Our pullout of Vietnam was followed by the deaths of 2 million+ in the indochina region...

And most Americans including myself are okay with that, We had to do what is right for America.


I see a lot of talk about Afghanistan and how we can't leave because the Taliban will go on a rampage and kill and torture civilians mostly woman...

And guess what they probably will...


Will the numbers reach the death toll in indochina... maybe.

Should we be sad and concerned... yes.

Should we stay in Afghanistan... no.

We have no purpose in Afghanistan no endgame.


We cannot let the barbarity of the native populations hold us hostage in an un-winnable war

We need to get out now.

What kind of person would be?

Those Americans that supported Bush's invasion of Iraq are responsible for the American and Iraqi deaths as well as all the money wasted that could have been spent here at home.

:P

It's certainly not pacifism even (and I admittedly have problems with pacifists but this far exceeds those) as even pacifists are concerned with the basic dignity of human life and opposing oppression on a global scale through non-military means...the position of the OP is so extreme in its' isolationism, racism and misogyny that it's unmistakably got Ayn Rand for influence, if not origin.

I mean we have been there for nine years with no victory shouldn't the ref have blown the whistle by now.

if my choice is between that and the scenario you're laying out, then definitely yes.

I'm a humanitarian first and foremost and a believer of realpolitik. I fully believe in our role as global cop not because I really want us to be the global cop but because nobody else is stepping up for the role. It's not a role that can go unfulfilled...history has proven that. So you can side with the ideology of Neville Chamberlain if you want, I'll stick with people who don't have fairytale notions of the viability of pacifistic isolationism in global political systems.

(So we're clear where we stand, I was advocating for the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban for its humanitarian record and open embrace of violent extremists as early as 1997. 9 years ago, y'all were a little late to the game, a lot like the US Army in WW I.)

global cop? See ya when ya get home from fixing Afghanistan. True, there are no more other Global Cops like, say, um, the USSR & further back , Britain -- so crack a book and find out where they fucked themselves. Hint: It's a sandy region.

1) Rumsfeld wanted a minimized military. Everything is contracted out, even a sizable contingent of the fighting forces. Unsurprisingly this leads to a hugely expensive and inefficient military. Every dollar put into it turned into a couple of cents when it came to supplying the troops, thanks to all the overhead and middlemen. This gross mes hampered us greatly after the initial two weeks of the war; we blew our load fast and early, as one might say. Of course Rumsfeld "strategy" as such was vehemently opposed to increasing troop levels, sending extra armor support, or even basic supplies like ammo. it was neoliberalism at war, and it's extremely clear that this approach is horribly bad for everyone at all levels (except perhaps the middlemen catching all the overhead)

2) Bush decided that Iraq looked juicier. Part of this is a result of Rumsfeld's horrid mismanagement; one year in and Afghanistan was already looking terribly unprofitable. So, Bush sent our guys after a more lucrative target. There are of course the usual political reasons for doing so; we invaded in 2003, setting up a situation either for Bush to ride to a win as a sitting war president, or do like his daddy and pawn off a godawful situation to the next guy coming in. Regardless of the reasons for going to Iraq, the immediate result on Afghanistan operations was plainly visible; all the money, all the men, and all the support was going to the new, hip war. As Iraq devolved into exactly what everyone knew it would, it got more and more attention and Afghanistan got less and less.

So basically the majority of the nine years we've been in Afghanistan was misspent trying really hard to forget about Afghanistan. Now that we're actually doing something (you know, like our candidate was urging be done in 2004!) suddenly we have a lot of people who preferred the "Afghaniwhere?" approach and are calling for blood to wash the streets of Kandahar Charming.

Are you surprised to see the preference for "Afghaniwhere?" as an approach? Some are dedicated to anything to be able to feel that we're not in this war, whether we are actually in this war or not.

It can't be made clearer for them...wholesale withdrawal is not in US domestic-security interests. The problem is that they're so fatigued from hearing that BS from BushCo when it wasn't true about Iraq that they're reticent to believe it from anybody else when it is about Afghanistan. I'm tired so I'm just going to state it as simply as possible for "them":

If we leave and have not stabilized the region, it will degrade back into a base-camp for radical jihad. We will have to return over and over and over. The cost in American blood and treasure will be higher than persevering the course we're already on. This, the current boondoggle, is the lesser disaster. We were eminently f*cked the moment our initial course of action was bungled by the Bush morons.

That ignores the looming humanitarian crisis which will occur if we abandon course and is still not an acceptable non-issue for anybody with a conscience.

I opposed our initial invasion. And truthfully, the reasons for it were idiotic; we invaded because Afghanistan wouldn't hand Osama over to us directly, and wanted to go through an intermediary. We invaded a nation because they insisted on a basic diplomatic measure even while complying with our demands. In the years since though, I've come to the realization that whether we invaded for a stupid reason or an awesome reason, a world without the Taliban is a better world. At some point we were going to have to step in. Better sooner with a stupid reason than later with a better reason.

I've also abandoned pacifism as an ethically valid position. A slavemaster is not going to put down the whip just because you ask, and a tyrant will not abdicate on the basis of a heartfelt plea. There are many things in this world that are worth fighting for - figuratively and literally. It seems that that notion is a guttering flame in the liberal camp, though.

You're absolutely right that we would return. I have a notion that my guess that we would be back in fifteen years is generous. We'd possibly be coming back in as few as five. And we'd certainly face a far messier fight, both for us and for the civilians. Not for a moment am I going to pretend our current state of affairs is acceptable or admirable; simply that it's preferable than the other options that are available at the moment.

Please do not call the terrorists "jihad" or "radical jihad". The jihad is an internal struggle, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary.

When you call them terrorists you give off the impression that they are religious. They are not. They violate most of the teachings of the Koran.

I just wanted to point that out.

and one I should know. I fell into the lingua franca of the debate.

They are not good Muslims and that is an important distinction because it needs to be clear exactly how little they have in common with mainstream Islam. Most Muslims do not want a new caliphate or governance by sharia or believe in the validity of "political violence". (That's the fancy new non-judgmental academic euphemism for terrorism, insurgency and armed resistance. I'm not terribly keen on it but I feel compelled to use it.)

(or ever)?

And how many more people do we need to kill before we civilize these folks, in your estimation? :hi:

I have no idea but that seems like a good solid number to pick if we're going to continue to use incidental statistics as a metric of success.

When did pacifists become so bloodthirsty? I think the goal is to try to stabilize the country, not kill lots of people.

We cannot bomb a stone age people into a civil society. The very idea is idiotic.

So then, please, define what a "stabilized" Afghanistan might look like, and how we will know when it is achieved. You will not, because it's a nonsense phrase in this context. Which is why you've resorted to invective and strawmen. :hi:

You don't and can't bomb anybody into a civil society.

What you do is build infrastructure which not merely allows them to become a civil society, but encourages it at the same time you train them to take care of their own shit. Yeah, I'm espousing McDonald's and Coca-Cola diplomacy...but who doesn't love a burger and a Coke and a job answering customer service calls for Intel? Cars. Pop music. crappy TV programming. It beats the hell out of living in the stone age. That's what scares Al Qaeda and your run-of-the-mill Talib...if we raise the quality of life for the average Afghani, the average Afghani will tell them to take a fuckin' hike. Who wants sharia-law when you can have convenience foods, porn and cable TV? Everybody loves those things.

At the same time, we're starving the resistance, we're training a professional Afghan police and military force to take care of their own problems. Eventually, the resistance becomes small enough and the police-force strong enough that the police can stamp out the remainder of the resistance. What is the role of the US soldier in this? It's simple to define and hard to carry out...to keep the resistance in check while we build. You say "we're not winning.", I say "We don't have to win anything militarily. We only have to play defense." Frankly, the best use of infantry is the one where they stand around as a deterrent to unrest...and eventually come home.

Our victory is inevitable, if the resistance would give-up and integrate, they could have Whoppers and Coke instead.

"What you do is build infrastructure which not merely allows them to become a civil society, but encourages it at the same time you train them to take care of their own shit. "

Please provide a single example of this working in actual human history (not a sci-fi novel or literature from the Heritage Foundation!) Thanks! :hi:

being as all resistance to the Marshall Plan was primarily external (from the Soviets) or over shares of the pie. (France felt they were more deserving of a bigger slice than others.) So yeah...let's exclude Marshall since it doesn't fit the parameters exactly.

I'll take post-stalemate reconstruction of the ROK (and reintegration of S. Korean leftist-sympathizer "irregulars") for $500, Alex.

(So that's 2...or 1-and-a-half. I added and deleted about 4 more for being too esoteric or controversial. What I'm suggesting is hardly radically novel in reality though.)

Your examples are not "on all fours" as they say in the biz--not even on two.

slaughtered. Maybe you are, but I dont think that is true for most people. In fact that statement is pretty disgusting to me.

It is an either or question.

Stay there and babysit them for another millenium or two? Nope, any deaths that result from political reorganization that follows our leaving is on the heads of those who got us there in the first place. We need to make sure we're not in the middle of it.

If we had never gone into Vietnam, etc. those 2 million deaths might have occurred, anyway. The only difference is that we wouldn't have dumped American bodies on the funeral pyre of those parts of the world who still need to grope their way towards civilization.

or what we should do, my post was in response to this statement from the OP



I dont support the war in Afghanistan at all, President Obama has made a huge mistake and I think one that he will eventually suffer for politically, when in the Summer of 2011 we are nowhere near acheving our directives of standing up the Afghan army.

We will continue to stay and be a presence in Afghanistan for years to come, you dont believe me, ask the generals?

My comment was directed at the first line of the OP which right out of the gate, the OP states that most people are okay with the murder of 2 million people. I dont agree with that sentiment at all and it is especially ironic that an anti war post would start off with the admission that 2 million innocents in Cambodia were expendible in order to leave Vietnam.

My argument is that we never should have been in Vietnam much less Cambodia in the first place.

It may be an easy ploy for the OP and others on this thread to claim that just because I dont think that 2 million Cambodians were expendible in order to leave Vietnam that I was for staying in Vietnam.

It is a lazy tactic and not effective.

Either there is an alternative that you're OK with, or there is not. If no alternative is offered, debated, or actualized, then by default, the US is "OK" with leaving Afghanistan to sort out its own mess.

Yes, it will break some hearts to see the violence that will inevitably result, but we don't need to keep piling American servicemembers on that mass grave. And I'm OK with that.

be allowed to do what he did with impunity. The Vietnamese eventually ended it - but earlier we sided against the Vietnamese. What if the UN would have sided with Vietnam early on?

I think not. Did any leader anyplace advocate going back into SE Asia to stop the slaughter? Nope.

You are in the United States of America, 2010. You know that we tortured an unknown number of people. You know that up to 500 tortured and murdered bodies a week were being dumped by the truckload in downtown Baghdad, and that KBR had cornered the market on trucking in Iraq.

You know that a million Iraqis were dead within five years of our invasion of that country.

You also know that half of the voting population in America voted for the administration which perpetrated these crimes, while they were perpetrating it.

