For those who support our occupation in Afghanistan...what is our goal?

[nonlnear]

I think it is more a problem of clan rivalry and revenge as an accepted and cherished part of society. Much of the country is indeed poor for growing crops but, they are hardly unique in that. Herding has served them well in the past and could again.

Clan rivalries exist all over the world in tons of shithole places. That's nothing special to Afghanistan. The only reason that creates a problem is because there is the massive illegal cash crop to be had there. If heroin didn't exist, Afghanistan's caln rivalry and revenge culture would be about as significant on the global stage as the Omo Valley in Ethiopia. Just another lawless place where international issues would rather not be bothered to go. Take away the heroin factor and the culture issues instantly become a purely local problem. However because of the poppy trade, the lawlessness created by the clan culture severely exacerbates the enforcement issues. It's a mess.

My take: we could pour blood and money into the place for years to create "stability", but no matter what we did, the place is going to look the same ten years after we leave whether we leave today or in two years. So let's leave yesterday.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ever run a relay race, get handed the baton when your team was already way behind?

That's the Obama Admin wrt Afghanistan, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it.

The Bush Admin used Afghanistan as a political springboard for their most excellent adventure in Iraq, then let the situation in Afghanistan fester until it became an open ulcerated sore.

The current efforts seem to be modeled after the successful change in tactics in Iraq- more troops, and a move out of large garrison positions into small unit deployment in the countryside, negotiate with local leaders, bypass the karzai govt with aid and armaments directly at the local level. They're also targeting Taliban safe haven areas in Pakistan, financing Pakistani govt efforts to exert some control over the Tribal areas.

Whether it'll work in the establishment of honest govt is still up in the air. It's not like we can drag Karzai and cronies out of their palaces and shoot 'em, a la the soviets, but we might be able to get around them, create an atmosphere where insurgency is unwelcome by the locals, effect withdrawal once that's largely been accomplished.

Which is what we should have been doing all along, but the Bush Admin chose to divert the vast majority of effort to Iraq... If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, organized the occupation from a local level, we'd be long gone by now...

No exit strategy was basically the strategy of the Bush Admin in all their efforts...

 

[Fear No Evil]

Ever run a relay race, get handed the baton when your team was already way behind?

That's the Obama Admin wrt Afghanistan, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it.

The Bush Admin used Afghanistan as a political springboard for their most excellent adventure in Iraq, then let the situation in Afghanistan fester until it became an open ulcerated sore.

The current efforts seem to be modeled after the successful change in tactics in Iraq- more troops, and a move out of large garrison positions into small unit deployment in the countryside, negotiate with local leaders, bypass the karzai govt with aid and armaments directly at the local level. They're also targeting Taliban safe haven areas in Pakistan, financing Pakistani govt efforts to exert some control over the Tribal areas.

Whether it'll work in the establishment of honest govt is still up in the air. It's not like we can drag Karzai and cronies out of their palaces and shoot 'em, a la the soviets, but we might be able to get around them, create an atmosphere where insurgency is unwelcome by the locals, effect withdrawal once that's largely been accomplished.

Which is what we should have been doing all along, but the Bush Admin chose to divert the vast majority of effort to Iraq... If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, organized the occupation from a local level, we'd be long gone by now...

No exit strategy was basically the strategy of the Bush Admin in all their efforts...

Bu Bu Boooooooosh!!!!!!!!!

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Clan rivalries exist all over the world in tons of shithole places. That's nothing special to Afghanistan. The only reason that creates a problem is because there is the massive illegal cash crop to be had there. If heroin didn't exist, Afghanistan's caln rivalry and revenge culture would be about as significant on the global stage as the Omo Valley in Ethiopia. Just another lawless place where international issues would rather not be bothered to go. Take away the heroin factor and the culture issues instantly become a purely local problem. However because of the poppy trade, the lawlessness created by the clan culture severely exacerbates the enforcement issues. It's a mess.

My take: we could pour blood and money into the place for years to create "stability", but no matter what we did, the place is going to look the same ten years after we leave whether we leave today or in two years. So let's leave yesterday.

I believe this as well which is why I really believe the only solution is to destroy their culture as I said. We did it to the American Indians without really trying. Just imagine what could be done if we did. Apart from humanitarian issues, there is no reason to be concerned with Afghanistan even with the poppy trade.

Personally, I believe large numbers of local inhabitants killing themselves on a daily basis is reason enough to step in whether it's Afghanistan or Africa. I just want a little more pragmatism by our government. We will always be "ugly Americans" so, let's be the best fucking ugly Americans we can and shove our culture down the throats of the entire world.

 

[Noobtastic]

Ever run a relay race, get handed the baton when your team was already way behind?

That's the Obama Admin wrt Afghanistan, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it.

The Bush Admin used Afghanistan as a political springboard for their most excellent adventure in Iraq, then let the situation in Afghanistan fester until it became an open ulcerated sore.

The current efforts seem to be modeled after the successful change in tactics in Iraq- more troops, and a move out of large garrison positions into small unit deployment in the countryside, negotiate with local leaders, bypass the karzai govt with aid and armaments directly at the local level. They're also targeting Taliban safe haven areas in Pakistan, financing Pakistani govt efforts to exert some control over the Tribal areas.

Whether it'll work in the establishment of honest govt is still up in the air. It's not like we can drag Karzai and cronies out of their palaces and shoot 'em, a la the soviets, but we might be able to get around them, create an atmosphere where insurgency is unwelcome by the locals, effect withdrawal once that's largely been accomplished.

Which is what we should have been doing all along, but the Bush Admin chose to divert the vast majority of effort to Iraq... If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, organized the occupation from a local level, we'd be long gone by now...

No exit strategy was basically the strategy of the Bush Admin in all their efforts...

It's funny how war is okay as long as its a lib or dem pushing it.

Here is Obama accelerating the war effort in Afghanistan (failing miserably) and killing a hell of a lot more people than Bush ever did in the state...and yet far-leftists have nothing but gushing support for the man.

Prior to Bush I never heard any relevant liberal say Afghanistan is where the real war is. That is the "good" occupation.

Our support for Pakistan is absolutely apprehensible. The more money we have given it the more people have died.

Look at the charts:

The money we have given to Pakistan has only allowed Pakistan to invent new wars in parts of the country that were previously uninhabited with Taliban.

There was less Taliban in 2003 than in 2010.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html

These muslim states need to be abandoned. We have no reason being there. If we need to protect oil fine, but I hate seeing my tax dollars pay for this shit...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8619716.stm

Ah wait...but we can never put pressure on our Muslim allies. They aren't supposed to behave like human beings.

 

[theflyingpig]

Whether it'll work in the establishment of honest govt is still up in the air.

lol. No it isn't. There will never be an honest government in Afghanistan or Iraq, or any Muslim nation for that matter. Any nation that has a foundation built upon the writings of fools is bound to be corrupt. It is pointless for the US to continue wasting money, resources, and lives in the middle east. We must abandon them, and let the fools slaughter each other. It really doesn't matter what kinds of atrocities are happening there. We must not interfere. Perhaps in a few hundred years, they will learn how be behave like a civilized society. Until then Muslims must be left to sort out their own problems. Everyone knows this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama merely plays the hand he was dealt, the wreckage of nearly 7 years of Bush Admin ham-handed ineptitude, neglect and corruption.

While the geopolitical effects of precipitous American withdrawal are incalculable, the domestic political repercussions would be overwhelmingly negative for the Obama Admin, particularly if any sort of major terrorist attack on this country were to originate from the region, as it did in 2001.

The upswing in violence in Pakistan has been a result of the Pakistani govt's efforts to support Bush Admin policy and of the flight of Taliban to what are essentially ungoverned areas of that country. Failure to deny insurgents safe haven in those areas would put US forces in the same position as Soviet forces during the 80's, or at least that's the conventional thinking.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Bu Bu Boooooooosh!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, who ordered the invasion? Obama or Bush? And who mishandled it for 5 years?

Bush you say? That's what I thought too.

Do always troll like this? I mean, do you really think it isn't Bush's fault that we have this mess in Afghanistan?

 

[nonlnear]

I believe this as well which is why I really believe the only solution is to destroy their culture as I said. We did it to the American Indians without really trying. Just imagine what could be done if we did. Apart from humanitarian issues, there is no reason to be concerned with Afghanistan even with the poppy trade.

Personally, I believe large numbers of local inhabitants killing themselves on a daily basis is reason enough to step in whether it's Afghanistan or Africa. I just want a little more pragmatism by our government. We will always be "ugly Americans" so, let's be the best fucking ugly Americans we can and shove our culture down the throats of the entire world.

But why should we bother? What you are proposing comesat an incredible moral cost. Absolutely staggering actually. It might have been fashionable to just "destroy cultures" in 1800, but back then it was still prohibitively expensive. Now it's prohibitively expensive, and would (rightfully for a change) bring international wrath.

If you are going to wipe out a culture for humanitarian reasons, why not spend a lot less to accomplish a lot more in a place like Myanmar? There are plenty of people who would appreciate foreign military "interference" a lot more than the Afghans if you're into the whole foreign expedition scene. I'd prefer it if we just brought 'em home.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

I forget what excuse our current masters are using this week.

 

[Siddhartha]

Bu Bu Boooooooosh!!!!!!!!!

Was the US at war in Afghanistan before Mr Obama took office?

