Rep. Allen West suggests U.S. can’t leave Afghanistan because Americans are dying there

Source: Raw Replay
By David Edwards

Tea party favorite Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said Sunday that it was inappropriate to consider withdrawing from Afghanistan while Americans were still losing their lives there.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and other progressive Democrats wanted to pull out of Afghanistan.

“I do,” Edwards said. “I think the responsible thing is you raise the debt limit and then we work on the plan that gets us out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan.”

“I can see Congressman West shaking his head. He’s going to say no way,” Wallace noted.

“Let me tell you something that just happened,” West began. “On my Blackberry, I get 12 alerts this week of soldiers that lost their lives in Afghanistan. It’s not over in Afghanistan.”

Watch this video from Fox’s Fox News Sunday, broadcast May 29, 2011

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/rep-allen-west-suggests-u-s-cant-leave-afghanistan-because-americans-are-dying-there/

Does he have any idea that the only way Americans will lose their lives over there is if they are in Afghanistan?

I'm not suggesting that our Afghanistan policy is the correct one, but it is not wise to underestimate the capabilities of your enemies.

What's the body count? I think it's already surpassed 2977 by now.

How much revenge is enough? Can you supply a number?

For me, it's about it actually being over, when it's over.

Aim high. :)

--imm

and not thinking about the situation.

"Over." Yeah, right.

This is the same mindlessness that dragged out the Vietnam War.

First it was to get Osama bin Laden.

Then it was to oust the Taliban (whom our own CIA had favored after the Russians left).

Then it was to prevent the Taliban from coming back (because our govt. did nothing to rebuild the country and installed a bunch of puppet warlords).

Then it was to prevent insurgents from entering from Pakistan.

This may even be a worse quagmire than Vietnam, with the same idiotic chest-thumping macho pride keeping our military there.

Just sayin'

Likewise, the war with Japan wasn't over until they surrendered unconditionally later in the year.

In both cases, when it was over, it was over (no insurgencies, no suicide attacks, no car bombs, nothing).

The US isn't at war with Afghanistan, and bin Laden is dead. I see no reason to continue to hemorrhage money into that country any longer-- especially when the same people who are so for it are also claiming we need "austerity" at home.

since it appears that the war planners have no idea what the objective is.

Afghanistan had no more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did.

But if I recall correctly, those 911 guys had some sort of connection to Afghanistan.

There were far more connections to that country than any other concerning 9/11.

They did not train for and plot the attack from Saudi Arabia.

If we remain in Afghanistan we will continue to lose American lives because our troops are there.

We can't lose American lives in Afghanistan if they aren't in Afghanistan. Yet, West states we can't leave because we are losing American lives.

However, my response had nothing to do with his statement.

My statement relates to the fact that more Americans have been killed in the US (2,977), than in Afghanistan (1,597).

The U.S. can NEVER repay the Afghan people for the way it helped make a mess of their country beginning in 1979.

Yes, beginning in 1979.

Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets than it was under the Taliban.

Seriously.

Afghanistan's problems did not begin in 1979.

I was living in Japan at the time, and the Japanese press covered it quite well, although most Americans seemed not to know it when I got back.

The Marxist government began announcing such horrendous measures as equal rights for women, secular education, and general modernization of the country.

The more backward country types were indignant about their extremely sexist system being attacked. They didn't know Communism from Consumerism, but no daughter or wife of theirs was going to go around without a burqa or attend school with boys, no sir! They started rebelling, and the U.S. government, to Jimmy Carter's everlasting shame, started providing covert support for them.

Soon the backward types were causing a lot of trouble, so the Marxists asked the Soviets for help. Yes, that's right, the Soviets were invited in. Yet the U.S. acted as if the Soviets had just invaded the country out of sheer Communist cussedness.

I used to be furious when Jeane Kirkpatrick (who, as far as I can tell, was never right about anything in her life) would praise the mujahedin as "brave freedom fighters." I thought, "Lady, if you ever actually went to visit those 'freedom fighters,' they'd be offended because you weren't veiled and had a position of authority in government."

After the Russians came to their senses and left, the country dissolved into civil war. The CIA continued its meddling and chose to support the Taliban because they were the most disciplined faction (an understatement).

As an added benefit of all that CIA support for a bunch of fanatics, we got Osama Bin Laden. Such a deal!