A much larger number of Americans don't vote and are completely apathetic, which means they automatically support whomever gets close enough to steal the White House. That means that some 3/4 of Americans either supported, or tacitly supported, the mass murder and death by privation of a huge number of innocent people in Iraq... and for that matter, Afghanistan.

You may not have supported that, but you are not like most Americans, who did.

Um, :wtf:

You are going to achieve the exact opposite. In fact, you are making me worry I am wrong.

I am stating the argument not to persuade with falsehoods and unicorns farting rainbows... but to say we know what very well may happen and we want to get out anyway.

If that was your intent, you achieved it.

What makes you believe that any action we can take won't have similar or worse outcomes? Should we scuttle our own country in a vain effort to make you feel better?

You will own negative outcomes whether you support immediate withdraw, staying until doomsday, or something in between. That's war, a bunch of gravely bad options that lead to innocent pain and death under the very best and most clear circumstances.

How much treasure, maiming, and killing are you prepared to endorse to avoid a seemingly certain eventual outcome? Or are you saying now that staying forever is acceptable at any cost to our nation if it gives hope that it will keep the mayhem down?

What new data had come to light that is making you reevaluate?

You believe that the Afghans are less human than the people who were stitching Jewish children together in order to "create" Siamese twins, and then summarily shot both kids several days later when infection had made them "useless."

You believe that the Afghans are inferior beings to the nation that regarded mass suicide in the name of an emperor their patriotic duty, and that had, for 13 years elevated torture and rape to an art form while butchering well over a million Chinese just because, hey, they're Chinese.

Because we occupied Germany and Japan for years and years - we still have troops in each, in fact. Apparently there was a belief that "those people" could be returned to the fold of civilized, functional nations, despite the grotesque atrocities they had each committed.

Compared to each of these two, even the extremes of the Taliban are downright pedestrian; But you're not willing to hold Afghans in the same basic regard as your own grandparents held the Germans and Japanese. Perhaps you would have settled for blasting Tokyo to cinders and irradiating two cities, and then fucking off and letting the Japanese sort it out themselves. or maybe you'd rather have just let them have their fun in Manchukuo?

"Two million or more people will die, and I don't give a hoot. Torture and rape will become institutions, and I'm okay with that. How many children will die? Don't know, don't care."

When you people say you're worried about the human cost of the war, it's pretty evident you don't regard Afghans as human. Yet, if you ask me, they are far and away more human than you are, ever have been, or ever will be, SunnySong.

That is a legitimate point of view. You don't need to mischaracterize my post to say so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How many civilians do we have to kill before they change their culture to suit our sensibilities.


There are wars were we decimated the civilian population and changed hearts and minds (WW2 comes to mind) there are wars were we eliminated alien cultures incompatible to our own (The Indian wars)

Which approach are you in favor of in Afghanistan?

Our goal, however, is to do exactly what I stated; remove the capability of the Taliban to pose a threat. We also have a secondary goal, which is elevating the capability of the Afghan National Army to receive and respond to any such threat that remains.

How many troops would that take? I honestly have no idea on any specific number; I don't get debriefings. However, a common-sense observation tells me that if we had not diverted our interest and manpower to Iraq (there's your valid Vietnam comparison, by the way) then we could already be ending Afghan operations.

enemy... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well you know...

We spent nine years fighting our hearts out in Vietnam. "The enemy" surrounded us, had overwhelming popular support, and had the advantage of actually fighting for something. We were defending a nation that we had created out of nothing, and we were doing so simply to prove a point. Nine year of hard fighting, and the fight was over a pure illusion.

We've spent nine years in Afghanistan because of mismanagement, plain and simple. The Taliban isn't a very implacable foe; it's hard to reach at times, and surely puts up a fight when cornered, but it's absolutely no comparison to the Viet Cong, much less the NVA. They lack popular support; we're not popular in Afghanistan, but we are more popular than the Taliban. And this time, we're the ones fighting for something, in a nation that has the luck to actually have existed for roughly a century, rather than a couple of weeks.

We went into Cambodia because we wanted to destabilize their communist revolution. oddly, if we're doing comparisons, then Iraq is both Cambodia AND more directly comparable to Vietnam. we're conducting raids in Pakistan (and I firmly believe we should NOT be doing so) because that's where our targeted enemy actually is. we're not ideology-fighting, we're after an actual flesh-an-blood group of people.

People like you have been declaring everything to be exactly like Vietnam. Panama was Vietnam. Bosnia was Vietnam. Somalia was Vietnam. Grenada was Vietnam. Iraq was Vietnam. Iraq was Vietnam again. Lebanon was Vietnam. Afghanistan was Vietnam. I think you guys don't really know what Vietnam was, you just like pretending a bunch of long-haired people making peace signs magically ended it.

No I haven't it fits here because we are both unwilling to commit to total war and unwilling to pullout... which is why we have been there 9 years treading water.

Look either eliminate the taliban or leave none of this American blood and treasury draining middle way crap.

what are you fucking kidding? I guess it is as long as you aren't the guy under the clumsy giants foot. Or in the sights of his drones. You berate the OP for their lack of humanity and yet you seem to be happy with our kill them all approach. What gives?

The solution, we leave and take anyone who wants to come with us. I think you'd be surprised how few people want to leave. Stonings or not. These people have been fighting among themselves for THOUSANDS of years, and we're going to roll in there with a 200 year old country with an attitude that we're number one, our shit doesn't stink and you should be happy we are here destroying your country? Hubris.

I made a note that our approach is superior to that of the Taliban. Since you need things drawn in crayon for you, I will explain.

We know that there is a chance that our operations will take innocent lives. It has tragically happened too many times before, so we know it is always a possibility. With that in mind, our forces do strive to minimize that possibility. They could do better in my opinion, but the US military has no interest in seeking out and intentionally causing civilian death, and every reason to avoid causing civilian death. We certainly do not have a "kill them all" approach.

We also know that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan will see a three-way war as the Taliban makes its big move, independent warlords try to take over, and the anemic Afghan Army tries to fight both at once. We know this because that's just what happened when the Russians retreated. It's very likely that the result will be the same - Taliban islamist dominance. From that point, we are certain that innocent lives will be lost - it's not a possibility, it's an absolute certainty. We also know that the Taliban will seek to maximize civilian casualties; they have a proven track record, after all. The Taliban has every reason to cause civilian casualties and no reason to avoid them.

While to the person getting killed by either, there is no real difference, our approach does not seek to cause such losses, actively tries to minimize them, and can be improved to further minimize or even remove such risks. The other guys, however, are seeking to cause such losses, actively try to maximize them, and have no incentive at all to do otherwise.

So, yeah. Our approach, flawed though it is, is quite a bit superior.

"These people have been fighting among themselves for thousands of years" - I heard this argument for why we let the Hutus slaughter Tutsis in Rwanda. I heard it when Serbs were killing Albanians and Croats. I hear it when the Israelis dismember civilians with cluster bombs. I heard it when we decided to not step into the Iraqi insurrection we started in 1991, resulting in the slaughter of 100,000 shia Iraqis. it's the excuse behind continued inaction in the congo, which resulting in the most deaths since World War 2. Speaking of that war, this same claim was made about Europeans, even as the Nazis were happily butchering their way across Central Europe and France. And now it is what I am hearing from "liberals" who are excusing the slaughter that is sue to happen if we follow their advice and leave the Taliban to come back to power in Afghanistan.

For a moment, let's pretend that the statement is even true (which it isn't, but we're pretending); Even if "They've always been fighting" is true, is that actually justification for allowing the slaughter to continue? From an ethical standpoint, are those who are capable of stepping in and ending the violence not obligated to do so? To put it in a smaller frame, if you know your neighbor beats his wife, and has been doing so ever since their kids moved out, do you allow it to continue? "well, they've always been doing it. it's none of my business, anyway. It'd be hubris to try to intervene in some way!"

The plain answer is no; it is not a valid justification. It is an excuse for inaction and tolerance of the violence. You would rather sit by and watch people die so that you can be "right" on a political argument.

Walldude, you strike me as someone who has never put a lot of thought into your stances on this. Your ethics are weak, your arguments ore puerile, and all you've got to go on really is some half-baked catchphrases. I think you should work on it. I'm sure at some point, you will be able to develop your position beyond "because it's the cool thing now!"

I have no need to debate with a self righteous asshole like you. However I will comment that someone who has looked at the history of the region, and looked at the Empires who have tried to control that region and who thinks that even though all the others have failed that they will achieve what everyone else couldn't, has their head so far up their ass that they will achieve nothing.

Have you looked at the history of the region? Have you looked at the empires that have tried to control Afghanistan? Have you studied their failures and learned why they failed? Do you have any sort of actual education on the subject at all?

Because if you had, you would see a crucial difference between those attempts, and what the US is doing.

We're not looking to conquer. We have no interest in adding Afghanistan to any sort of "empire." We're not there to rule. This is a crucial difference between us and the British, between us and the Russians, between us and the Macedonians and Mongols, even (though both Alexander and Temujin actually succeeded in the endeavor.) If you need to have it explained to you why operating against an enemy in the country, and seeking to "own" the country are radically different, I can explain it to you. But I figure even you can grasp the notion without my help.

You clearly have no clue of what is happening in the Afghanistan/Pakistan conflict.

that only want their "purist Islamic state", period. If you remember prior to 9/11, they let UBL train in their country but they were NOT part of Al Qaeda. The Taliban in Afghanistan welcomes anyone that helps them have their little piece of Islamic rule heaven but are not Al Qaeda.

The Pakistani Taliban (which Taliban is really a generic name for "students or seekers of knowledge" on Islam) are the Usama Bin Laden types within Pakistan, they come from rich or middle-class families from different muslim countries. They study in western countries and then suddenly turn militant (like the "undiebomber"). "Those" then volunteer or give their money to organizations like Al Qaeda, to help bring back Islamic rule throughtout the region. THOSE are the dangerous ones. They are the ones being targeted with the so called drone attacks. Some hide in caves in remote places within the Pakistani border, and from there they give orders to people within the Pakistani army or recruit worldwide using the "inter tubes" for missions or go back to Afghanistan to help the afghan Taliban there.

The afghan Taliban is of little use for Al Qaeda overseas because many of their youth are iliterate and are unable to conduct missions. Al Qaeda do not need Afghanistan, they have Somalia if they want or any state within the region that is unstable. That is why they have been triving in Pakistan. They could move to Iraq but then they will have to deal with the "Persian-Shias". Al Qaeda are predominantly "Arab-Sunnis".


SOMEONE PLEASE... correct me if I am wrong or if this info is not updated. I used to read a lot about this topic but now grad school is taking precedence.

Also, unicorns are real, you just have to wish hard enough.

we do about the other brutal faction, currently our allies, the War Lords then? To the women especially of Afghanistan, empowering the War Lords has been devastating. Not to mention the fact they are turning Afghanistan into a NARCO State.

Opium, Rape and the American Way



How do we justify supporting these brutal and corrupt factions any more than supporting the Taliban would be justified?

However, since we have allowed them to become established (write a letter of thanks to former president Bush for that one!) they will certainly be a tougher nut to crack.

I would suggest that dealing with them would be action for the government of Afghanistan to take, with Coalition assistance if deemed needed. It's possible to bring some of the guys "into the fold" as it were which, while fairly vile (think Operation Paperclip, without the geniuses) is a better option than years more of civil war. For those who don't buckle, well, make 'em buckle.

The key part of this is making the Afghan military strong enough to be a credible force. It would probably take two, maybe three warlords down for the rest of them to start offering to talk. As for how to make the military strong enough... I wish I knew that. Kind of falls outside my realm of knowledge.

I wish I could live in the same world you are living, a world of fantacy where everything is easily fixed. A country that lacks institutions and infrastructure and which have no viable economy beyond the very basic needs cannot provide for the creation of an armed force. You are offering no solutions here but empty words.

As would you, I suppose.

And not be antagonist just for the fun of it. BTW, If you have not realized it by now, there are no easy answers about Afghanistan. I hope you get at least something from this OP.

The nation of Afghanistan exists more on paper than in reality. We're talking about a region of the world where tribalism and tribal loyalty are stronger institutions than any loyalty to any centralized government entity. If you knock down a tribal chieftain who does things in ancient ways that we would consider barbaric or like a warlord, you risk alienating the civilians who are apart of that tribe, and you risk getting to the point where you label those people as "insurgents." Then you're just fighting the locals head-on for control of the area. If you study the history of this region of the world, you would know that these people have never given up to anyone. They'd rather die than submit to the will of a foreign army.

bancruptcy. Either way, we will never win there (Afganistan). We weren't invited, the people really have no need for our style of democracy (gaud, what is our style of democracy), nor do they want cable television, macdonalds, payday lenders or our troops on their soil. I wonder if they keep records of how many were killed in the name of liberty and freedom by our drones.

I say get out now.

...Because if we didn't leave Vietnam, that's what would've come next. Many argue China's invasion of Vietnam in '79 was nothing more or less than an attempt to convince the US China would be a good partner to help contain the Soviets.

Because of being occupied on and off for hundreds/thousands of years, the Vietnamese cannot stand the Chinese. They resent the Chinese of the merchant class especially. Well after Saigon fell the Chinese there were rou nded up and either sent to the gulog or expelled (most of the "boat people" are of Chinese descent and people who fought for South Vietnam.

Anyway, the Khmer Rouge were a client state of China. They didn't like the Vietnamese for racial reasons and the fact they thought Cambodia should include the entire Mekong Delta. Vietnam invaded to put down the Khmer Rouge - and the fact they were mad dogs who needed killing. China didn't like that so fought a wee war with Vietnam.

I don't think China was thinking much about America when the stupid war was begun.

...We didn't invent triangulation. Deng Xiaoping was the freaking master. ;)

A little to much of a exceptionalist, colonialist attitude for me to stomach in that statement. There are people who want and fight for basic human rights in Afghanistan.

It is inarguable that the native Afghan culture is not currently amenable to progressive and western values and enlightenment.

Say no more.

You said the people, and you meant the people. :(

I find their culture to be not up to snuff... not the individual people.

Because of the influence of religion, the Islamic world is still pretty much stuck in the same place Europe was about 500 years ago. In the name of Christianity, nations went to war over simple stupid things like the difference between the Protestant reformation faiths and Catholicism. It spawned the need for some to escape to the New World, where they used their religion as the rationale for subjugating Native Americans.

The only thing that has kept Shiites and Sunnis from annihilating each other are leaders who put an iron boot on the throats of whoever's in the minority. We went in and upset those balances, but death of the strongmen would have done it anyway.

We can export our civilization either by example or brute force, such as used in WWII. Our problem is that we seem to think we can do so with half-assed measures that accomplish neither the display of our values of peace, nor the complete domination by force of those who would continue to oppose us.

i don't remember it that way, but i am not a military history buff, and was not that old when the war ended.
grantcart knows this history inside out.

it was the U.S. "accidental" bombing of Cambodia that helped the Khmer Rouge get into power.

Solves the problem of worrying about who got left behind.

Once upon a time I had a notion that we'd gotten a valuable education from our Viet Nam experience, but here we are, right back where we were, with a smart, well-meaning Democratic president pouring untold quantities of treasure and blood into a stupid, un-winnable war that's losing public support every day. There aren't any street riots or rallies on college campuses this time around, but those things just don't happen when you have a mercenary fighting force. The same basic truth prevails: The Afghans---like the South Vietnamese before them---are more than willing for us to gut our treasury and put our young people in harm's way, rather than fighting their own battles. Beyond disgusting.

As a related aside one may want to look at what mercenary armies and foreign wars did to the Roman Empires stability...

Some people made BILLIONS of the WAR in VietNam.
Some people are making BILLIONS off the hostile occupation of Afghanistan.
THAT is the reason we are in Afghanistan.

Anyone who believes that we are there to catch Bin Laden, or to save the poor women are incredibly naive.

I do agree to leaving Afghanistan as this is what the people of Afghanistan wants. The attacks on the civilian population by the Taliban happen to undermine the US and NATO forces. The people of Afghanistan are tired of war and want their own (democracy is foreign to their society) tribal organizations ruling their country and not a puppet/corrupt american supported government. There will be lots of dead Afghans once the US and NATO leave, just like it is happening today!! Leave them the heck alone. Let them take care of their own country for once!

