The Issue of the war and wikileaks; I just don't see this war ending.

I have no issues with wikileaks and I'm noticing a term pushed by RW groups but now members of DU---"Obama's war". I'm not going to get into the debate over that, it's just that when I read that phrase it got me to thinking. Many think me vapid and that's alright.

However, because of the wikileaks situation and the war and listening to some Dems on this issue---surprisingly on Chris Matthews show before he went into nonsense like ending affirmative action. I don't think the Dems have any clue as to the right idea and overall I think even Dems on DU don't know what to do. I never claimed to have an idea on what is the best course of action when it comes to Afghanistan.

We're moving out of Iraq which is great and everything is on course for that. However Afghanistan is my problem. Mainly, I've read the reports of what the people are going through because of the Al Queda operatives or foot soldiers, I've watched Richard Engel's reports on the situation in certain parts---and we are moving out in some parts. And I think we can establish that with the push of more soldiers in Afghanistan we are pushing a lot of these people further and further out into neighboring countries. And then when I think of leaving---I see them coming back home to roost as well as building up their positions in neighboring countries.

I do want my soldiers home---but I also see this situation as half our fault because of the shitty president we had before. We entered a mess of a situation and made it worse with deaths of civilians adding to the destabilization that was already established with the Taliban and we never really earned their trust.

Anyway back to the Dems. I heard them on Chris Matthews and I have to say I think they're lost. They say and there were two of them on, their names escape me---I know one was a blond female and her last name began with a P---like Pedigree--anyway. Her and another male Dem said they wouldn't vote on anything for enhancing this war in Afghanistan and in light of the information released and the military attack they want the troops out. And it seems most Dems are on this band wagon. But this is the part I don't get...They say we're not saying stay out forever. Because of Al Queda comes back to Afghanistan after we leave we'd send troops back in. <---why the hell does this not make any sense to me. I've tried wrapping my head around it over and over and over it just doesn't work. Our military will turn into a yo-yo. Their defense is pretty decent because they say, when asked, "There are bad people there and we need to snuff them out, what say you?"; there are bad people everywhere we can't be expected to get them all. Somalia came to my mind.

And in their response I agree. But we instigated this war in Afghanistan to say the least and the possible blow-back. And to hear this sort of yo-yoing idea being promoted by Dems worries me more than having troops in there. Talk about indefinite war and I have said before that if we leave, they will come back and if even with us in Afghanistan they managed to take parts of Pakistan and moving into other nations---they will go to these other neighboring nations and we'll have a bigger problem leading us right back into a war---anyway.


Basically, I don't see any way of avoiding this situation since Bush put us in it. As a result what I am saying is that we're in a major bind and I don't see us getting out effectively or properly because of the problem this nation poses overall. A solution I have heard is to grant asylum to women, elderly and children in our nation (hah---I can't wait to see the drama over that idea and reactions from the right and blue dog dems ---it's utterly unfeasible (even if I agree with it))and those who want it (imagine the screening on who would get asylum----it would be a logistical nightmare) and then we remove our troops. Although I like the idea, I of course pointed out the major problems it faces, the right won't like this even if they like the war because of the "immigrant" aspect added with Blue Dog Dems and we have this thing of who to let in and who we can trust to be people in need and not spies or pledging their allegiance to AQ while we're saying---you can come home to us. <---I just find it inefficient and ineffective---even though in my perfect world it would be great, but then I wouldn't have war.

All in all, I don't see any bright ideas and I don't see an end to this situation---because of how AQ has managed to branch itself out to neighboring nations even with our drone attacks.

The reason we cannot have success in Afghanistan is because of its culture. We view it as a nation, but its people do not view themselves as a nation. They are a highly tribal culture. We are thinking like Westerners, and want the Afghans to emulate us - at least when it comes to governance. Yet, what we desire is alien to them, and in the eyes of many undesirable.

Democracy only works when the people embrace it. A nation can only be a nation in truth - not just in word - when its people identify as such.

Thus, I think the only path to victory is the systematic destruction of Afghan culture and customs. Western culture, customs, and values will replace them to varying degrees. This obviously makes this a generational war - lasting 30 years or more.

