English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

not why?

Could it be because they don't have enough troops to finish the job because of Bush's Surge in Iraq?

2007-08-04 16:28:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

That's a big part of it. We have a pretty modest force in Afghanistan. It also doesn't help that when we get too close, the Taliban just melts away over the border into Pakistan, where the people support them and the government is powerless to do anything about it.

2007-08-04 16:31:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The "surge" had nothing to do with our failure in Afganistan. The "surge" was set in motion by Bush this last January. He lost the war in Afganistan long before that. He lost the war with Al Queada in Afganistan when he took our troops into Iraq. He lost that war when he decided to declare war against "terrorism" rather than seeking to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11. No one has ever "won" a war against terrorists militarily.

2007-08-04 16:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by rec 3 · 1 0

Preach on! What exactly did Iraq do to get raided and Sadaam overthrown? Still no explination. Bush announced the end of the war May 1, 2003 and we are still there. Wtf is goin on? Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11 and all of our troops are in Iraq. Make sense? No.

2007-08-04 17:24:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

paradoxically talking , the U.S. can no longer even take care of their very own borders. yet to handle your question , evaluate here. To the east , Iraq's border stretches some six hundred+ miles (Iran) , possibly seven-hundred+ miles to the south/southwest , (Kuwait & Saudi Arabia) , greater or less a hundred miles to the west (Jordan) , and finally 525+ miles to the north/northwest (Syria & Turkey). it might have been an ominous job to attempt and take care of such an intensive expanse of land and would have required a unilateral attempt. Unilateral to incorporate whom? Which international locations would connect the U.S. in such an project? word the neighboring worldwide places alongside those borders, and then upload to that those effortless Russians mendacity added north , in basic terms waiting. This area is one in each and every of unrest and instability, and regrettably, many international locations surrounding Iraq have agendas and are contributing in distinctive the thank you to perpetuate the fiasco there. The Al Qaeda, and different terrorist communities, have cells and preparation camps scattered for the duration of this area and now , like a team of ravenous rats , they are popping out of their holes to ceremonial dinner. I liken them to the Kamikazi (suicide) pilots of global conflict II. they are blindly pushed via their ill ideologies to the destruction of all , or maybe themselves. So how does everybody end hordes of creatures with demented minds , bent on disruption , and advertising it in each and every achieveable vogue they'd? maximum techniques in coping with them fail because of the fact prevalent procedures are ineffective against their variety of mentality and approach. to handle an enemy alongside with they are , you could think of like them , consume , sleep , and scent like them , and then use the comparable approaches they do , greater or much less giving them a style of their very own medicine, yet Western custom prohibits that variety of mentality because of the fact it does no longer be humanitarian. Your question , a tough one certainly , wasn't responded i'm specific. yet , did everybody , could everybody , foresee what replaced into to come back , on the onset of this finished Iraq ordeal? in the previous you answer that , constantly bear in ideas one element , hindsight is 20-20. Camelot , this replaced into no longer , isn't .

2016-10-14 00:20:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How do we even define victory? Muslims will always fight against an occupier. Every attempt by the west to conquer Muslim countries for the past 2000 years has ultimately failed. We can kill a thousand insurgents, freedom fighters, militants, terrorists, or whatever name BushCorp. wants to label them, but a thousand more devout Muslims will replace them. The only way to stop fighting people defending their lands is to stop offending them.

2007-08-04 16:54:11 · answer #5 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 0 0

We're not even seriously pursuing the job in Afghanistan, let alone finishing it.

And yes, it's because most of our troops and money and resources are tied up in Iraq playing nanny.

2007-08-04 16:31:49 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3 1

They have never had enough troops. We have relied heavily on the Afghans themselves.

2007-08-04 16:41:43 · answer #7 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0 0

Easy to sit back and judge, I am glad the military does not share their strategy with the public, the terrorist would know also.

2007-08-04 16:36:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers