Why I support the current Afghanistan Stategy

There was another post that asked that question and the answer got so involved I figured I would post it on it's own. So why do I support the current Afghanistan strategy?

14. My support is based on some moral convictions and appreciations of the current situation. First off we can't undo what has been done. That means we can't go back and make Bush try diplomacy to have Al-Qaeda turned over before invading. We can't undo the years of neglect that turned an early win into near defeat.

The real question is what would have happened if we had ordered an immediate retreat. We first off at the time complete and immediate retreat was advocated there was no way the government would have stood. So that means it was a given the Taliban would have regained control of the Country in a quick and bloody conflict. We also can safely assume that those that supported the US or were part of the current Afghan government would have been punished severely or killed by the Taliban. We know the hard won rights of woman to an education and other rights would have vanished.

We also know from past experience that the Taliban has and we know they still have a warm relationship with Al Qaeda. So we know that Al Qaeda would have then had a safe heaven in Afghanistan. We also know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been working to undermine the nuclear armed Pakistan government. If Afghanistan was allowed to fall under Taliban control the Pakistan government would be at far greater risk. A nuclear armed Taliban (or Taliban like) controlled Pakistan is one of the world's worst nightmares.

No one likes war, no one love war, but there are times when it is the best option available. As Stephen Cobert said this week "what has war solved other than slavery and fascism?"

The relentless obsession with controlling everyone and everything has to stop!

Here you go: your points are entirely based in complete acceptance of Bush era war propaganda.

A person with a more critical eye might say, hey, we been there longer than we spent in all of WW2, WTF exactly are we doing that it is still going on in 2010?

It is obvious that the strategy is "maximize profits for war industries", and this country can't afford that kind of luxury anymore.

p.s. Read up on your military hisory: The Taliban is local and tribal whereas al Quaeda is decentralized and global. Plus, there's no love lost nor any semblance of "a grand conspiracy" between the two groups.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=702

naval history magazine and have dozens of books on military history and technology. What on God's green earth qualifies YOU to suggest I am then one lacking in an understanding of Military history?!?!?! Nor did you address all the points I raised.

Regular Army to serve honorably for four years on active duty as a Lieutenant (Captain Select) in Military Intelligence.

YOU subscribe to Military History Magazine? :spray:

Game Over Man! :evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

I mean making a baseless charge doesn't show any sort of qualification or understanding. Why not discuss the nation's history. You can start with Alexander the great and go on to the British Empire's ventures in the region and then go on to what happened with the USSR. THAT would be impressive and then you might be able to make your "game over declaration".

sucessfully maintained within the past 30 years? <Jeopardy theme playing in the background>

Now, for contrast, here's a list the little league, low intensity CONFLICTS that our Masters of War have involved our combat troops in over the past 20 years?

1988 – Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
1988 – Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans.
1988 – USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655
1988 – Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.
1989 – Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.
1989 – Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 11,000 U.S. forces already in the area.
1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50-100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2-12 persons to train troops in the three countries.
1989 – Operation Classic Resolve, Philippines - On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1, Air Force fighters from Clark Air Base in Luzon had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to protect the United States Embassy in Manila.
1989-90 – Operation Just Cause, Panama - On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered US military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn. Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S.
1990 – Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.
1990 – Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option. American hostages being held in Iran.
1991-1999
1991 – Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War). On January 16, 1991, U.S. forces attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991. (See )
1991 – Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.
1991 – Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.
1991-96 – Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey.
1992 – Operation Silver Anvil, Sierra Leone. Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President Joseph Saidu Momoh, a United States European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force evacuated 438 people (including 42 third-country nationals) on May 3 .Two Air Mobility Command (AMC) C-141s flew 136 people from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany and nine C-130 sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar, Senegal.
1992-1996 – Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.<5>
1992 – Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.
1992-2003 – Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Southern Watch)
1992-95 – Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)
1993-Present – Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.
1994-95 – Operation Uphold Democracy, Haiti. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.
1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.
1995 – Operation Deliberate Force, Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.
1996 – Operation Assured Response, Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."
1996 – Operation Quick Response, Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui." United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response , responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.
1997 – Operation Silver Wake, Albania On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.
1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.
1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.
1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.
1998 – Operation Desert Fox, Iraq - U.S. and British forces conduct a a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.
1998 – Operation Shepherd Venture, Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.
1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
1998 – Operation Infinite Reach, Afghanistan and Sudan. On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.
1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. <1>
1999-2001 East Timor. Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.
1999 – Operation Allied Force - NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.
2000-2009
2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.
2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.
2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).
2001 – Afghanistan. War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."
2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.
2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."
2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.<6>
2003 – 2003 invasion of Iraq leading to the War in Iraq. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and undermining Saddam Hussein.
2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.
2003 – Georgia and Djibouti "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."<7>
2004 – 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.
2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.<8>
2005-06 – Pakistan: President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmire mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a missive earthquake.
2006 – Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.<9><10>
2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.<11><12>
2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.
2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid<13>, helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.
2009 – Pakistan, In relation to efforts in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces struck an insurgent encampment in the Northern mountains, killing 24, with missiles fired from an unmanned aerial assault vehicle.

---------------------------------------------

My point: We have ENOUGH going on with our meddling military excursions without actually OCCUPYING nations within the Middle East. We can't afford it in either BLOOD or TREASURE.

Only more snark in response to it, but I want to thank you for posting it here. One set of cheerleaders deserves another.

Amazing to contemplate when you read the scope of the whole eternal war thing in its manifestations, that there is a pattern to this having 780 or whatever it is, bases around the globe. It used to be said the business of America is business, but I think it is more accurately now the business of War.

Did you see that Lee Rodgers from KSFO/KGO in SF, the one that called you out by name on the air a few years ago, was fired by corporate Citadel Broadcasting. Couldn't have happened to a nicer right-wing hate-spewing war-mongerer than Rodgers.

On another note, here's hoping they actually get all of our people out of Iraq as well;

http://www.ivaw.org/




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

...I am hopeful you are overstating your service record.

check out the following site to BONE UP. ;)

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

And here I thought you didn't care. :eyes:

I care in that you talk a lot about a situation you know little about.

If you're going to talk as much as you do, shouldn't you be informed? Do you know anyone currently living in either country? Or better still anyone who escaped the Taliban-controlled areas before 1999. They could help.

You like to say no one who hasn't worn uniform should hold an opinion concerning war. Perhaps no one who hasn't worn a chitrali should comment on AfPak politics. Does this seem fair?

You have no idea what I have and have not read.

We are not GOD and the country is very diverse. YOU mistakenly believe that an academic solution will solve our occupation problems. Well, NO, it won't and several diplomats and former intell types agree with me.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1573

The New York Times recently published the full text of U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s memo to President Obama detailing his deep reservations about sending more troops to Afghanistan. The White House ignored his warnings and sent troops anyway.

With the House Armed Services Committee set to begin the 2011 Defense Department budget process on Wednesday, it’s essential that its members read Eikenberry’s warnings about the dangers of deepening U.S. military involvement in the Afghanistan war.

I assure you my interest in the region is far from academic. Many I care about are embroiled in this.

I would suggest a reading list, but you continue to have a closed mind on the subject.

I'm not adverse to increasing resources and references. I'm more in tune with journal and magazine articles so I would appreciate a book list? :-)

...a rather unflinching -- and oddly enough, often sympathetic -- look at the Taliban is contained in a series of essays by different authors, edited by William Maley: "Fundamentalism Reborn?: Afghanistan Under the Taliban."

It has the advantage of having been published well before 2001. It's best, to understand what's happening now, to look then.

Any time now someone will post a picture of a bloody civilian casualty as their argument.

:eyes:

guns and smart bombs.

It's all intellectual ... neat and sterile. :eyes:

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/cc_trailer.php

I'll be we can agree on one thing:

We need to leave the world a better place.

As individuals, as a nation; In the totality of what we do and in every detail.

:thumbsup:

almost every Afghan native who is not propped up by their illegitimate Mayor of Kabul (Karzai), hates the USA's guts and can't wait until we get out of THEIR nation. They will fight until their last dying breath to chase out the foreign invaders, then they'll out that corrupt thug who presently does our bidding.

It's a LOSE-LOSE situation from here on in. Don't get me wrong, for the short term, they'll all play along but when the money's spent, they'll fight us with ferocity.

It wouldn't be so much opinion polls as asking the right questions of the right people there to see if the hearts and minds of people, of local leaders, elders, and the youth, are likely or not to appreciate our efforts.

BushCo didn't care one fucking bit.

In fact, it's that arrogance and "we know better than you all" mindset of the right (usually only the righ) that imposes it's will on others.

I'd like to think that Obama in his exercise of this effort has a different mindset from that.

If we are only going to accomplish more hatred for America by being there, I think that matters to him.

So, not a formal poll, but respect for trends and outcomes of where this will end and the impacts over time of our involvement.

Our combat troops are not welcome.

It's called "nationalism" and we would be of the same mindset if China invaded the USA.

:eyes:

about the points I raised.

have some skin in the game. Go on over Citizen, go join "the team" and fight with them for THE BIG WIN. :eyes:

Don't worry, if the Military won't take you, there's always a corrupt contracting agency will snatch up anyone who is not in a Power Chair. :evilgrin:

Don't be LAME, if you really LOVE all this "killing and dying" then dammit, go join in so that our children don't have to sacrifice THEIR lives for the Corporate Oil Wars. YOU can take THEIR place.

Otherwise you are just talking smack.

you are not addressing the issues, rather you simply attack people that don't agree with you. That prevents and honest and useful debate and results in people holding poor opinions and beliefs.

military operations, but it's another to actually become entangled in a long drawn-out, low intensity QUAGMIRE.

There are no winners in these ENDLESS occupations within the modern era.

As was the case in Vietnam, we will KICK ASS and WIN every single battle but we will LOSE THE WAR. The poor bloody Taliban and insurgents of various factions are going nowhere. They are used to living in abject poverty and will hunker down until we leave these tribal areas. The locals KNOW that we will eventually leave. When we do, the areas will revert back to the warlords.

If you honestly believe that we can "win" in Afghanistan, then you need to go contribute to the effort. Otherwise most people here will consider you an armchair warrior.

Albeit I disagree with them, I admire the troops over in the Middle East who still hold out a shred of hope that they can make a difference. They are putting their lives on the line. However, I don't respect anyone who cheers for killing and dying who is also unwilling to place themselves IN DANGER.

Yes, if I believed this was a JUST WAR, I'd be the first in line to be re-activated and/or go over as a contractor. However, I do NOT.

So again, when is your deployment date? Not going? Haven't been over there? Not going now? Then you don't have my respect.

Your youth, specifically, if you're suggesting we won every battle in Vietnam.

Your argument, back at you: what disability is keeping you from working with Red Cross/Crescent, or otherwise doing more than posting on a message board?

I find armchair activists as distasteful as armchair generals.

bombs and bullets. But you already knew that didn't you, military scholar?

Because unlike in the past we can't "get medieval" with the population. If we don't completely have them SUBMIT, there will always be elements of resistance. We'd have to make everyone a slobbering mass of learned helplessness if we REALLY wanted to win. Especially since Afghanistan is not a homogenous nation, we'd have to slaughter vast numbers within every tribal area. Those damn news media bleeding hearts won't allow an ALL OUT WAR.

Face it, war is now projected instantaneously thanks to the advent of modern technology. That makes brutal scorched earth policies untenable. Thank heavens? Well, I think so. :shrug:

that's about it, isn't it? sad.

you know you would label people who don't want to get burned "fear mongers" and insists everyone grab a pot of boiling water with their bare hand.

. . . and your op is mostly unintelligible and full of 'points' unsupported by any discernible facts.

:eyes:

if you could. thanks

Aside from the obvious illegal and immoral reasons, I do not believe that there will ever be a "victory", and that "victory" has never been established. What would it be? As soon as the Americans leave, the situation will return to what it was for thousands of years. The "bloody conflict" will be there, as it is now. The "war" is unwinable from a military perspective. Every person in Afghanistan is a potential enemy. I know, that if I was an Afghani, that I would be resisting the US presence.
To continue a course we know is wrong, in the hopes that it might get right someday is wrong thinking.

the return of Al Qaeda and similar elements. I see some of the Taliban and many of their allies eventually negotiating a peaceful resolution that has them support the Afghan government and their constitution.

Doesn't it make you proud, fellow American, that we're propping up and illigitamate thug leader ... and his stellar friends? :evilgrin:

if they disagree with you, yet you are too chickenshit to enlist.

You love the war, as long as other people are doing the dying. You are disgusting

if we want to all improve our understanding of the issue it's best to debate and discuss those points and not respond with simple slogans or talking points or insults (like you are guilty of).

1. War IS a racket, It makes money for the Corporate Death Machine which is usually the motivating force behind going to war.
2. If you support a war, you should be willing to fight, is a valid discussion point.

You don not want to understand an issue, you want to bash everyone over the head with your own opinion and slam anyone who disagrees, how the hell does this help?

As in, a Democrat leading the way. The OP sounds exactly like the RW fear machines that were cheerleading this war during the Bush years, but we're not supposed to notice that. Disgusting is right.

especially if you tallied the price tag, and the loss of life to accomplish... what?
The overal damage to our standing in the world, the loss of trust of allies and the increase in terrorism and reasons for retaliation are even higher prices.

The same progress against Al Queda and more would have been accomplished by not invading and toppling but diplomatically working with existing govts. and allies to find and prosecute the old fashioned INTERPOL way.

If we had used the trillions of dollars spent on these wars to work out diplomatic solutions, hell, even bribing people with it would have been more effective.

Instead, we are guaranteeing several things, all of them bad:

1. we played into Bin Ladin's hands by becoming the great Satan he accused us of being (with abu ghraib for example)
2. we obliterated any future opportunity to put human intel in place due to a lack of trust, opening us up to GREATER threats we can't know about.
3. we trusted a charlatan like Chalabi to lie to us about what would happen, ignoring his extremely vested interest in having us invade. This opened us up to further false manipulation by others.
4. we have spread our troops too thin and bankrupted our ability to address any REAL threats should they arise in other parts of the world.
5. we have used taxpayer money to line the pockets of halliburton, Blackwater, and oil companies who instead of returning that investment gouged our individual and govt. treasuries even further with absolute legal impunity.



It was not the "best option available" ... in fact I'm confident history will show it to be the worst strategic blunder of the modern history.

still since some things have already happen we have to consider some of the following:

Trust and reputation- If we abandon our long time allies in Afghanistan we will hurt both

Lives lost- Going to happen no matter what we do at this point

I think many of your other points address the combined wars. Fortunately our days in Iraq are numbered and that will certainly help.

trust and reputation: these are already damaged, and which allies in afghanistan are you referring to?
The fact is these people want the west out of their region, and I don't blame them.

Lives lost: no, it is not inevitable that lives will be lost if we leave. that's bizarre reasoning. The lives lost are directly attributed to our presence there. Al Queda was NOT slaughtering the rest of the population before we arrived.

Beyond that anyone in the Afghan army or police would be considered allies in the eyes of the Taliban.

As for the deaths if we leave, it will happen. History has shown that ruthless groups like the Taliban punish those that opposed them in the past. So all those that served in the Afghan army, police and government or simply supported the US troops are at risk of being killed (plus their families).

There's one born every minute. :shrug:

Don't you remember the old but true adage: The first casualty of war is the truth?

that's a given, that they would die after we leave is unknowable.

The question is how to undo some of these things in a realistic fashion and how to, hopefully, leave the region in better shape than when Bush shit all over it.

I appreciate the point by point comments.

Now we see Al Queda in Yemen and Somalia..they are fluid and move about.. Our staying in Afghanistan now seems pointless to me as we would have to be there for generations to insure the central government standing up to prevent the Taliban from re taking the government.. We can not afford it and the people of the U.S. will not permit it. We need a better way.. Take a lot of the money we spend on putting troops on the ground in intelligence and working with friends in these countries. I do not know all the answers. but the one we have chosen I now feel is not the correct one.. This is an on going ever evolving process.. We need to be fluid as well and not stick to 1 idea..

When I was gung ho for the Vietnam war, I joined. I didn't sit at home typing screeds about it. I joined. Apparently your zeal for war doesn't extend to your joining the fray. It's a good war, eh, as long as you don't have to fight it?

Being willing to fight doesn't make a war just, but it does make your stand more credible. If you don't have the nads to fight, don't be a warmonger.

Didn't Bush and Cheney prove there is no honor in being a war monger who won't fight personally?

Please address the points I made, unless you're too afraid to do so.

Still why not address the points so we can have a constructive debate?

I swear sometimes I see the same level of thinking among some self-described progressives as I do among teabaggers.

Reduce an issue to a slogan, and repeat ad-nauseam.

Never mind looking at an issue from more than one angle, that would require thinking.

K and R.

:kick:

I doubt that many here know the answer to that question.

I'm not convinced that there's consensus among the population there.

But I do agree with you, it's a question that ought to be asked in any engagement and asked often, throughout the effort.

Good one.

:donut:

Once we're gone, anything we've set up will immediately be torn down. It will degenerate into a bloody mess and then reconstitute itself into a governmental and societal form that the people can live with, not the US. Yes, it will probably be bloody and violent, but the truth of the matter is that we can't prevent this from happening.

So why should we stay? Nothing we do is going to last, and all we're doing is simply adding to the body count and ruining our reputation (not that we have much). So if we can't institute change, if we can't mitigate the body count, then we have no purpose in continuing this war.

It is time to pull out of this war immediately. It will be, like Vietnam after we pulled out, a bloody mess. But it is better to get this done and over with now rather than continuing the carnage.

Now it's a war to gift a "democracy" (just like the one we have!) to stone age people?

:rofl:

so we need to adjust our views to changing conditions.

from happening anyways? We are eventually going to leave. The argument is the net result of our involvement is unlikely to result in a stable government free from corruption that has support of the vast majority of the Afghanistan people. We know from past experience the formation of such a government is unlikely and the net result is we will leave and they will do what they want with their country eventually.

there is no way to predict, with any sort of certainty, the outcome of the current plans. So it's possible that even the new and improved measures being undertaken may be too little too late. Still I have to disagree on the government issue. I could see a coalition government formed with the less radical elements of the Taliban and their allies that may not be corruption free but would at least be stable enough to keep the area from being a serious problem in the future.

from themselves. :crazy:

Hate to break it to you, but your entire premise is based upon a false dichotomy of "do something or do nothing". There were many suggestions about what to do that didn't involve trebling the combat troops. There were many that didn't involve support the corrupt government that currently exists. Heck, at the very least there was the one that Obama campaigned upon, which was to focus militarily upon the Afghan Pakistan region and use diplomacy and NGO's to address the socio/structural problems of the rest of the country.

I hate to break it to you, but the Taliban will always be there. We can fight forever and they will be there. By your approach, we'll never be able to leave.

There has never been more than 20,000 Taliban fighters, there is now less than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.  We've been there for 8 years.  We have 100,000 troops there, plus another 100,000 "contractors".  We have control of the air and the only major weapons systems in the area.  And the Taliban are resurgent.  Desertion in the Afghan Defense force is over 50% and retention after expiration of enlistment is 10%.  Afghan commanders have sold their troops' ammo.  The Taliban are using the Afghan army boot camp to train their fighters.  That way, when they defect, they take their uniforms and weapons, too.  They can't defend themselves, and we can't turn a 14th century tribal culture into a 21st Century democracy in a few years by bombing them.  

The hard-core have bugged out to Pakistan, and we certainly can't invade there. Our military is stretched to the breaking point.  One major reason we left Vietnam was that our military was collapsing.

The Soviets had over 100,000 troops in the country (at any one time), and lost 14,500 dead and 54,000 wounded.   They lost 330 choppers and 150 tanks.  A million Afghans died.  Two million were displaced.  The Afghans were firing at the Soviet  tanks while they were crossing the border back into Soviet territory. They will do the same to us.

Then there's the money.  1 soldier = $1 Million per year.  100,000 soldiers = $100 Billion... Plus over $600 Billion for the military budget.  We pissed away 2 $Trillion on the Iraq War, and we've got about $650 Billion into Afghanistan.  We simply cannot afford it.  No more wasted money. No more wasted lives.

Then there's the "moral" dilemma. From a former Petraeus advisor:
"the US had killed 14 mid-level or lower level al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 but the strikes had killed 700 civilians. "That's a hit rate of two per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It's not moral."' We can't bomb or "drone" our way to morality.

Sorry for the copy & paste here, but the Commandant of the Marine Corps during the first part of my time in the Corps says it better than I can...

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient.

The Soviet concept for the military occupation of Afghanistan was based on the following

> Stabilizing the country by garrisoning the main routes, major cities , airbases and logistics sites.

> Relieving the Afghan govt. forces of garrison duties and pushing them into the countryside to battle resistance

> Providing logistic, air, artillery and intelligence support to the Afghan forces.

> providing minimum interface between the Soviet occupation forces and the local populace

> accepting minimal Soviet casualities and

> Strengthening the Afghan forces so once the resistance was defeated the Soviet Army could be withdrawn.