"(democracy is foreign to their society)"

That's untrue. Might I recommend learning the history of Afghanistan? I know that it's popular to imagine "Those People" as having lived in the stone age forever (you know, barbarity!) but the truth is that thirty years ago, Afghanistan was one of the most stable, progressive, and technologically adept nations in Asia. Then the US and Russia decided to see who could fuck it over faster.

And yes I am well aware of that past which was centered only in the area of Kabul ruled by western educated Afghans that were easily manipulated (the Afghans would say corrupted) by the British and later Russia. The rest of the country was rich with tribal societies (tribal meaning related to kinships, blood type, clans, etc) that had their own systems of goverment that worked for them. It might seem "foreing" to you but there are societies that do not care about "democracy" and live well. That does not make them any less than anybody else, nor primitive nor unprogressive (if there's such a word). They are perfectly capable of saying what they want for themselves.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/rory-stewart/the-irresistible-illusion

You're still operating on the notion that we are greatly advanced "beyond" the Afghans. Take a drive through southern Utah or Eastern Tennessee. Stop at every spittle-speck town you happen across and mosey up to the saloon or post office. It's a while different country out in some parts of America. Every bit as impoverished, disconnected, agrarian and yes, tribal as a good portion of Afghanistan. Yet these people manage to still be considered a part of a greater nation than their own groups, while you insist this is an impossible goal for Afghans.

Tribalism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, Lost. In fact, tribal societies tend to be very amenable to democratic institutions. I don't think you actually understand the term tribalism; you seem to just be using it as another way to say "backwards" even while trying to pretnd you're not.

"Every bit as impoverished, disconnected, agrarian and yes, tribal as a good portion of Afghanistan."

:rofl:

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen "poor" in other countries. Poor as in no education (not bad shools just no education period). Poor as you die because the water you are drinking is contaminated with human waste. Poor as in chronic malnutrition. Poor as in no access to medical car. Poor as in never heard of a toothbrush.

When you lead off with parts of US are as impoverished as Afghanistan well it is hard to take anything else seriously. Per capita income is $70 per month in Afghanistan. Of course that is the median income so poor might be 1/2 to 1/3 that.

Someone surviving solely on welfare has a standard of living that isn't even in the same ballpark.

Some regions of the US do actually qualify (I could name a few reservations, and there's always the ever-increasing homeless population) but fair point on the fact most Americans aren't that poor.

The main thrust was that there are still many parts of our own country which can be compared to Afghanistan. Saying "The people outside Kabul are tribal and undemocratic!" is kind of like saying the same of people outside Seattle-Tacoma. Or the people outside any other US city.

"I don't agree with one thing you said, so I'm going to dismiss everything else you mentioned" is not a terribly good debate strategy.

You have all the right in the world to misrepresent/mischaracterize an informed opinion. If that makes you happy or help you win your argument fell free to call yourself winner.

Old surveys (2007-2009??) showed they wanted the US to leave. But then, that was the year of the Iraqi "surge" and they dropped the ball in Afghanistan.

Still, I think we should have left Afghanistan a long while ago. But, if we do not leave Afghanistan... the conflict could spread to other regions with weaker governments. We are seen this with Pakistan which is going out of control. There are no easy answers here.

And, the direct consequences of that exercise in "being tough" were the 2mn deaths. We are now repeating that attempt to show our "toughness" and "leader of the world" charade in Afghanistan.

The result will be the same. As will the "we coulda won if it weren't fer them damned leftist traitors in our own country" by the hawks(R) and born again hawks(D).

With a military arsenal the size of the one we have, there could have just as easily been an order to further escalate, or to go to WMD. The fact that we did neither of those is a choice. It's the right choice, but it still is a choice.

The same as Nixon did when he escalated the war into Cambodia so we could save face when they finally kicked us out.

And we could/could have "won" both places if you remove morality and humanity from the equation. As I said, the right decision was made in Vietnam albeit way too late.

for that figure you used above, re: over 2 million dead after our pullout?

Because the figures I found included:


US war in Indochina:

Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos

1,921,000 Vietnamese dead
200,000 Cambodians dead (1969-1975)
100,000 Laotians dead (1964-1973)

3,200,000 wounded (VietNam, Kampuchea, Laos)

14,305,000 refugees (VietNam, Kampuchea, Laos) by the end of the war.

In 1965-1973, approximately one out of every 30 Indochinese was killed; and in 12 wounded; and one in 5 became a refugee.

In South Vietnam, the war left 300,000 orphans and 131,000 war widows.

United States

2,500,000 soldiers served in the war
58,135 soldiers were Killed
2,500 missing in action

303,616 wounded
33,000 paralyzed as a result of injuries
110,000 veterans have died from 'war-related' problems since returning to the U.S.

60,000 are suicides
35,000 U.S. civilians killed in Vietnam (non-combat deaths)

15,500,000 tons of bombs and munitions were used by U.S.

http://www.may4.org/information/facts-us-war-in-se-asia.html


You can see my dilemma. Not saying that you are intentionally exaggerating this for any reason but what is your source for your figure?




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

which as well all know led to the death of an estimated 2 million people by itself.

And backed the khmer rouge after they got booted out for ten more years of conflict. So much for our 'getting out'. We never stopped messing around with southeast asia.

Most historians conclude destabilization of Cambodia by the U.S. invasion and bombing, accompanied by the U.S.-backed Lon Nol coup that removed Sihanouk in March 1970, led to Pol Pot taking power. Wiki:

If Pakistan erupts into a civil war after our pullout certainly a few million will be killed whether that is a direct result of a pullout will always be arguable...


My main argument is we will not be in better shape in 2010 than we are now...


we shouldn't wait another nine years we should leave now.

