Letter to the editor:

Little to gain in staying in Iraq, Afghanistan

Ed Dornlas, Las Vegas

Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.

With the nation preoccupied with financial bailouts followed by a massive stimulus bill and the fiercely expensive energy bill, culminating in the wildly expensive health care bills, it’s no wonder the nation is not much focused on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that Bob Herbert of The New York Times ably described in his column published in Wednesday’s Las Vegas Sun, “At war as nation slumbers.”

Our new president candidly states that our nation is broke. We are borrowing half of what we spend and face massive debt for us and our children — debt so massive it is inconceivable and probably can never be paid back by tax revenue.

So let’s ask ourselves now: What is really important to us?

With no money, we must ask ourselves why we are risking our precious children’s lives and going further into debt. What is there about teaching the Afghans and Iraqis to vote that is going to actually enhance our national security?

Someone should remind the president that 120,000 Soviet soldiers lost to the Afghans. How many of our brave troops would it take to subdue the country, and what would be gained?

How long should we hang around Iraq before we realize it’s time to go? What do we really gain by staying and bleeding our nation to death?

Discussion: 32 comments so far…

By Houstonjac

8/27/09 at 5:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ed--Where have you been sleeping?
We are leaving Iraq.
We are figthting in Afghanistan because the Taliban and al Qaeda, combined, were the guys that caused us to be hit on 9/11. You want to pack up and leave now? We need 150,000 troops in Afghanistan--far more than are there.
You've got to stop smoking that crazy stuff and come down to earth. The only problem is that Obama may not have the guts to pull out all the stops in Afghanistan and commit to win the war. In that case we should not allow our young to continue to be run through the meat grinder over there. Come on back home and wait for another major attack here on our own soil. Typical liberal strategy.
By SgtRock

8/27/09 at 6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

The writer of the letter has some good points.

There is no defined exit date in Iraq.

There is no victory strategy now nor when Bush was in office for Afghanistan.

For victory to occur in Afghanistan then we will need about 300,000 to 500,000 troops and invade and occupy western Pakistan. That will not happen.

So we will muddle through decades of battles.
By RHG

8/27/09 at 6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

I'll agree, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, since we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys over there shut off all immigration from this part of the world to ensure there is never another 9/11 perpetrated at the hands of Jihadi nutjobs.
By Birdiedreamin

8/27/09 at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

the saddest part of all...
w the scum bag liar loser clown and cheney the evil doer completely handcuffed obama...
they started a war based on lies...
they wasted over 4,000 american lives in iraq...
they wasted over $1 trillion in iraq...
an amount which would have paid for health care reform...
obama can not just pull out...
not in iraq...
not in afghanistan...
he is stuck cleaning up the mess w the scum bag liar loser clown and cheney the evil doer made in both places...
there will be a special place in hell for w the scum bag liar loser clown and cheney the evil doer!!!
By LarryVegas

8/27/09 at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

No Money? Why don't we have any money? This country has plenty of money... It's just that it is being spent/wasted faster by politicians then a drunken sailor could on shore leave. (sorry about that you Navy vets) Even a cross eyed bird could figure this one out... And he did... Read Birdie's scratchings... We can't just pull out, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. The morale of this never ending story is, never start anything that you don't know what the total cost will be and without an absolute end time.
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Birdiedreamin......

You are correct. Obama was handed a complete mess in more ways than one......Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

With that being said, I do disagee with you on Iraq. We should continue to pull out of Iraq. It's time the people of Iraq solve their own problems....

I'm saying this despite the fact that we (Bush administration) has been one of major causes of the many problem that presently exist in Iraq......

Both Bush & Cheney should be in jail....bunk mates! In any other country in the world where democracy does not exist, both "scum bags" (as you call them) would have already faced a firing squad.

We need to stay in Afghanistan for at least the present. Let's find and kill Bin Laden, then declare victory and come home......

Sounds like a plan. Something the Bush administration NEVER had....
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

History can teach us a great deal if we're willing to listen. With that being said, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam. If we had learned the lessons of Vietnam, we wouldn't presently be in Iraq......

Not "rocket science stuff." Just common sense!
By EdDornlas

8/27/09 at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks for all the comments regarding my letter. My point is that we should not be occupying Iraq or Afghanistan. I absolutely agree that we need to hunt down the terrorists that attacked us. If anything, we should intensify that effort because they will continue to attack us. Our national security dollars and lives can be spent better by hunting down the terrorists and closing our borders to terrorists that will fly, walk, drive or swim into our county to attack us again as opposed to encouraging these people to take up our values and our political ways while we occupy their countries.
By SgtRock

8/27/09 at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

How can one hunt down terrorists if onen pulls out of all the countries that are based in or near terrorist bases?

