rich-countries to go into Darfur, all right. What do we do? Do we shoot at the rebels? We shoot at the governement? We go protect the civilian population, which is spread in a whole country, or try to protect the displaced peoples? Don't forget that if we act in a non-aggressive way, our militaries will simply be target. If you think we have a lot of coffins coming out of Afghanistan, let me tell you we would have WAY more coming out of Darfur if we step in to act as bodyguards.

I don't think us going in there will actually help matters, and it will be a big waste of money, of our soldier's troop.

People criticized that we haven'T interceded during the Rwanda's genocide, but again, what we do? We step in, and start shooting the Hutu population to prevent them killing the Tutis? We send soldiers in to personnaly defend every Tuti available in their home, spreading our (small) forces, making them vulnerable to retaliation?

It's easy to say "we have to do stop them". Quite another thing to go in there and start messing with other people's trouble. Not that it's not a worthy goal, but that we simply cannot really stop these. Would you step in, alone, to stop 4 peoples fighting against each others?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

While Darfur has got quite a few exited, there is need to reflect on the situation in Afghanistan.Is it becoming difficult for the US single handedly to conduct the war and the NATO allies are not helping. The policy of Bush of opening a second front in Iraq when the war in Afghanistan was far from over was a big big mistake and the consequences are going to be felt for a lon time.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
.Is it becoming difficult for the US single handedly to conduct the war and the NATO allies are not helping.
End of quote


USA is not single-handely conducting the War, and Canada is over-extending it's military to lend a hand there! Canada has the highest loss/soldier ratio in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2 years!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
No web, I never bought into the whole "if you're not for us you're against us" thing from Bush. Yes, there are things that can be done for the people of Darfur, but not a whole lot. Why? Because any "aid" we send will only end up in the hands of those who are making the place a hell hole. We can support efforts by private organizations working in Darfur (which is help, but part of the "not a whole lot" category.

But the fact is, other than secondary support, there isn't much we can do, or even should do. It's not that the people of Darfur don't deserve or need help, the fact is, there is no national interest for the U.S. to lend primary aid.

As the left likes to point out, we can't play policeman to the world. We shouldn't even try. That doesn't mean we hide our heads in the sand and help no one, but if our resources are going to be used to help people in other countries, there has to be some kind of national interest involved.

You and I should be out helping everyone who needs it in our own cities too, but the fact is, we have to decide how our own resources are best used. If we don't then we aren't much help to anyone, especially ourselves, for very long.

There are attrocities going on all over the world, and Darfur isn't even the worst hell hole on earth. So what is it about Darfur that demands our aid, when other need them just as much... maybe even more?
End of quote


You are correct, we can't solve the world's problems but there are things people can do to help limited as they are. What I'm saying here is that as individuals we should not give up hope but try a little every now and then. Just because it seems like insurmountable odds to overcome doesn't mean they can't be. It just sounded to me like your previous posts were pretty negative and even self-centered. In reality though I can step back and see why you seem or perhaps even are a little pessimistic. In the world today there always has to be a benefit to our actions, money power what may have you.

Think of it this way, if a bunch of radicals were killing off you and your family would you "understand" that you are of no benefit to other nations to help you? I don't think that you would. A life is a life and it has value, it doesn't always have to be weighted upon oil or other such "resources".

If the war on terror is anything I would say it would be this; to seek out the broken the bullied and the over bared with hope for their futures. Terror.. Terrorism... two words separated by a slight technicality but both having common grounds being fear. The way I see it is the U.S. took on a war on terror and not simply an adventure for revenge. I keep forgetting that no matter which leader a nation gets they can never truly represent the people yet they all try or act like they can.

Would you step in, alone, to stop 4 peoples fighting against each others?
End of quote
I already have. A challenge, but not impossible. Risky but not foolish. Successful but not always.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Web:
The way I see it is the U.S. took on a war on terror and not simply an adventure for revenge. I keep forgetting that no matter which leader a nation gets they can never truly represent the people yet they all try or act like they can.
End of quote


I said "national interest", not "benefit". Anytime our leaders decide whether or not to put our resources into anything, the number one question should be about our national interests. If we destroy ourselves trying to help someone else, we help neither..

As for the "someone is trying to kill me" analogy, I'll go with how I was trained. In EMS we are trained that our responsibility when it comes to safety is, Ourselves, our partner, other Emergency workers the patient, by standers... in that order. It sounds selfish, but if my partner and I get killed or wounded trying to help the patient, what good did we do anyone?

Our leaders have to have the same priorities... The U.S. should come first, then our allies, then the nation we are trying to help, then other nations (and yes, every national leader should have the same priorities, with their nation first).

As far as the war on Islamist Extremist Terrorism (I know that's not the wording of the rhetoric, but it is the actions behind the rhetoric), if the people of Darfur are being terrorized by Islamist Extremist Terrorists, then that would count on the "National Interest" side of the decision.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think part of the reason Europe is so leery about staying in Afghanistan is that every part of their history suggests the area is hopelessly impossible to control. The Brits couldn't hold it, the Soviets couldn't do it, and now the West can't do it. There's something about the politics of the region and the terrain that makes it too tough a nut for outsiders to crack.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since the US pays 25% of the cost (yes among ALL nations) of UN peace keeping forces. I'd say the US is contributing to the situation in Darfur. You who cry about causalities want to see some blood there too? Please spare me.

It didn't take long for the 3 Trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war to come out (which is false). The Pentagon released today it has spent 500 Billion (can't remember exact amount). It also said it will spend 1.5 Trillion provided the troops are there until 2017. Over the same period (2001 until 2017) the US GNP is expected to be 300 Trillion dollars, The cost is comparable to the first gulf war to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Since the end of that war there has been 60,000 US troops in the region supporting the containment of Saddam, more than a third of the number of troops there now.

The left throws out figures to scare people into surrender. As any sane person can see it takes lending money to morons that can't pay their mortgage to bring a nation down, not a war.