It could be accomplished as follows: Immediately end whatever faux democratic rule that might exist in Afghanistan. In place of the current Afghan government would exist a military dictatorship. A basic constitution would be written ensuring the Afghan people certain basic rights, the constitution would be temporary and transitory, lasting only up until democratic rule could emerge. This eliminates the high amount of corruption within the government, and allows those Afghans who serve the military authority to be held accountable directly to that authority (which ideally is not corrupt itself).

The next step is to cease attempting to claim and hold territory. Instead a new modern settlement would be established. Afghans will be put to work in vast public works projects building up said settlement. The Military would largely confine themselves to that settlement and establish a "safe zone" around it. It would then attempt to herd as many Afghan's as possible toward the settlement.

Education will be provided for the children, and it is through that education that Afghanistan is fundamentally changed. The children would be throughly Westernized, likely in some type of semi-permanent boarding school. As they come of age and mature, they will be the first generation of "New Afghans."

Meanwhile, militarily speaking we use drones to strike at suspected Taliban and other undesirable groups from the safety of the safe zone. We train up Afghan soldiers, who would eventually become an extension of the military authority. Those Afghan soldiers slowly but surely move outward, re-conquering Afghanistan. This ensures that they sustain the bulk - if not all - of the losses. Afghans who did not integrate would be forced to integrate as the Afghan soldiers re-conquer their territory.

In 30 to 50 years Afghanistan should ideally be a young fledgling democracy, and the military dictatorship could gradually be dismantled through establishing a transition government. The transition government would then be responsible to drafting a new constitution for Afghanistan. Once the government has been established, is stable, and can stand on its own two feet the United States can begin a full withdrawal.

-----

There is one alternative path, but it's more dangerous and arguably even more vile. We can begin withdrawal immediately, but to ensure the Taliban do not return we fully arm the citizenry. We supply them with vast amounts of weapons and ammunition. We basically say, "Fight for your own country if you want it." Then leave. Even if this successfully ensures that the Taliban do not take over, it would absolutely result in endless civil war with one warlord after another. That is, unless one emerges that is strong enough to take control of the entire nation. From an American perspective that could be either good or bad, depending upon the goals of the warlord. It would also require us to turn a blind eye to egregious human rights violations.

-----

Ultimately, though - you're right. We can't just leave and expect things to improve. Leaving will have a horrific impact upon the Afghan people. It will also inevitably lead to civil war. There are no good choices, only choices that are less bad.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Those were some of the extreme measures that crossed my mind and would result in even more death. We're not even seeing how fast that would go. The second scenario is even more dreadful because we're assuming the citizenry will turn against the Taliban and/or AQ. However, from all the information given there is no way in hell they will---which means we've just armed the Taliban and AQ with a new pseudo military made up of men and women and creating an even greater threat to neighboring nations---like Pakistan who has nuclear weapons and ultimately---we're screwed anyway.

In the end, I'm also saying that there are no good choices. Things are not black and white, but instead varying shades of extremely dark gray.

If we leave, Afghanistan will collapse into civil war, and it will likely result in the return of the Taliban. The only hope, if we decide to leave, is to arm and lightly train those most likely to join a resistance movement against the Taliban. The civil war would be long and bloody, though, regardless of whether or not the Taliban was successful. If the Taliban were defeated by resistance fighters they'd likely only be replaced by one or more warlords that would continue to wage the civil war.

Ultimately, AQ has no chance in Afghanistan whether we stay or go. If we leave then the tactics we're using in Yemen and Somalia would be employed in Afghanistan as well.

As for Pakistan and their nukes - anyone who believes that the US and Pakistan's neighbors (especially India) is going to let those nukes fall into the hands of radicals... they are sadly mistaken. Pakistan would be wiped off the map if the US believed Pakistan's nukes were going to be accessible to terrorists, and Pakistan's neighbors are on the same page as well - likely willing to go even further. If a radical group (that had no intention of terrorism) gained control of Pakistan's nukes, the United States would likely favor a strategy of isolation (similar to how we're treating Iran).

We've stepped on a hornets nest. I don't envy anyone trying to fix the problem because there are no good solutions. The best "moral" solution is our current strategy, which I don't think will be successful.

That is the problem we are seeing. Our efforts are producing results so contrary that we will eventually end up *forced* to fight for survival, because we have not made the world or the region safer, in fact our efforts have strengthened the threats to us.

Fundamentalist Islam has made great strides. They have been able to position the war to a lot of previously secular or moderate muslims, as a fight against an agressor and a fight for survival.

I think we lost this the minute it became public knowledge that the Iraq war was brought on under false pretenses. In this age of fast communications that is just something that you cannot bury again. It will constantly poke it's head up. So we end up closer and closer to a place where we have to completely obliterate the enemy or pull out and hope to hold off the threat until a generation has passed.

In addition, we are effectively fighting an entire region, not just a few countries. Vietnam was a "proxy war" against the Soviet Union. Well, Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming "proxy wars" against much of the middle east and much of Islamic Asia. That is a much wider theater.

We certainly seem to be entering a very serious phase.

Exactly. This is what I'm seeing. I just don't see any end in sight at the moment. And I don't think we can wait for the "phase" to pass really since we have many of our own American's who have joined the fight against the US for the fundamentalist side. This becomes one of the greatest quandaries we face. And I don't see how functional pulling out all together will work. Because for all intents and purposes it would seem we would be thrust back into the fight again. And as you said it's the speed of communication and technological advancement that these people manage to get their hands on and wish to get their hands on is going to make our lives worse.

Even if we had to go "full bore" with everything, we still end up in the SAME PLACE. The country can't kill everyone in the middle east. We would still be forced to end in a heavy defense with the same heavy diplomacy waiting a generation for anger to die down.

Even then, after a no-hold's barred "slaughter", we risk incredibly serious consquences with the world court. Remember, this all started from a lie. So a serious escalation risks a condemnation that cuould be extremely difficult to survive in it self, having come out weaker as it is.

No, the best path is still to get out now. We actually have a chance of protecting our borders and fighting off the threat and having it simmer down with diplomatic and other efforts.

remember that whole thing last year, where Obama decided which way to go? It was as significant a decision as it was made out to be. He chose to escalate, on a theory which there is a lot of evidence that shows to be wrong. I personally don't believe he made the decision on its merits, I think he made a political decision. Exactly like Vietnam. They knew it couldn't work then, I think they know it can't work now.

First off you can speculate all you want on what Obama's decisions were..that's not the point of my post. I want to know is there really any way out of this war. And I don't think there is one. If Obama wasn't President and even if Obama got out of the war or said we would be getting out, we really wouldn't be.

Why? Because we're in a shit hole of a situation. Let me go about my statement another way. What do you think will happen, and you can speculate on this (since this was what I was asking about), if Obama never escalated the war but he decided to get out? And when I ask this, keep in mind that AQ has moved into Pakistan and before the escalation had a strong part of Pakistan and were going to move into Pakistan to get it's nuclear heads. Keep in mind that AQ still has a strong hold in Afghanistan and are threatening neighboring nations. What do you think would happen if we weren't there and were planning on coming out? Do you think we would be safe or safer? Do you think our military would probably not have to go back into that nation?


This is all I'm hearing from Dems in office now. They're saying we can't stay in Afghanistan post this video leak however they are also saying if there is another attack, and most agreed there most likely will be because AQ will come back into Afghanistan and threaten Pakistan, then our military becomes a yo-yo military and this entire thing becomes a joke and we end up in that nation for decades to come.

So in effect---if I touch on Obama's "escalation" as you put it, I find it would be the same even if he pulled out. Politically he would have been seen as putting the US at risk, but overall we'd be thrust into this "war" because Bush put us in a mess. This is a Bush mess----if any other president took office and I think (speculating a bit here) even Kucinich took over and said we're pulling out----we'd be thrust back in b/c it's clearly apparent AQ hates us and Bush created a generational blow-back that will threaten us for decades and decades.


I just don't see how pulling out would have been functional before escalation or now. So the escalation is actually a minor aspect in what the real problem is...Al Queda and a nation who is hell bent on killing us.

not only did we lose the opportunity to begin getting out, and instead got deeper, the surge also involves increased military action, increased cost, and increased casualties on both sides. The war has gotten worse recently and they're telling us it's going to get even worse, and I believe them.