Oh....you are talking about the pre-9/11 strategy that worked so well. That sure stopped Bin Laden in his tracks.
By Birdiedreamin

8/27/09 at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

hey el lobo...
we can not just pull out...
we did that after the first gulf war...
and 100,000 inncoent civilians got slaughtered...
the same thing will happen again...
besides...
we have already spent $1 trillion...
we have already lost 4,000 americans...
if we just pull out now that will mean everything we have done will have been for naught...
as much as i hate it...
as much as i get physically upset whenever i see w the scum bag liar loser clown's or cheney the evil doer's face...
we just can not pull out...
it's sickening!!!
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Birdiedreamin said.....

"we just can not pull out..."

Hmmmmm.....I believe that what many people said about Vietnam. Staying in Iraq is not going to bring back the 4000 soldiers that we lost there nor will we get part of our money (1 trillion dollars...) returned that we spent there.

Some times it's best to cut ones losses....staying in Iraq will do nothing for us. It will cost us a lot more money and perhaps many more American lives.

It's sad and unfortuante that the people of Iraq have had to endure the bloody and never ending war that has gone on there but once we pull out, whether its next year or in 2050, the results will be the same......

Another Saddam Hussein type dictator will emerge and take control and the people of Iraq will be right where they were prior to our invasion.....

Thanks George....Thanks Cheney...You guys did a "heck of a job."
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sooner or later, we've got to realize that the "containment policy" that got us into both Korea and Vietnam (maybe even Iraq the last time around...) is not always the way to go...

During the days of the Cold War, the "containment approach" was OK but the Cold War is over. Time and warfare has changed....

Fighting terrorist is a great deal different that fighting a conventional war in Korea or Vietnam....

The Russians discovered that fighting a war in Afghanistan was not the same as fighting the Germans on the eastern front....far from it!

I'm afraid we're going to find out the same thing in Afghanistan. We should have found that out in Iraq....

But who ever said that we're fast learners?
By ksand99

8/27/09 at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bush effectively screwed over any future administration with the way he failed to follow-through in the war in Afghanistan. With Bush's poor foresight, inadequate planning, and dropping of the ball, the Taliban fighters were able to regroup and become much stronger than if we had successfully executed a plan in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is the central front on the war on terror, and always has been. Bush got confused when warmongers Rove and Cheney kept whispering in his ear about Iraq. Iraq will go down as one of the stupidest decisions by a President, ever.

Obama needs to continue to work with the Pakistani government to pursue terrorist and terrorist training camps in northern Pakistan, and must ensure that southeast Afghanistan is rid of the Taliban and any remnants of Al Quaeda. That will take time, resources and patience. Bush dug a Grand Canyon-sized hole in Afghanistan. We must finish the job to ensure the end of Al Quaeda.
By EdDornlas

8/27/09 at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks again for interest in this topic. For those interested in more information I highly recommend the following web site:

http://original.antiwar.com/scheuer/2009...
By mikegino

8/27/09 at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is difficult for me because I was there at the end in Saigon. We tucked our tails between our legs and left behind millions of loyal but helpless South Vietnamese, some of whom continued to fight for the next five years. I don't want the same thing to happen in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps its time to establish and articulate our reasonable goals and objectives.
By Bigsky007

8/27/09 at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

The advent of Afghanistan and Iraq reflects the results of the GOP electing a President, who was a light weight in every respect. If it had to be a Republican, they should have elected McCain. The latter, with war experience to burn, had/has the proper respect for war. He would not have raced into Afghanistan and then into Iraq because he would have arrived at a better solution. We have billions of dollars invested in our Special Forces, which are well trained, well armed and ready to go on a moment's notice. If so tasked, they would have been able to take out both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in rather clinical fashion. I believe that this would have been the option taken by either McCain or Al Gore.

I will always believe that Bush, given his father's past, was seeking to redeem himself for having raced into the Guard instead of making his own mark in Viet Nam. The Abraham Lincoln incident clearly showed the veracity of this. With his vision thus clouded, he sought to compensate with bluster and arrogance and he surrounded himself with those of a like mindset such as Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Given his acute lack of experience, he went into Afghanistan's front door and left the back doors uncovered allowing bin Laden to virtually walk casually out of Afghanistan , thru Tora Bora and into Pakistan almost to ruffles and flourishes. But as if that wasn't bad enough, Bush had to make a case to race into Iraq based on unverified information about WMDs.

Bush asked the young men and women of the USA to carry the load by about a thousand to one. This meant that, in effect, Bush went into Iraq with a coalition of ONE. This placed Afghanistan on the back burner. The Taliban and bin Laden could then take their time accumulating and stashing huge quantities of weapons, ammo and explosives. Today our troops are paying the price. Well trained in the USSR conflict, the Taliban are a formidable hit and run force.