Us pulling out.. then Al Queda and their Taliban Allies taking over again and allowing the country to be used for training camps to train their fighters to attack the U.S. like 9/11??

There are much better ways to fight terrorism than invading a country and bombing the civilian population till they agree with you.

BUT I do NOT think we have a poltician with the balls willing to pull out of there completly and allow the scenario I painted to take place.. and while they got flight training where ya said.. the money and religious training and other tactics came from Osama and his camps in Afghanistan..

We're already killing tens of thousands of Afghanis. The warlords we support are just as bad as the Taliban. (Sorry, they are...) When we pull out the Afghan people will be able to FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES, and the Pakistani left will be able to help build up the small working class in Kabul.

Americans are lying to themselves if they believe we're there to "do good" or even if they believe that "good" is an accidental effect stemming from our selfish intensions--that we're there for selfish purposes but somehow we'll "liberate women" and "protect the masses from slaughter" by our presence. In reality, any group that truly wants to stand up and fight the Taliban--good honest people, not warlords and smugglers--they are charged with being "agents for the Americans" and slaughtered. Once the US is out of the region, these people will be able to fight without smears and attacks. They hate us as much as they hate the Taliban.

We are not in Afghanistan because we give a shit about women. We're not there because we hate the Taliban and want to protect the people. We're there to make sure China doesn't take too many mines. We're there to secure oil pipelines. We're there in collusion with RW pakistanis.

At the beginning of the war, the middle and working classes of Kabul (total minority) wanted our presence because they thought we'd honor our promise of bringing jobs. We didn't. And now we have no support of the urban workers, little support of the urban administrative class, and the vast majority of rural peasantry have turned to the Taliban to fight us.

Heckuva job Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden.

It's time to go now.

the liberation of Vietnam by the Vietnamese was not covered by the western pigmedia- though the hopeful expectation that 'millions' of South Vietnamese would be murdered by the 'communists' was spread by the US military, which thus created a mass panic and chaos that the liberation army then had to deal with. They did, and the story is fairly well known by those who care about truth. Most of the men running the liberation war for Vietnam were southeners anyway- the weeks following the collapse of the pro US regime was mostly filled with reunions of families, some which had been torn apart by the fight against the French effort to keep 'Indo China' a colony right after WW2! The truth about Vietnam embarasses the US and the imperialist suckers who need the big lie to try justify the insane criminal behavior ezxposed-the same process is at work now with Iraq/Afghanistan. The big question is- if the pig murdered JFK, and later on blatantly carried out the 911 disaster, all in broad daylight, how can ANYONE THINK they are now being honest about 'Nam? 58 thousand US servicemen DIED in Vietnam, fighting against men who have since rebuilt it into a peaceful little economic powerhouse. Please consider this: has anyone ever been indicted for the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident/attack fiction? (which was used to justify bombing 'North' Vietnam, where 4.3 million Vietnamese, according to R Mcnamara, eventually were to be killed: re 'fog of war')

mind you, the 'Taliban' are a rightwing reactionary gang- originally put up by the rightwing anti Soviet CIA; so indeed they will murder alot of innocent people. The Vietnamese liberators were leftists (thus patriotic, and sympathetic to ARVN collaborators- after all many liberation army men were deserters/active duty, from the S. Vietnamese military. They emptied the S. Viet prisons, first thing)
Another thing: Vietnam at time of liberation was literally bankrupt. The 'refugees' took ALL the nation's wealth to USA (which has since quietly returrned some of it).

I am no Vietnam scholar by any length but your view that the NVA were mis-understood kittens is unique to say the least.

Vietnam belongs to the Vietnamese. Ho Chi Minh was and IS a hero to ALL Vietnamese people. The south was LIBERATED from a foreign coloniser. And no amount of bs lies/statistics can change the facts. The truth was Vietnam was better off with a national government reflecting the nation rather then a puppet regime that committed murder on massive scale at the expense of American working people, for the benefit of greedy pigs.
BTW it was the Vietnamese who went in and stopped the Khmer crazies- while WE meanwhile delighted in recounting the 'killing fields' story!

Cambodia had a popular monarchy led by Prince Sihanouk. He wasn't sufficiently pro-US so we caused a military coup. The new leader, Lon Nol, was unpopular and the "democratic" forces were forced to ally with the Khmer Rouge against the Lon Nol government. When the military government collapsed, as was inevitable, the Rouge were the victors. What followed was a horrific slaughter described in the movie "The killing Field".

The twisted logic that concludes that what happened in Cambodia was caused by the US pullout is quite bizarre. In fact, the opposite is true. The lesson to learn is that when the US invades a country and overthrows the popular government bad things happen. The situation in Iran is very similar of course.

but I have noticed how our current war has expanded into the neighbors.

fyi

1) The vast majority of the "2 million dead" occurred in Cambodia, in the aftermath of the triumph of the Khmer Rouge.

2) The U.S. backed Cambodian government had already lost, well before the fall of Saigon.

3) The U.S. was not in Cambodia, except covertly in the border regions and through air strikes.

4) There is significant controversy as to whether U.S. policy in overthrowing the neutralist government of Cambodia led directly to the substitution of the Khmer Rouge for the old Cambodian Resistance in opposition to the U.S. backed military government.

5) There is no controversy that the Khmer Rouge were eventually overthrown by Socialist Vietnam and that the Khmer Rouge were supported for years by the CIA and the State Department.

By conflating Vietnam and Cambodia, i.e. "Indochina", the OP creates a false statement connecting "withdrawal" with "2 million dead".

Get off your very high horse, please.

and ramped up troops throughout that decade the Khmer Rouge would have taken over in 1975 anyway????

