Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, we need to change what we're doing. In essence, we need to abandon, "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world." Instead, we should, "focus [our] priorities on improving 'civil governance' and building 'local security forces,' according to the report, referring to those steps as 'capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

That is what the study says.

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

While it shouldn't, this is gonna be going on for years to come. Iraq and Aftgan are not even done, and NKorea and Iran will soon be in the works. On the brightside it should help provide more jobs.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

OK, we agree on what the study says.

From my post: This study simply states that "nation building" in the long term is more effective than the current strategy (boots on the ground being targets). from the article "It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail." No argument here, we are facing an uphill climb.

However, "we" (the U.S.) shouldn't be in the business of nation-building. Unfortunately at this point we are stuck getting Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized, but this shouldn't be our policy going forward. I don't think a big group hug with Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists is going to help the situation either.

If we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for "national security reasons", then we should be in the business of nation-building -- unless we want to fail, because occupation is not working.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

If we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for "national security reasons", then we should be in the business of nation-building -- unless we want to fail, because occupation is not working.

We aren't "occupying". If we were we'd be taking oil revenue from Iraq and not pumping billions into both countries to "nation-build".

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We aren't "occupying". If we were we'd be taking oil revenue from Iraq and not pumping billions into both countries to "nation-build".

Iraq is not the only country we're involved with in the Muslim world.

From the article:

The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."