Re: Wikileaks, Afghanistan: The War Logs Yup. FWIW, here's what I think: It would be a travesty for the coalition to leave now. Invading Afghanistan in response to 9/11 was an abhorrent and ill considered act. There were a number of factors involved in that decision, and oil was a significant one. So was giving the American public something to chew on. Bin Laden was a secondary concern, at best. The UN needs to step up to it's responsibilities to protect citizens from the worst despotic regimes. The Taliban should never have been allowed to gain power in Afghanistan. Appropriate external support could have achieved that without requiring western forces on the ground, if started early enough, if the UN had balls. The fundamental basis for most problems in the middle east, and particularly Afghanistan, can easily be traced to power-plays by culturally distinct world powers throughout history. The strategic value of Afghanistan is massively under appreciated by the public generally, but well recognised through generations by global strategists. Unilateralism is bad - always. Unilateralism cloaked under pressure upon allies to appear multi-lateral apparently doesn't fool anyone, except the citizens of the nation acting unilaterally. It's a mess - right now it's the US's mess. The Wikileaks stuff is, on balance, a good thing, because intense and accurate scrutiny of the US in this engagement is a good thing - such a good thing that it outweighs all other concerns, including risks to individuals, which are trivial in comparison to the risks induced by the unilateral decision to invade in the first place. I think I'll wander away now...
Re: Wikileaks, Afghanistan: The War Logs Really, honestly, I want to back away from this debate, but there's a couple of points I can't stop myself from clarifying. Per my earlier post, I meant the decision to invade wholesale, vs taking a tactical intelligence lead approach (along the lines of Skep's post.) I meant resource transit, rather than local resources, per my earlier post. Again, I meant the decision to attack the country, rather than run an intel led, targeted operation against those behind the attacks. If you were better informed, you would know that the UN is 'constitutionally' unable to get involved in internal matters like that. This is what I meant by 'step up to their responsibilities' - the mandate needs to be expanded. They did not fail in their mission, their mission is out-of-date. I apologise for perhaps not being more clear and restating my earlier points.
Re: Wikileaks, Afghanistan: The War Logs Until I'm sober an look over the other post. NO U. (but I'm pretty sure I'm on firm ground. but I'll look at it and make apologizes later).
Re: Wikileaks, Afghanistan: The War Logs For when you're sober, I meant #76 mostly. Meanwhile, I'm off to grab another beer from the fridge myself. Cheers.
Re: Wikileaks, Afghanistan: The War Logs Um, maybe they are not stupid enough to put their plans in writing and e-mail it around so others can snag it?