I don't mean to go all Back to the Future on your ass but that seems a very unlikely scenario.

We started messing with vietnam as soon as the geneva peace treaty was signed.

And no, the khmer rouge don't happen at all if we don't first destabilize Cambodia, and then back the Lon Nol coup. Pulling out of vietnam did not cause the mess in Cambodia, messing up Cambodia caused the mess in Cambodia. We deliberately fucked up their country.

You might as well talk about Guatemala. You are trying to draw an analogy about Afghanistan and Vietnam. You throw Cambodia in for "drama". It would be much more accurate if you were to state: "Two million people died in Indochina because the U.S. did not withdraw from Vietnam early enough".

You should also learn a bit before you form your "arguments". The French were out in 1956. Cambodia was nominally neutral. The Khmer Rouge were a direct product of the overthrow of Sihanouk and the Cambodian "incursion", both of which were Nixonian initiatives. Nixon upset the "balance", precisely to extended the U.S. war in Vietnam in order to get a better outcome.

Your premise is wrong, your facts are wrong, and your understanding is flawed.

If we pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow the various warring factions will kill a lot of people and commit many atrocities.


Nevertheless I think we should pull out of Afghanistan tommorow...

How do you feel?

position, and yet I detect zero true compassion from your wording. Odd references to not "spending American gold" and reducing the debt by not extending humanitarian aid. Hmm.

It isn't a lack of compassion it is simple honesty. When we decide one course of action some good things will happen and some bad things will happen....


As for American gold... when we started this millennium the national deficit clock was turned off because it wasn't designed to go backwards... needless to say that isn't a problem today.

for various foreign cultures...yeah, right-leaning libertarian vibe.

health care and jobs at home... and I can't think of one that wants to raise taxes as I do.

isolationist, non-humanitarian-oriented and "let those backwards-ass people evolve, it's not our problem", to paraphrase. And every time anyone says that we SHOULD care about genocide, about the fate of those left behind after war, you counter with "Do you want MORE troops there? Do you want MORE war?" As if those were the only choices for action. Weird. Two days in a row of this.

The military should be used to defend American shores and selected Allies and it should be much smaller than it is today.

Many here are in fact anti-war, in all cases, all the time. I don't know anyone who thinks we should EXPAND our global military presence. What I find interesting is not your smaller-military, we're-not-global-cop stance (that's most of DU), but your all-or-nothing approach to humanitarian crises (US-caused or not). No military, but no aid either. And the "it's not our problem" attitude.

When we leave, all who sided with us may be killed. The Taliban or some version of them will probably retake power, and women will be reduced to slaves again.

Bottom line, the native population is barbaric, backward and about 500 years behind the West in terms of modernity.

Still doesn't mean we have to stay there. It was bad before we got there, and it will be bad after. The question is, are we making any progress towards the long term improvement of life for the people in Afghanistan AND meeting our national security goals. The answer is probably no on both counts.

I do care about a resurgent Taliban taking over Pakistan and gaining access to nuclear weapons.

...is BECAUSE the US is engaged in a hostile occupation of Afghanistan.
Radicalization of neighboring countries IS a direct consequence of hostile occupations.

It is just common sense.

SEE: Cambodia, Iran, England (1939)

The BEST thing we could do FOR Pakistan is to GTFO of Afghanistan ASAP, and let Pakistan handle their problem.
They were doing good BEFORE we blew up Afghanistan.

do we allow our Afghan allies to die at the hands of the Taliban or do we pull out of a war that might not be winnable but we might be able to set up a situation that leaves these people safer.

2 million died and you were okay with that..

you lost me right there..

It's either/or.

If we leave a lot of Afghans will die.

If we stay a lot of Americans will die and a lot of domestic priorities will be underfunded.

I say we leave now... cut our losses... with the understanding that some Afghans will die as a result.

It suggests the responsibility for those deaths is US policy and it most certainly isn't. Civilians were getting starved and murdered in Afghanistan before we got there, and I don't believe there's much difference if you compare our troops leaving with the hypothetical scenario of them never being there in the first place. The same holds true for Vietnam.

If we really wanted to save lives, we could do that much more cheaply and easily in other regions of the world and we're not. So who really believes saving lives is why we are in or are staying in Afghanistan?

No harm no foul...

I hope you are right and if you are and the Afghans show themselves to be the better people than so be it.

I don't see the situation changing much there. It hasn't for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I really don't think too many people in the US would support staying indefinitely, so it's just a matter of when we leave. I don't believe the results would be any different a year from now or ten years from now. We are just as well to leave sooner, rather than pissing more people, materials, and money away.

Unlike the neocon artists, I make no claim that, in the words of Dan Ackroyd, "We're on a mission from God."

That way the imperialist war ends, and there's still a buffer against Taliban barbarism.

killing UN peacekeepers is the answer...


Plus it should be noted peacekeepers only work when both sides want peace... see Rwanda for their effectiveness otherwise.

where the US was against Vietnam stopping the horror.

It is estimated that 3 million died in the war.

The North Vietnamese fighters were necessarily confined to Southeast Asia, such is not the case in there and now.

Newsflash: The Taliban are back anyway.

people we murdered in Indochina if not barbarity? Of course, I take it the term "barbarity" is only reserved for "natives."

Without a doubt, one of the most shockingly racist comments I've read on DU.

helped stop the slaughter in Cambodia, and they were capable of doing that because the United States no longer attempted to occupy their country.

There are brutal conflicts going on throughout the world and we have not intervened in every single conflict. I do feel for the people there but rebuilding a nation that is barely even a nation is near impossible to do. We need to leave.