Is Barack Obama an Idiot?

Barack Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq, but increase American troops in Afghanistan. Obama said, "As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

In my view, Obama is as big a fool and idiot as Bush to think that the US and its allies can prevail in Afghanistan. Throughout history, Afghanistan has resisted all attempts by invaders to subdue it. It is insane hubris to think that the US can prevail where all others failed, particularly when the U.S. loses most of its wars except those it wages on small islands like Grenada.

So, is Obama an idiot?

[HelioPrime]

I'd say he's just doing what it takes to get elected. Independent voters who oppose the war will support him over his Iraq drawdown while more conservative independents will support his continues fight against terrorism.

We could sit here all day and argue that war and terrorism are all overblown and nothing but products of US interference and a to powerful government but that thinking doesn't get people into office. History and Washington hardly pay attention to third party campaign rally's and forgotten Ron Paul's.

[Praxius]

Well with Afghanistan, you guys had some sort of justification to go there (Not including the Pipeline theory) while Iraq shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Afghanistan does pose a chance of success for one main reason that seperates it from past conflicts in Afghanistan:

If you have the people of Afghanistan against you, then you will never win.... much like the insurgency in Iraq. But it's the Taliban that are being fought..... whom seem to be hiding in Pakistan and crossing the borders to attack.

The people of Afghanistan see the changes in their lives and see small improvements, but in order to win the war, you need to win over the people, and I will single out the US in Afghanistan for being the worst offender of trying to win them over.

With numerous air strikes and rampant shooting sprees reported which have killed more civilians then Taliban, it's not only making the US's battles harder in Afghanistan, but every other Allied Nation's role more difficult in Afghanistan, because they see us all as the same. When we're just as careless for civilian life as the Taliban, then we're no better then the Taliban, and when that happens, the people not only won't know which side is the good side, but they'll usually stick to what they're used to..... The Taliban.

One has to tell and show the Afghans that we're there to at least try and improve their lives and give them control over their own country for once. When it seems like all that's happening is that NATO forces are fighting the Taliban and they're just stuck in the middle of it all, not actually helping the people moreso, then the support will be frail.

But in order to help the people more, rather then continual warfare, more troops are needed.... Canada has been saying this for a long time.... not directly to the US, but other allied nations who haven't really done much to contribute in comparison. And if there isn't enough troops on the ground, then we can not patrol and cover all the areas we win.... we get spread out too thing, and then the security goes to crap and we're back to square one, just like what has been happening each year now.

Obama has the right approach. It may sound stupid, but he's only trying to correct existing mistakes made by a previous president. Removal of a good chunk of US troops within Iraq would at least reduce the tensions between the waring factions within Iraq where most of their reasons of fighting are simply due to having forign troops/Non-Believers in their Holy Land and fell the other side is prolonging your pressence in Iraq..... sounds simple, but that's one of the main reasons why it's taking so long.

On top of the many situations in Iraq of some US soldiers and Mercs planting weapons and tools on civilians that were shot and labeling the innocent as terrorists, rapes, torture, etc..... there's a lot of bad blood there that's not going to go away anytime soon. The best option is to let the Iraqi's handle their country in their own way. Saddam was removed, no WOMD were found, case closed, move on. If they don't want a democratic government, then that's their democratic right to decide.

Sure the US might lose out on a crap load of investments in Iraq in the long run, but the US shouldn't have been there in the first place...... hell, none of us should be in Afghanistan for that matter.... but unfortunatly we are.

But at least Obama is giving the public some actual plans and goals.... what has Bush done?

"Stay the Course"

Sure ok buddy..... what's the course again?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Well with Afghanistan, you guys had some sort of justification to go there (Not including the Pipeline theory) while Iraq shouldn't have happened in the first place. Afghanistan does pose a chance of success for one main reason that seperates it from past conflicts in Afghanistan: If you have the people of Afghanistan against you, then you will never win....

A foreign military poses a real danger to people. It's not sensible to expect Afghans -- or anyone else -- to support military occupation, especially for a significant stretch of time.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: sdbest Barack Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq, but increase American troops in Afghanistan. So, is Obama an idiot?

Some of U.S. military personnel will be transfered and/or relocated to Afghanistan.

[Nono]

Quote by: HP I'd say he's just doing what it takes to get elected.

So would I.

[blue saki]

Just give it a day or two, he'll "refine" his statement.

Perfect example of his idiocy:

"We live in the greatest Country in the entire world. Join with me and we'll change it"

I rest my case.