 

[artikk]

I forget what excuse our current masters are using this week.

This. There's absolutely no reason to occupy Afghanistan any longer seeing that there won't be much progress beyond what is present there now. I don't see why America has to spend so much money solving a problem of another country that doesn't really see it as a much of a problem itself. I say we just strengthen our own borders, use a combination of our and Israelian profiling methods to root out terrorists and let the Middle East sort it out or die out by themselves.
I agree that is a very isolationist measure but with the recession and our track record after occupying the country how many years, it simply doesn't make sense economically and in retrospect to continue the war in Afghanistan.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well, in all honesty, opiates are a very important legitimate drug.

Yea, but Purdue Pharma doesn't get their MS Contin® materials from Afghanistan.

 

[werepossum]

Clan rivalries exist all over the world in tons of shithole places. That's nothing special to Afghanistan. The only reason that creates a problem is because there is the massive illegal cash crop to be had there. If heroin didn't exist, Afghanistan's caln rivalry and revenge culture would be about as significant on the global stage as the Omo Valley in Ethiopia. Just another lawless place where international issues would rather not be bothered to go. Take away the heroin factor and the culture issues instantly become a purely local problem. However because of the poppy trade, the lawlessness created by the clan culture severely exacerbates the enforcement issues. It's a mess.

My take: we could pour blood and money into the place for years to create "stability", but no matter what we did, the place is going to look the same ten years after we leave whether we leave today or in two years. So let's leave yesterday.

Probably the best we could do would be to arbitrarily pick a warlord and kill some of his fighters, then tell him it's because another arbitrarily picked warlord told us he was Taliban. Pretty soon the warlords would all be fighting each other.

Ever run a relay race, get handed the baton when your team was already way behind?

That's the Obama Admin wrt Afghanistan, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it.

The Bush Admin used Afghanistan as a political springboard for their most excellent adventure in Iraq, then let the situation in Afghanistan fester until it became an open ulcerated sore.

The current efforts seem to be modeled after the successful change in tactics in Iraq- more troops, and a move out of large garrison positions into small unit deployment in the countryside, negotiate with local leaders, bypass the karzai govt with aid and armaments directly at the local level. They're also targeting Taliban safe haven areas in Pakistan, financing Pakistani govt efforts to exert some control over the Tribal areas.

Whether it'll work in the establishment of honest govt is still up in the air. It's not like we can drag Karzai and cronies out of their palaces and shoot 'em, a la the soviets, but we might be able to get around them, create an atmosphere where insurgency is unwelcome by the locals, effect withdrawal once that's largely been accomplished.

Which is what we should have been doing all along, but the Bush Admin chose to divert the vast majority of effort to Iraq... If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, organized the occupation from a local level, we'd be long gone by now...

No exit strategy was basically the strategy of the Bush Admin in all their efforts...

If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, we'd be fighting the entire country. Remember the Soviets' and the Brits' attempts to do just that?

The Bush exit strategy is pretty simple: we win, they lose. Then we go home.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we'd put 200K troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, we'd be fighting the entire country. Remember the Soviets' and the Brits' attempts to do just that?

The Bush exit strategy is pretty simple: we win, they lose. Then we go home.

Yeh, the Bush exit strategy is pretty lame, because they never brought enough force to bear to actually win, never intended to do so, because they never intended to leave either Iraq or Afghanistan. Perpetual War = Perpetual profits.

The troop levels set by the Bush Admin *invited* insurgency, and anybody with half a brain should realize that. Anybody who thinks they can quell Afghan resistance with 40,000 troops is a dreamer, an idiot, or somebody who really wants perpetual war-

In the fall of 2006, on the five-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, Afghanistan had 40,000 international troops. Today, that number is almost 70,000.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349748,00.html

Afghanistan was just the warmup for the real prize- Iraq, where all the resources went.

Neither the Brits nor the Soviets ever attempted to work at the local level, and both faced support for insurgents from another major power, as well, something we don't have to deal with...

 

[Noobtastic]

This war is bullshit.

I hate it.

 

[Jhhnn]

This war is bullshit.

I hate it.

Why? Because it's not the Israeli tail wagging the American dog, as in Iraq?

 

[Noobtastic]

Why? Because it's not the Israeli tail wagging the American dog, as in Iraq?

LOL! What does Israel have to do with Iraq?

Afghanistan is a bullshit war. Taliban poses no threat to our existence or American citizens.

We shouldn't be there and we shouldn't be sponsoring Pakistan and paying for its Nazi-like collective punishment against the Pashtons.

the Pakistani people don't even like our support for their military.

Iraq War makes more sense than the Afghanistan war.

But now that the One is the king, all of the sudden the so-called progressives are cumming in their parents over our carpet-bombing and collective punishment in Afghanistan.

SHAME.