There is, now, no good solution in either theater, Iraq or Afghanistan. I predict that in time strong men on the order of Saddam Hussein will take over in both places. This is because I don't see any evidence of a growing tide of democratic enthusiasm in either case. However, as long as we are there, this inevitability will be put on hold. That' all. The question is: Should we continue to take the casualties? I say no.
By Birdiedreamin

8/27/09 at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

one thing i think you guys are forgetting...
we started the iraq war...
based on lies...
w the scum bag liar loser clown and cheney the evil doer lied to the american public...
so if we pull out...
and another 100,000 innocent civilians die...
wow wee...
i just don't want that on my conscious...
By StanG

8/27/09 at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Here's an idea:
transport as many young women from Iraq and especially Afghanistan, to the US. Forbid religious attire. Give them a great education and house them with our feminists.
Then send them back home.
By gmag39

8/27/09 at 6 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikegino; We Agree... 100 percent on that one.
Thank you for your prior service.
By SgtRock

8/27/09 at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

"I will always believe that Bush, given his father's past, was seeking to redeem himself for having raced into the Guard instead of making his own mark in Viet Nam. "

411... I guess you do not read the news.

There was a recent story that broke that Dan Rather's producer gathered strong evidence that Bush was actually volunteering for duty in Vietnam.

Oh.....the little thing called truth sometimes does it in the way when drinking all that kool-aid crap.
By castle

8/27/09 at 9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

So far neither this president or the last one seems to have been able to work with the military and establish objectives. Obtainable ones and not what we would "like to do". Without some realistic plan I fear another Vietnam is in progress and one was more than enough.
By VegasInsider

8/27/09 at 9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Too bad Obama the worst / most coniving president ever can't live up to what he "promised" by ending the war and bringing home our troops.

Hope all you dumbacrats are happy that you voted this socialist into office. Hope you idiots don't mind losing your son or daughter to this war.

Yes, I want all you morons to re-elect him so we can have unemployment at 26% in the coming years this way I can buy a house at pennies on the dollar.
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

PvtRock said....

"I guess you do not read the news.

There was a recent story that broke that Dan Rather's producer gathered strong evidence that Bush was actually volunteering for duty in Vietnam."

Interesting stuff....I have one question. Just when did Texas George volunteer for Vietnam? Was that before, after or during the 18 months that he was AWOL from his guard unit?
By El_Lobo

8/27/09 at 10:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

VegasInsider said.....

"Too bad Obama the worst / most coniving president ever can't live up to what he "promised" by ending the war and bringing home our troops.

Hope all you dumbacrats are happy that you voted this socialist into office. Hope you idiots don't mind losing your son or daughter to this war."

Relax insider...Obama has been in office 7 months. Texas George (I'm sure you know him; you probably voted for him....) took us to both wars with no real plan to win or exit. He kept us there the last 5 years of his presidency and then handed the mess over to the new guy.

Patience is not one of your strong points is it? Of course, we could have elected McCain. You remember McCain, don't you? He's the guy who said we could be in Iraq for the next 50 - 100 years......I bet you voted for him....am I correct?
By SgtRock

8/27/09 at 11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

I doubt that your brain can consumed real facts because your brain is void of any brain cell activity due to many OD sessions on koolaid crap from the DailyKOS and the likes of them and is full of crazy notions that Bush and Cheney planned 9/11.

But can your brain understand this: "Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. "

Also.....

"Relax insider...Obama has been in office 7 months. Texas George"

OK...we give Obama one more month. That is the date that libs like yourself blame Bush 100% for 9/11. Yep...8 whole months.....

Talk about a hypocrite.....
By LarryVegas

8/28/09 at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

El Lobo showed his true colors in his last paragraph about McCain's statement about Iraq. What a spinner...
By Dawgdayafternoon

8/28/09 at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

SGT. ROCK:

It's a shame that you didn't provide a link to your quote "Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment . . . ", so I will provide the link that you copied and pasted this from for you:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmou...

Maybe you chose not to provide the link because, just a little further down in the same article, this information appears: "It is also true, however, that in his 1968 application to join the Texas Air National Guard Bush was asked if he wanted to go overseas and he checked the box that said 'do not volunteer.' "

Now, here comes Bush's inevitable spin -- 31 years later: "But as the Washington Post reported on July 28, 1999: "Bush said in an interview that he did not recall checking the box. Two weeks later, his office provided a statement from a former, state-level Air Guard personnel officer, asserting that since Bush 'was applying for a specific position with the 147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form.'" He later told the Post: "Had my unit been called up, I'd have gone . . . to Vietnam. I was prepared to go." Oh suuuuuuure, of course -- this coming from someone who as President chose to survey the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina from the comfort of his seat aboard Air Force One at an altitude of 20,000 feet.