[Hurt]

Quote by: blue saki Just give it a day or two, he'll "refine" his statement. Perfect example of his idiocy: "We live in the greatest Country in the entire world. Join with me and we'll change it" I rest my case.

Confused..

Greatest =/= Perfect?

[blue saki]

Hurt..... Kindly point to the word "perfect" in my post.

While you're at it please explain "change"

Change can also be for the worst..........

[Thanatos]

Quote by: blue saki Hurt..... Kindly point to the word "perfect" in my post. While you're at it please explain "change" Change can also be for the worst..........

You implied perfect clearly enough to everybody. The only way change is automatically for the worst is if we're the greatest country we can possibly be.

As for Afghanistan...I do not know for sure. The list of analogous wars that have been truly won by any party in our position is short. If Afghanistan is completely stabilized it will take all the firepower and finesse and dedication America has, or we'll be doing exactly what we're doing now in 50 years. Obama might have that much finesse and he'll have the troops if he takes them out of Iraq, but it is a daring idea.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: sdbest Barack Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq, but increase American troops in Afghanistan. Obama said, "As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

Makes sense. This is the policy that should have been followed after 9/11, not inventing enemies in some dirtbag country because their leader tried to kill Daddy.

You know, actually retaliating in the places where the people are that attacked you?

In my view, Obama is as big a fool and idiot as Bush to think that the US and its allies can prevail in Afghanistan. Throughout history, Afghanistan has resisted all attempts by invaders to subdue it.

They have? It seems we have already "subdued" Afghanistan in that we've already removed the government they had and replaced it with another. We're still there because our idiot President distracted us from the search for bin Laden and others with the Iraq mess. Otherwise, we could have found him and been out of there by now.

It is insane hubris to think that the US can prevail where all others failed, particularly when the U.S. loses most of its wars except those it wages on small islands like Grenada.

Huh? I thought they taught history in Canada, not anti-American indoctrination. Where did you go to grade school, North Korea?????

[Thanatos]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Huh? I thought they taught history in Canada, not anti-American indoctrination. Where did you go to grade school, North Korea?????

To be fair Afghanistan was the USSR's version of Vietnam. They came, they saw, they conquered using a proxy revolution, they eventually got their butts kicked by the Taliban and a much younger U.S. financed and armed guerrilla named Osama Bin Laden. Now our troops get shot at with weapons that were made in the U.S.A. Its not really history without the uncomfortable bits.

In fact, protracted guerrilla campaigns against foreign powers have a long history of surprising success. Ask the British about colonial farmers behind trees with muskets. I repeat that the list of conflicts of this type where the empire accomplished their goals is short.

So, to think about winning in Afghanistan we have to be smarter and tougher than the Soviets ever were and avoid arming any more monsters.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Thanatos To be fair Afghanistan was the USSR's version of Vietnam. They came, they saw, they conquered using a proxy revolution, they eventually got their butts kicked by the Taliban and a much younger U.S. financed and armed guerrilla named Osama Bin Laden. Now our troops get shot at with weapons that were made in the U.S.A. Its not really history without the uncomfortable bits. In fact, protracted guerrilla campaigns against foreign powers have a long history of surprising success. Ask the British about colonial farmers behind trees with muskets. I repeat that the list of conflicts of this type where the empire accomplished their goals is short. So, to think about winning in Afghanistan we have to be smarter and tougher than the Soviets ever were and avoid arming any more monsters.

1) USSR =/= USA
2) I was referring to his patently absurd comment that "the US loses most of its wars".

[Thanatos]

Quote by: tivodan1116 1) USSR =/= USA 2) I was referring to his patently absurd comment that "the US loses most of its wars".

1. Big military-obsessed superpowers who by rights should have totally mopped the floor with the Afghanis. Only teenagers and fools have a license to feel invulnerable. Losing is not outside the realm of possibility.

2. We haven't won a major war since 1945. Korea was a draw, Vietnam a loss, all the others too small and brief to count.

Quote by: Thanatos 2. We haven't won a major war since 1945. Korea was a draw, Vietnam a loss, all the others too small and brief to count.

A quibble. America was on the winning side in WWII, but I would argue that the it was the USSR that defeated Germany. The other Allies played a positive role. The U.S.'s major achievement was that it could provide supplies because its factories could not be threatened by German forces. The U.S. military was not the major winning factor in WWII; the Soviet military was.

[PBJLover]

No.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: sdbest The U.S. military was not the major winning factor in WWII; the Soviet military was.

