The War in Afghanistan

[IheartTesla]

Of course, everyone is going to focus on the 'America can absorb another terrorist attack and come out stronger' quote (paraphrasing). Different people are putting different spins on the contents of the book already, some focusing on the acrimonious disputes on the Obama team. Do they not realize what a debate sounds like.

[Shryke]

Of course, everyone is going to focus on the 'America can absorb another terrorist attack and come out stronger' quote (paraphrasing). Different people are putting different spins on the contents of the book already, some focusing on the acrimonious disputes on the Obama team. Do they not realize what a debate sounds like.

No. The idea of people arguing their various viewpoints and then coming to a reasoned consensus on how to act is antithetical to their way of thinking. It shows weakness or some such.

[sologdin]

have grown stronger

maybe the US should send flowers instead of bombs, given the fact that invasion has backfired regarding the alleged objective.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

have grown stronger

maybe the US should send flowers instead of bombs, given the fact that invasion has backfired regarding the alleged objective.

Well, I think the "alleged objective" was to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for the training of terrorists who would strike internationally. Prior to the invasion, such training camps were being operated openly in Afghanistan. I think NATO has been successful in accomplishing that objective, for the most part.

Of course, everyone is going to focus on the 'America can absorb another terrorist attack and come out stronger' quote (paraphrasing). Different people are putting different spins on the contents of the book already, some focusing on the acrimonious disputes on the Obama team. Do they not realize what a debate sounds like?

That part doesn't bother me. What bothers me is thh same thing that bothered me when some laudatory article appeared awhile back talking about how Obama had neutralized/co-opted the generals running the war by getting them to agree to his approach. The impression I get from that article is that Obama's primary concern is how to get out of Afghanistan without political cost to himself. Not getting blamed is his single most important objective when it comes to that war.

[The Progressive]

Not getting blamed is his single most important objective when it comes to that war.

Lol, having an exit strategy sure doesn't please the rightwing imperialists much.

[The Progressive]

Oh, and here's a grand quote from Petraeus:

So, TWAT isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The US still have troops in Germany and Korea, and WW2/Cold War/Korean War were suppose to be over long ago.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not a fan of our emperor in chief, but he escalated this war, so I am a little hazy on how not getting blamed was his most important objective.

He didn't want to look like a national security wimp during the campaign, so he consistently portrayed Afghanistan as the "good war", as opposed to GWB's "bad war" in Iraq. Remember the whole "we took our eye off the ball" characterization of Iraq v. Afghanistan? He could be anti-Iraq but still look like a tough guy.

That doesn't mean he really believed that, though. But he had to follow-through to some extent because it was what he'd campaigned on. So he then wanted a review, and when his general asked for a bunch more troops, he froze, and basically did nothing for more than six months. He finally gave some extra troops, much later and fewer than requested.

Now again, I don't have a problem with an exit strategy. But it looks to me like the exit strategy about which he is concerned is more about him being able to blame others than actually looking for what might constitute the best "exit" in military or geopolitical terms. What happens after we leave is less his concern than whether he can blame it on someone else.

That's admittedly a very cynical POV, but that's what I first thought when I read about how he supposedly had "outfoxed" the generals politically. And from what I've heard of Woodward's book, I think it's even more likely.

[The Progressive]

Lol, obviously what every President must do is rubberstamp the demands of the generals without thinking much about it.

I can't believe that people are that stupid, but I'm continue to be amaze everyday.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, I've always maintained that the only reason we're in Afghanistan is to save the democrats. There's no national security concern over there anymore.

Well, I don't think the President believes there is a sufficient national security concern to justify remaining there. Whether there actually is one is a different question.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As I've said before, anyone paying attention knows that the Taliban is now an anti-imperialist/nationalist movement that has little to nothing to do with al-Qaeda and everything to do with forcing out an occupying army.

That may be true. But perhaps it is only true because we are still there. If we were to leave, what would prevent things from reverting back to the way they were pre-9/11, with the Taliban essentially playing host to their AQ buddies and providing them with a safe haven? Could we trust the Taliban to root out any AQ elements?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Could we trust the Taliban to root out any AQ elements?

Can we trust Yemen? Somalia? Iran? Iraq? Eastern Turkey? Uzbekistan? Indonesia? The Philippines? Nigeria?

Better put 100,000 troops in all of them, just to make sure they don't get up to any funny stuff. Richard Reid was from the UK right? Better go oversee their next election for "fairness". Timothy McVeigh was from New York right? We'd better go occupy Madison Square Garden, it sounds suspiciously like "The hanging gardens of Bablylon" which we all know is wretched hive of scum and villainy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Can we trust Yemen? Iran? Iraq? Eastern Turkey? Uzbekistan? Indonesia? The Philippines? Nigeria?

Er, aren't you forgetting something? We didn't invade Afghanistan as a preemptive strike based upon what we thought they might do in the future. We were responding to already having been struck, faced with a government providing safe havens for the folks who did it.

Better put 100,000 troops in all of them, just to make sure they don't get up to any funny stuff.

If we get struck by terrorists based in any of those places, whose government flips us the bird when we demand satisfaction, then we can talk about invasions. But as of now, the only one who apparently is advocating invasions and the garrisoning of troops is you.

Richard Reid was from the UK right?

Unless you're claiming that the U.K. openly provides a safe haven for AQ members, I don't quite see the relevance. Same with McVeigh.

[Ckrisz]

Could you trust the Taliban to root out AQ? Depends on what part of the Taliban is in charge. Hikmetyar probably would play our game, but the Haqqani brothers or the Mehsud family would not. The original Taliban and Mullah Omar are kind of struggling and are not as much of a concern, but that's a problem as you're dealing with a completely new generation of Taliban. At least with the old generation you might have been able to negotiate. There's no guarantee.

