Originally Posted By ActionJack
What's that word?  Dithering!

When the Germans got back control over West Germany, they had a pretty functional country. How functional is Afghanistan now, as a state in the Western sense of that term, according to you?

    ... would you say the "protection of unarmed people" and the prevention of "people getting slaughtered" was a stellar success in either Afghanistan ...    

Correct, but AJ said we were not in Afghanistan for nation building, which makes me wonder why he thinks (pro-)NATO forces are in the country, also considering the diminished threat of Al Qaeda.

Correct, but AJ said we were not in Afghanistan for nation building, which makes me wonder why he thinks (pro-)NATO forces are in the country, also considering the diminished threat of Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted By KevlarSocks
       

Originally Posted By ActionJack
        What's that word?  Dithering!    

        "So it was with something of a surprise that Washington awoke this morning to discover that the council had authorised "all necessary means", including a no-fly zone, to protect Libya's population from Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. By comparison with the year or more of angst that preceded George Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, the pros and cons of this decision have received remarkably little debate."     http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/03/libya         You have to turn off your autopilot.    

Originally Posted By KevlarSocks
        Why? Cruise missiles have take out air defenses. Libyan fighters are no match for western planes. In a couple days western jets will have free reign over the country so any hardware moving around gets plinked. It will be back to guys with ak47s in pickups against others similarly equipped. That means the rebels have a real chance.         The later question will be who do the new leaders support with their oil money? If they continue to sell to the EU there will be pressure against any radical islam support. There is a good chance it will work out.    

I wouldn't start celebrating just yet.  The French have offered only 20 or so planes and that's the largest commitment I've read.  The U.S. has said 'none'.  I've got to think the advisers have already explained that without a major commitment from the U.S. this whole thing could unravel.  An extended standoff will become untenable for the West given the affect on the oil markets.  I doesn't sound too good to me.     

I get you hostility because you can't point to anything noteworthy in your country so you've got to run down the top dog. Jealousy is an ugly trait.

I've heard of 'strawman' arguments, but strawman missions?  Again, that's not a mission goal in Afghanistan; not when we invaded and not now either even with the mission creep.

Get it right.  I said we didn't go to Afghanistan to nation build.  I also mentioned 'mission creep' and that Iraq was always the priority.  You might not know but in military doctrine nation building in a country with an indigenous insurgency is considered to take between 7 to 11 years to accomplish.  You can start that clock with the present administration.  It was not the mission of the previous administration nor the priority and with good reason.  There's no national interest at risk with Afghanistan.  Also, the present administration has said from the start that it plans on leaving Afghanistan and gave a drop dead date, so it doesn't sound like 'nation building' is on their agenda either.

Originally Posted By Flashman
       

I wouldn't start celebrating just yet.  The French have offered only 20 or so planes and that's the largest commitment I've read.  The U.S. has said 'none'.  I've got to think the advisers have already explained that without a major commitment from the U.S. this whole thing could unravel.  An extended standoff will become untenable for the West given the affect on the oil markets.  I doesn't sound too good to me.     

      I think you're being over pessimstic. Iraq and Afganistan are simply too far away for any European Nation to reach without American logistic support.           In contrast there are lots of NATO assets in the Med. Just as examples there is a NATO headquarters in Naples, Italy. The home port of the French Navy is in Toulon. Major British airbases in Cyprus.  Libya is winnable.     

    ... who will potentially benefit from an increase in demand for crude in Europe- namely     Happy Li'l Hugo and The Rodina.    

So if thousands of people die in Bosnia, it's bad, but if hundreds of thousands become casualties or become internally displaced in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's OK because the mission wasn't to protect civilians, so it's OK if they suffer?

    So what was the mission? To remove the Taliban from the national government level? That was achieved quickly, so why are (pro)NATO forces still there according to you? We're not building a nation, according to you, and the Taliban has also successfully been removed from power, according to an earlier statement by you, so what, exactly are Western forces doing in Afghanistan?    

Fair amount of assets committed already and more on the way..

Fair amount of assets committed already and more on the way..

Paltry??? Enough with the negative waves !