Do they teach anything in Canada about Japan and Italy being in WWII too...or was it just about Germany? Not only that, you may be surprised to learn the theaters of war extended from North Africa to Southeast Asia. One thing I must admit...your view of World War II is quite simple.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: sdbest A quibble. America was on the winning side in WWII, but I would argue that the it was the USSR that defeated Germany. The other Allies played a positive role. The U.S.'s major achievement was that it could provide supplies because its factories could not be threatened by German forces. The U.S. military was not the major winning factor in WWII; the Soviet military was.

Yeah, that Soviet military sure did a lot of island hopping in the Pacific and man, when they dropped those A-bombs on Japan, that really sealed it... Wait, what?

Quote by: Thanatos 1. Big military-obsessed superpowers who by rights should have totally mopped the floor with the Afghanis. Only teenagers and fools have a license to feel invulnerable. Losing is not outside the realm of possibility.

Of course not. But to presume that merely because the USSR could not successfully invade Afghanistan and hold it, etc etc, 25 years ago, does not mean that the US, already successful in the invasion part, cannot work with the Afghani government to remove terrorist elements from the country? It's apples and oranges.

Sdbest brought it up because of his open anti-American bias.

2. We haven't won a major war since 1945. Korea was a draw, Vietnam a loss, all the others too small and brief to count.

Persian Gulf I? Oh, I get it... Because that one was fast and efficient, it doesn't count??? Iraq did have the 4th or 5th largest military in the world at the time.

Korea and Vietnam were militarily very successful, but were hampered politically. I admit our politicians were idiots in the way they handled both of those... which frankly scares me about the current situation... but still, for sdbest to say, without any reasonable justification that the US loses "most" of its wars is simply nonsense.

[SteveMcKay]

Quote by: sdbest ….. In my view, Obama is as big a fool and idiot as Bush to think that the US and its allies can prevail in Afghanistan. Throughout history, Afghanistan has resisted all attempts by invaders to subdue it. It is insane hubris to think that the US can prevail where all others failed, particularly when the U.S. loses most of its wars except those it wages on small islands like Grenada. So, is Obama an idiot?

Obama is no fool. Despite his need to appeal to his political base during the primaries he knows that a total retreat to our current engagements will be political suicide resulting in one term. Special interests aside most middle class folks I know hate the Iraq war, as do I, but hate the idea of a new “Vietnam syndrome” worse.

About the historical claim that the US has lost most of its “wars” (I’ll exclude “small island wars” per the statement):

American Revolution: Won
Barbary Wars: Won
War of 1812: Draw
Mexican American War: Won
Civil War (Union=US): Won
Indian Wars: Won
Spanish American War: Won
Philippine American War: Won
WWI: Won
WWII: Won
Korean War: Draw
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War: Won
Enduring Freedom Afghanistan: Won
Iraqi Freedom: Won
Iraqi Occupation: Undecided
Afghan Occupation: Undecided

Note that I am appalled by the Indian Wars and the Philippine war and do not endorse them but that is not the point of the rebuttal. North America would be much more interesting if there was a large, contiguous, Indian nation (and an independent Quebec too BTW) but that is off topic.

I would say that the U.S. Track record of winning its wars has been pretty darn good. We only started to lose wars when the will for victory in something we were already engaged in was no longer PC.

If you count the 100+ occasions that might be called “Island” wars such as Nicaragua in the 20’s, Costa Rica in the 30’s, Grenada, Panama, etc, etc (of which I would call the 1983 Lebanon peace keeping mission and the Somalia debacle a loss) then the U.S. has won well over 95% of its “wars”

[SteveMcKay]

Quote by: sdbest A quibble. America was on the winning side in WWII, but I would argue that the it was the USSR that defeated Germany. The other Allies played a positive role. The U.S.'s major achievement was that it could provide supplies because its factories could not be threatened by German forces. The U.S. military was not the major winning factor in WWII; the Soviet military was.

tivodan1116 and maximdewinter have it right. I would like to add that according to the book “Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II” without Lend-lease the Soviets would very likely have lost Moscow and other large tracts of territory… let alone mass starvation due to the loss of nearly all its agricultural base. Also, without the American embargo on Japan during ’40 and '41 it is very likely Japan would have attacked the Soviet Union which would have bogged down the Siberian divisions that were key to keeping the Nazis out of Moscow.

Soviet archives have indicated that Stalin was ready to negotiate a peace with Hitler if Moscow was lost and that was the outcome Hitler was looking for. With the Soviets pushed west of the Urals and most of its industrial/agricultural areas under Nazi control the Soviets would become a non-threat for decades.

In total war economics become more important than boots on the ground… in that case the US was the major factor to victory against the Axis.