The people of Afghanistan will hate America forever. This is the problem with fighting a counterinsurgency campaign in order to get votes.

Heh. Been awhile since I've been on the boards, so I'm going to reengage for a bit now that I"m transferring to an infantry company that will deploy to southern Afghanistan next year.

The humanitarian argument:

Coco - We kill a lot of innocent Afghans, no doubt. But surely you knowt the Taliban kill many more. How many would die upon a withdrawal? You know the Taliban is not the most forgiving lot, and I doubt there would anywhere safe for those Pashtuns silly enough to cooperate with the Americans in the hope of a better future. But I know you know enough to know that the Panjshiris and the Hazaras will not just roll over for the Talibs, and plenty of people in Herat and Jalalabad and Kabul aren't going to go along either.

How do you withdraw without reigniting the civil war of the 1990s, which killed tens of thousands? Even as bad as things are now, there are more civilians dying every month in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

As for the national security argument:

I'm not sure you would argue that our national security would be improved by our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Sure we would save some money, but not really that much more given our titanic military-industrial complex. We would certainly lose enormously in terms of our intelligence and military capabilities in South Asia. How would this be compensated for?

[The WaterDancer Knight]

Tormund, you forgot the Sahel.

More a French problem than an American one these days.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Isn't one of the aims the USA has is to encourage moderate Islam and repress/prevent the success of radical Islam? Taliban may not try to do anything in the non-regional international arena, at least in the short term, but if it retakes the Afghanistan and/or Pakistan and establishes a stable government it would be a big victory to the radical Islam movement.

[Lummel]

Er, aren't you forgetting something? We didn't invade Afghanistan as a preemptive strike based upon what we thought they might do in the future. We were responding to already having been struck, faced with a government providing safe havens for the folks who did it.

You know I could have sworn that the relevent training for the september the 11th attacks took place in the USA and the radicalisation took place in Hamburg. No doubt they received the blessing of people based in afganstan and maybe money, but what use would a safe haven in afganistan been to those terrorists? They had no plan to survive and retire to the sunny valleys of afganistan, nor could they do any useful training in afganistan. Good grief you can learn to assemble bombs anywhere if you are so inclined.

Attacking afganistan and iraq allowed the USA to demonstrate the force and might of her armed forces, I hope all US citizens feel suitably reassured as a result but unfortunately we are left with ongoing conflict situations in both countries and at some stage we'll have to negotiate with the taliban if we want to influence the long term political settlement of afganistan.

[Ckrisz]

You know I could have sworn that the relevent training for the september the 11th attacks took place in the USA and the radicalisation took place in Hamburg. No doubt they received the blessing of people based in afganstan and maybe money, but what use would a safe haven in afganistan been to those terrorists? They had no plan to survive and retire to the sunny valleys of afganistan, nor could they do any useful training in afganistan. Good grief you can learn to assemble bombs anywhere if you are so inclined.

This is true, but there's a reason Najibullah Zazi and Faisal Shahzad all went to the tribal areas of Pakistan (AQ home base) before they launched their attacks. That's why the 9/11 hijackers all at one time or another spent time in Afghanistan.

Explosives aren't really easy to work with if you haven't done it before. It's also not really that easy to blow up terrorist-sized bombs in the West unnoticed. You need planning, funding, and practice --- not stuff that is all that easy to download off the internet. A home base is also necessary for your command and control types - al-Qaeda Central is not hanging out in Hamburg and they sure as hell stay out of Afghanistan. There's a reason they hang out in the tribal belt of Pakistan --- because that's where they have built up decades' worth of relationships, including marriage ties, that keep them safe. They aren't in Somalia or the Sahel "eastern Turkey" or any other place, because they wouldn't last or would be under others' control there. They sure as HELL don't go places like Uzbekistan or Iran - countries that have strong states that would snatch them up in a second. Geography and control still matters.

[Horza]

Good points, and I'd like to stress that I understand the issues with withdrawal, including a replay of the 90s and more Indo-Pakistani tension.

The fact remains though that the Karzai government is deeply corrupt and this is bleeding into their service delivery and security provision capacities in a huge way, undermining their legitimacy and generally leaving them as popular as birdshit at a picnic. When you add in that seven years of neglect from the Bush admin has left them to entrench their own power and become the only game in town I struggle to see how even the minimum criteria for a US withdrawal will be fulfilled.

[litechick]

This article gives me hope for Afghanistan.

It is hard to accept that we should endorse corruption but I can see the wisdom of taking it one step at a time. I'm fairly ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan but I once read that 90% of the world's opium comes from their poppy crops. How do you incentivize people to grow food instead of drugs? How do you battle corruption in terms of bettering the lives of the people?

On one level, I would like to think that if you build roads, ideas will inevitably follow. If you build egalitarian schools, it will undoubtedly occur to people that women should have equal say in government.

The movie Charlie Wilson's War made the point that fighting off the Russians was not enough, that we needed to engage in nation building in order to prevent the 911 attacks.

I am patient in regards to Afghanistan. I am grateful to those who are willing to go and fight and build. If it takes 50 years to create a country where radical Islam has no stronghold, it will be worth it.

I believe utterly that we have more to offer the people than the Taliban. It is just a question of strategy in convincing them that we can and will do it. The worst thing we could do is pull out.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If it takes 50 years 3,000,000 dead Afghanis to create a country where radical Islam has no stronghold, it will be worth it.

Still feel that way?