Only 8 months of Bush before 9/11 -- you're trying to argue that "libs" are "hypocrites" for not cutting him some slack, right?? Well, here is a brief bibliography from the 9/11 Report indicating a heckuva a lot of incompetence by the Bush administration during those 8 months:

P 208: President Bush neglected to fill the key counterterrorism policy office in the Pentagon after the former official departed January 20.
P 201: Richard Clarke submits memo to Condoleezza Rice saying "we urgently need... a Principals level review on the al Qida network."
P 201: No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda held until September 4, 2001.
P 203: Principals Committee meetings on Iraq and Sudan before one on al Qaeda.
P 509: Bush administration holds 32 Principals Committee meetings on subjects other than al Qaeda before 9/11.
P 200: Rice downgrades the Counterterrorism Security Group
P 209: Former FBI assistant director for counterterrorism, Dale Watson, says that Attorney General John Ashcroft was "not supportive" of building up capacities to combat terrorism.
P 265: Former Acting FBI Director Pickard says that Ashcroft told him "he did not want to hear about the threats anymore."
By Dawgdayafternoon

8/28/09 at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

CONTINUED:

P 210: Ashcroft denies an appeal from the FBI for more counterterrorism funding.
P 539: Ashcroft does not fairly reflect the effect of the 1995 Reno and Gorelick memos.
P 255: Clarke tells Rice that "he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda."
P 254: President Bush received "more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001 that related to Bin Ladin."
P 259: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questions reporting on Bin Ladin, including "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real."
P 272: Phoenix memo advising of the "'possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin' to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools" slips through the cracks.
P 257: Intelligence reports in 2001 titled: "Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent," "Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats."
P 260: Presidential Daily Brief titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
P 256: Clark warns in March 2001, "When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them."
P 257: Threat advisories in June 2001 indicate high probability of near-term "spectacular" terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning reaches "a crescendo."
P 263: Clarke warns Rice at least twice in 2001 about al Qaeda sleeper cells in U.S.
P 275: August 2001, CIA Director George Tenet gets memo, "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly"
P 533: White House declines permitting all 9/11 commissioners to review PDBs.
P 254: President Bush received "more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001 that related to Bin Ladin."
P 260: Bush's response to reading the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
P 262: Commission finds "no indication of any further discussion" about the threat of an al Qaeda attack after August 6, 2001.
And, of course, who can forget this all-time video hit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lNzT8uUH...

How's your brain doing with these facts?? Or, is it possible that your moniker refers to the material occupying your cranium??
By LarryVegas

8/28/09 at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Is Bush still in office?

I think that Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance... Let argue that one...
By Birdiedreamin

8/28/09 at 10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

hey dawg...
our retarded republican friends...
what can you say...
they are retarded!!!
isn't it exhausting playing their retarded games...
they lie...
straight to your face...
then smile...
that retarded republican smile...
can't you just see...
w the scum bag liar loser clown smiling...
cheney the evil doer smiling...
karl i have no morals whatsoever rove smiling...
it is sad...
it is a joke...
it is retarded...
great posts by the way!!!
By Dawgdayafternoon

8/28/09 at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

LARRY:

I'm just calling Sgt. Rock on his BS.

I never said that Bush/Cheney knew about 9/11 in advance because I don't believe it. However, I would argue that it is pretty obvious that the incompetent Bush administration ignored critical developments, events, and intel that led to 9/11.

I herewith perform the ceremonial tinfoil hat transfer from the "Bush planned 9/11" crowd to the "health insurance public option is socialism and will result in government death panels" crowd.

BIRDIE:

Keep your poetic posts coming! Yes, I'm sure our contarded friends miss their aptly-named "t*rd blossom" . . . . .
By El_Lobo

8/28/09 at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

PvtRock....PvtRock.....

What in the world are we going to do with you? Your statement saying:

"I doubt that your brain can consumed real facts because your brain is void of any brain cell activity due to many OD sessions on koolaid crap from the DailyKOS and the likes of them and is full of crazy notions that Bush and Cheney planned 9/11" is very, very funny.

I NEVER said Bush & Cheney planned 9/11. Hmmmm.....you must have made that up? Why am I not surprised?

To say that GWB vounteered for Vietnam is also very funny. George pretty much knew going in to the Guard that his chances of ever going to Vietnam (even if he volunteered) were "slim" & "none" and "slim" had been discharged much, much earlier.....

Why in the world do you think junior joined the Guard in the first place? By the way, how was junior able to move to the top of the Guard's enlistment roster, taking into consideration that he was at the very bottom of a list that included some 500 names? Surely "poppie" didn't have anything to do with that.....Right?

Of course, Cheney didn't serve in Vietnam....according th Mr. Darth, "he had better things to do that go to Vietnam."

I don't believe its me who has been drinking way too much Kool-aid......I'll leave that honor to you PvtRock! Drink up, delusional one!