To me this doesn't sound much different than what's going on today and have not absorbed lessons from Sun Tzu
that we have forgotten.

Also suggested is
'The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World'

Afghanistan is not a nation and not even to a City State type sociological development but where empires go to die.


I say get out now.

because it will be another 20 years and many lives, money and pain
before the OP's goals could be realized if even then.

Would you be willing to support a resolution that mad it illegal to profit off of the war?

To your points:

Al Qaueda was an invention of the CIA - they can have a sfe haven anywhere - Germany the US, whatever.

2) The war is making it MORE LIKELY that Pakistan will fall, not less, IMHO.

Falling dominoes - in this case Pakistan, rather than Thailand

The coming victory of the Taliban and the bloodbath to follow - "The Taliban" is made up of factions and not all insurgents against Karzai and the occupation are "Taliban", and the warlords in our employ have their own bases of power.

Al-Queda had training camps in Afghanistan. BushCo and now Obama make it sound like the training camps were Hanoi, Moscow, and Beijing all rolled into one. Al Queda has training camps in many places and cells in many more. They may be fanatics, but they're not fools. Why would the leadership, the planners, stay in Afghanistan where we're chasing them when can just leave and set up shop in other places while watching us chase our tails in Afghanistan?

The Communist government in Kabul, that the Soviets backed, set up schools, incorporated women into the government, and attempted to "liberalize" Afghanistan. When that government failed (with our help) the Soviets invaded to prop it up. We backed the Mujaheddin against the soviets, including Al Queda and the warlords. The warlords "won" and fought among themselves over the spoils. The Taliban emerged as a "reform" movement based on Islam and were successful because they promised stability and end to the civil war(s). Now, we are propping up an undemocratic and corrupt government, based in Kabul, without popular support. What we've accomplished is to reignite the civil war(s).

We have chosen sides in a civil war that doesn't have 2 sides but many.

By any rational measure we have already lost the war.

We have been there, with overwhelming force, for 8 years. The Taliban, and the insurgents, rather than being defeated, have grown in power. Mostly due to our being there. And, they aren't going away because we throw more troops at them and enrich the warlords. Just the opposite.

We have, and continue, to expend billions of dollars, wrecking our economy, in a futile effort to...do what?

Obama has promised to "start" withdrawing troops, based on conditions on the ground, by improving the Afghan Army's abilities. Which has proven to be little more than a reinstallation of the warlords and corruption.

IMO, Obama is seeking a way out of this FUBAR with a replay of "Peace with Honor". A rather pathetic attempt at CYA to avoid being seen as losing Afghanistan.

We can't leave because chaos will ensue. Only our beneficence and civilizing influence keeps the WOGs from slitting one another's throats for a biscuit.

The eighteenth and nineteenth century imperialists invoked moral arguments too, all the while raping and pillaging their way around the globe. Make no mistake-- U.S. motives in Afghanistan are no different.

Addressing your "points:"

Yes, chaos will ensue if we withdraw. That's what happens when we start unjust and terribly asymmetric wars for profit. We fuck things up, and they stay fucked up for a long while to remind us and the rest of the world that American exceptionalism is not a good thing. That's called a CONSEQUENCE, and if follows the general rule that actions have them. Sometimes we learn from them. Apparently that's not easy.

Chaos will ensue no matter when we withdraw, just as it did in the vacuum following the Soviet withdrawal-- it is just a question of when that will happen, and how many unnecessary deaths will be caused in the interim. The longer we wait for the inevitable, the worse the consequences will be. Remember Vietnam? Remember the Soviet experience in Afghanstan (and the British, etc)? It will not end well, no matter how long we prolong it.

You admit that we cannot undo what we've done. So why keep trying? It's time to admit the mistake and pack our shit up and go home, hopefully with some international mea culpa and some war crimes tribunals to help purge the bitter memory.

You refer to the Taliban having a "warm relationship with al Qaeda." There is no such "warm relationship." The Taliban is an entirely Pashtun movement, tribal in scope, with no international aspirations at all-- and it had even fewer concerns about international affairs ten years ago. I don't like the Taliban, but that's utterly beside the point. They are not only Afghanistan's and Pakistan's collective problem, they're well supported by many in the region, perhaps most, and besides, when did we become the arbiter's of other people's religion or politics? Oh yeah, that's the white man's burden again....

How much more revenge do you want against innocents for 9/11 attacks-- which NO AFGHANS participated in or had anything to do with? How many more people do you want to kill for something they had no part in? We have killed thousands more than were killed in New York City. What's the acceptable kill ratio for innocent brown people? When we reach 10-to-1, will that be enough? 100-to-1? 1000-to-1?

As for a "nuclear armed Taliban," you've made the case for preemptive warfare, i.e. the Bush doctrine. Because letting the fundamentalist influence grow in Pakistan might result in things we fear sometime in the future-- if they happen at all-- we have the right to go to war and kill people who haven't threatened us in any way, because if we don't kill them now, they might become a threat some time in the future. That is fucking insane. It's the classic justification for genocide, among other things. And it goes so hand-in-hand with neo-colonialism, and the white man's burden in Asia.

You hit the nail on the head. This is straight up neo-con ideology.

It is premption to go after the Taliban. They are the 'easy' target to produce a win. Just as Saddam Hussien was.

Al-qaeda is bankrupt and disjointed. The current threat doesn't come from a few washed assholes in a cave. Oh no. Our response has ensured that the AQ ideology has grown with our fertilizer of bombs. The current threat comes from the radicalized sympathizers. Lone wolfs or small groups who radicalize themselves in the US, UK, Germany, etc.

They don't take orders from AQ, they imitate them and act on their own.

The Taliban never was and never will be a threat to us.

because Obama supports the current strategy.

If Obama supported removing all the troops toot sweet you would support that strategy.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

Dear NJMaverick:

It would be nice if you and your couple of allies would actually address the points raised by the posts here at the end, as you suggested they do. I am not name-calling, insulting or obfuscating anything.

If you can re-assemble your post from January, re: "My thoughts on Afghanistan," I feel it is only fair to add balance to that by providing all with an updated statement from someone on the ground, involved, the women of Afghanistan:

Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the International Women’s Day, March 8, 2010

"...Though we don’t expect anything different from the most corrupt and dirty puppet regime of the world, the pain of Afghan women turns chronic when the world believes that the US and NATO has donated liberation, democracy and human and women rights for Afghanistan; whereas, after eight years of the US and allies’ aggression under the banner of “war on terror”, they empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets – the Khalqis and Parchamis – and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids...

...The Karzai puppet and reactionary regime is implicated in corruption and blood of the poor from top to bottom. Only the hundreds of people killed in the recent avalanche tragedy in Salang and the miseries of millions of refugee Afghans in the hands of the Iranian criminal regime are enough to punish and jail many of the so-called high ranking officials for negligence and inattention to the problems of our people.

But the US government does not try to curb its Afghan stooges and allows them to commit many crimes, betrayal and lootings, so they could repress and intimidate Afghans in any possible way and stop the emergence of any anti-fundamentalist and pro-independent uprising in Afghanistan. Therefore, it comes of no surprise that the decay and corruption of top criminals such as Rabbani, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah, Qanoni, Karzai family, Zia Massoud, Fahim, Khalili, Saddique Chakari, Mirwas Yassini, Zahir Aghbar, Hadi Arghandewal, Anwar Jakdalak, Ismael Khan, Atta Mohammad and others are even reflected in some Western media, who have made dirty businesses and multi-billion Dollar investments in Afghanistan and Dubai as a result of their lootings and drug-dealings in Afghanistan...

...RAWA always believes that women’s problem is a political issue and we cannot tackle it separately from the current catastrophic political situation. Without the overthrow of the current puppet regime, which is becoming more mortal and odorous than before by the inclusion of Taliban and Gulbuddini murderers, none of the thousands of the problems of our unhappy people will ever be solved. Slogans about restoring peace, security, democracy and women’s rights will be empty and amplified claims, as long as Afghanistan has not gained its independence; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance killers are not prosecuted and the billions of wealth they have pillaged from people are not taken back from them. The benchmark to judge if any individual or organization is truly patriotic and progressive in the current situation is their struggle in any possible means against US occupation, the criminal Taliban -- who have the enslavement harness of Pakistan around their nick -- and the hirelings of Iran and the US in the “National Front”...

http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2010/03/07/emancipation-of-afghan-women-not-attainable-as-long-as-the-occupation-taliban-and-national-front-criminals-are-not-sacked.html


I for one prefer to heed the voice of those involved, not arm-chaired QBs safely esconced in some undisclosed location.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

what planet do you live on?