You seem to believe something that I don't believe, that at some point we're going to be able to get out without bad things happening in Afghanistan. That will never happen, imo, and I don't believe they believe it.

Everyone seems to want to first lump Afghanistan almost into the same category as Iraq, which their not. And really the escalation means nothing. With or without once Bush thrust us into this fight---we took on an enemy that doesn't follow any rules (if one believes there is a rule to war). We end up in a situation with an enemy that keeps on building it's troops based on the fact they hate us. No matter what, we would be there because the only way of really ending this war is by going totally immoral and destroying the entire nation and it's people. AQ realizes that they are a threat to us and realize unlike the shit in Iraq---they still have not managed to fall. Iraq was cleaned out really in a weak with a few weak military throwing shells. But these guys have a hefty supply of arms and they have managed to twist our own citizens to their side. Ultimately we're fighting an enemy in and out of us.


This escalation is truly minor in the scheme of things. You can't tell me horrible and destructive shit wasn't going on before the escalation. AQ went into Pakistan to try and take over before the escalation NOT AFTER. And that was the real push for the escalation in the first place because they saw them as a threat, and no one can ignore that if AQ manages to take Pakistan (b/c we walked out of the area) we'd be screwed and back in there. So there was no in or our of this escalation.

How do you ignore that?! Where did you ever come up with this idea that I believe, "that at some point we're going to be able to get out without bad things happening in Afghanistan." <---that is definitely not what I believe. I believe there is no way of getting out for sure even if we think we got out. I just think that the getting out is contingent until the escalation builds up again and we'll be back and the way it seems right now---whenever we decide to leave---this won't get the Afghan government to buckle down. It will get the Afghan government ready to kiss AQ ass and then we can bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. B/c us out means they are in 100% and escalation or not they take are one step closer to taking us out and our military gets to start calling Afghanistan home once again.

Basically what I'm saying is that once Bush thrust us into Afghanistan we were never going to be coming out because ultimately they were always our biggest threat when we first walked in. Obama's position didn't make it worse, it just solidified what most of us chose to ignore---we could never come out once we went in. You should read post 1 or 2.

As a side note, the war never got worse---it's always been bad and there is no worse to it. It's just a mess and has been that way from the get go.

At this point we likely take a serious hit either way. I would argue that the consequences get far more serious the longer we wait and the more we escalate.

If the threat is as existential as you make out then we need total war rather than a bogus nation building exercise.

We are creating enemies not reducing a threat and at a very hefty cost. A cost that Al Qeada could not hope to match in damage dealing.

If some circumstance led to us having to return then that is better than hanging out forever pissing blood and treasure into the gravel over there on a faith based initiative.
If somebody pops their head up then you go in and put their head to bed and get right the hell back out again like we did when we got there, six to eight weeks of hot action at most and head back until they need to be policed again.

There is absolutely no demonstrable evidence that occupation and nation building is in any way workable over any reasonable time frame.

Let China and Europe defend their own mineral stakes and if we are threatened or attacked then we can respond appropriately but the reality is organized terror operates on a global basis and can plan and train for 9/11 events from anywhere, like they did then. The majority of the camps were in Pakistan, most of the money came out of Saudi Arabia as did the perpetrators.

This is not traditional warfare, we aren't fighting Afghanistan, there is no massive and well equipped military, there are no meaningful principal objectives. If there were then this would have been over a few weeks in. We are chasing shadows here and creating many real and present enemies by occupying their lands.

If we were occupied you better believe we'd have a shit ton of "insurgents" right here and I'd be proud to join them and those folks aren't THAT different, the longer we stay and the more we try to dictate our values the more the population will gradually turn against us.

Sometimes the pooch cannot be unscrewed and seldom if ever can you screw your way to unscrewed status.

The best thing we can do is to use the last of our resources to strengthen our own people and to build our own nation rather than chasing a rag tag few extremists around a graveyard as a cover for exploiting a country's natural resources and as an excuse to funnel wealth to military suppliers and mercenaries.