Imagine an Afghanistan where the Marxists had prevailed 30 years ago: an educated and healthy population, women with equal rights, and an intact, even improved infrastructure, the Islamic fanatics tamed, and since 1989, gaining its self-determination along with everyone else.

By the way, I learned the early history because I was in grad school with students who were specializing in such things as Soviet foreign policy and Central Asian history.

The American public was seriously lied to.

So what if 2,977 were killed back 2001. That was 2001 not the current action in Afghanistan. If we leave Afghanistan we reduce our casualties there and as long as security is not lax we can minimize any attempt on US soil.

more concerned with avoiding civilian casualties than winning.

or basic training or wherever you got brainwashed.

How does launching rocket attacks that kill innocent civilians help win people over?

How does killing far more Afghan civilians than Americans were killed on 9/11 make any sense other than out of sheer primitive bloodlust?

But there is no way to wage a successful "sanitized" war. War is just too violently unpredictable. The reason the Constitution requires Congress to declare war is to ensure that it is not taken so lightly. Regrettably, Congress has ceded that power to the Executive and as a result, the CIC is free to initiate wars at the drop of a hat.

I believe that the US should move very slowly and deliberatively when the question of war is on the table. However, once the die is cast, the objective should be to win as quickly and decisively as possible. Unfortunately, that type strategy will result in civilian casualties. Remember, tens of thousands of European and Japanese civilians were killed in WWII, but like I said before, when it was over it was over.

The original stated purpose was to get Osama Bin Laden.

Well, he's been gotten.

Our troops need to leave before the international reputation of the U.S. goes any farther down the sewer than it already is.

What is your definition of winning? Every last Islamic fundamentalist in the world lays down arms?

At that rate, the bogus Afghan War will last longer than the bogus War on Drugs.

As I pointed out before, the Constitution calls for the Congress to debate the grievances that justify war and state the objectives that must be achieved to restore peace. Since the legal procedures were not followed, the objectives are not specific, as evidenced by General Petraeus’ words below.

I define winning as the unconditional surrender of the enemy and the subsequent resolution of all grievances which were the basis for declaring war.


Thinking historically, the war in Afghanistan is stalemated somewhat like Vietnam was after the Tet Offensive. We can stay there for a long time. Certainly the Taliban, our chief enemy there, doesn't have the capacity to throw us out. We can accomplish President Obama's political objectives to disrupt, disable, dismantle al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But for us to accomplish our military's operational objectives--which is nation-building, euphemistically called counterinsurgency--that's not going to take eighteen months. And I don't think it's going to take only three to four years. It will be a generational effort. History shows the kind of commitment that's required to accomplish that kind of objective. The problem in terms of strategy is that we have a mismatch. The president's political objectives are actually quite limited, but his military has offered up really a maximalist operational method of nation-building to achieve those very limited political objectives. That's the stalemated nature of the situation in Afghanistan.~ General Petraeus

because it will not be a long one.

How do you define "winning?"

(A short stay?):hi:

I think he is one of the most dangerous people in politics. People would like to focus their attention on people like Sarah Palin but I believe West is far more dangerous since he is a veteran and has more grassroot support and credibility than Palin. The man lives and dies military, every sentence he utters, every analogy, metaphor, example is related to the military and give him enough power and he would become the tyrant like the world have never seen.

I suppose there are units that require crazies.

americans are still dying there. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9658711/

how the hell he gets from that truth to using it as an excuse to stay there is - i don't know. extremely fucked up thinking.

This man. Is a nutcase.:silly:

The GOP and Dixiecrats used this same stupid argument to prolong Vietnam.

he can take his ass back over their and continue to die for his cause,nutty bastard!!!

I wonder who dresses these people in the morning.

Allen West isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

I grew up watching the Viet Nam war and the only reason
it ended is because Nixon wanted a second term.

This time the war will end like the wars up to the
nineteenth century; because the rulers who started them
ran out of money and credit.

I believe it had something to do with you and war crimes.

if they don't stay over there, right? Or am I missing something? :shrug:

Claiming that due to the fact countless American patriots gave their lives at Bunker Hill, Saratoga and Yorktown in the Revolutionary War, Rep. West stated he was of the opinion that giving up the fight against Mother England would cause those deaths to be in vain.

this gomer would be able to buy the moon a thousand times.

Bring the GIs home and they won't be dying in Afghanistan, you fucking doorstop.

and then let GOD sort them out. Stupid idiot!