• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Turn off the lights, the parties over in the Afghanistan region

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
If the US would have used the assets that we wasted in Iraq, we'd have been out of Afghanistan in a year or two, tops.




The Soviets couldn't make Afghanistan bend or break...and they were 1000 times more brutal in their treatment of the Afghani citizens than we ever thought of being.

Rebuilding Afghanistan should never have been our mission. Killing Osama Bin Forgotten and the Taliban should have been our ONLY mission there.
Preaching to the choir.
 

ky54

Senior member
Mar 30, 2010
532
1
76
We need out of Afghanistan. Dying for this country isn't worth it anymore.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Exactly. Read it and choke Bush bots.
The ones choking and dying aren't Bushbots. How about someone light a fire under the current occupants butt? I don't care if Ru Paul took over for Bugs Bunny, someone needs to start now.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I have to totally disagree with BoomerD as he says, "The Soviets couldn't make Afghanistan bend or break...and they were 1000 times more brutal in their treatment of the Afghani citizens than we ever thought of being.

Rebuilding Afghanistan should never have been our mission. Killing Osama Bin Forgotten and the Taliban should have been our ONLY mission there."

But earth to BoomerD, it took us almost 10 years to get Bin Ladan, and that took some luck. We have not killed off either all Al-Quida or the Taliban as more and more Afghans join the Taliban. And without strong and popular Afghan central government, Afghanistan will simply revert back to the same terrorist haven it was a few days before 911.

At least some US Marines officers in Iraq were smart enough to think and find ways to drive wedges between Sunni Muslims and Al-Quida terrorists. There is IMHO, no such equivalent in Afghanistan. as our military leadership in Afghanistan is too dumb and clueless to ever win the peace. Winning a war is by itself worth nothing, winning the peace is everything.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Is you stupid? O-Bammah didn't send our troops there in the first place. O'Bammah didn't lose site of the original mission there and focus instead on Iraq...a country that, while it wasn't complying 100% with the UN mandates, was still in 1000% better shape than it is now...

Nope, If GWB would have stayed focused on Afghanistan...gone in, gotten Osama Bin Forgotten, mopped up the Taliban resistance that was fairly minor at the time...and left without trying to rebuild the country into a democratic nation, (something that doesn't seem to work well in that region) then none of the bullshit that's gone on in the past several years would have happened.

While O'Bammah is to blame for us remaining in Afghanistan, the REAL blame for our failure there rests solely and firmly on the shoulders of George W. Bush...the president who fucked that mission in the ass.
If the US would have used the assets that we wasted in Iraq, we'd have been out of Afghanistan in a year or two, tops.

The Soviets couldn't make Afghanistan bend or break...and they were 1000 times more brutal in their treatment of the Afghani citizens than we ever thought of being.

Rebuilding Afghanistan should never have been our mission. Killing Osama Bin Forgotten and the Taliban should have been our ONLY mission there.
Thats completely true, but we need to get off the pot and should have long ago.
Rebuilding Afghanistan should have been part of the mission, given that we contributed enormously to their problems, including the existence of the Taliban & AlQ itself. If it remains a lawless backwater, it'll just provide opportunities for more of the same.

It's just that the Bushistas went about it all wrong. Once they had a crony figurehead in Karzai, they just threw money in that direction, knowing full well that most of it would end up in places like Dubai... and headed for the real prize, Iraq, where they failed again. Afghanistan is the kind of place that needed to be built from the village level up- co-opt the village leaders with stuff they need, like small tractors, clinics, seed money for enterprise of their choosing, meaningful local police under their control, courts responsive to their needs, with national govt coming only after a lot of that has been done. As it is, the central govt demands graft to do anything at all.

Not that people in this country have really learned much out of it all- witness the fervor of what is essentially neocon raving & saber rattling over Iran. Iraq & Afghanistan together are nothing compared to the morass we'd create with a military encounter in Iran...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I agree with the point Jhhnn makes. As we in Nato sided with thugs, misunderstood the Taliban movement which was part thug and part hero, and totally missed what the people of Afghanistan wanted and needed. And now we are surprised to see our Afghan adventure end in total failure.

When its simply what always happens when we believe our own propaganda rather than looking at simple logic. The fact is and remains, the Afghan people hoped the USA and Nato would offer that better choice in 2002, and instead the USA and Nato offered the Afghan people three totally unacceptable choices that lead to total and perpetual anarchy, anarchy, or anarchy. And then we are amazed to see the Afghan people and our even own soldiers don't buy the insanity. Insane choices always lead to insane behavior.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Like I said befor this war started that NO nation has ever beaten Afghanistan. THe USSR couldn't and neither can the USA . LOL at all the sheepo retards.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Like I said befor this war started that NO nation has ever beaten Afghanistan. THe USSR couldn't and neither can the USA . LOL at all the sheepo retards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I can't agree with with you Nenesis even if you have somewhat a valid historical point.

But still the Nemisis point seems predicated on only the past, and that what was true yesterday will always be true in the future.

We only need look at European history maybe a thousand years ago, when the Muslims were light years advanced from Europeans in terms of science, technology, human enlightenment, and everything else that really mattered in human civilization.

Why should we assume the Afghan people will not join the modern world too like countless other peoples? Or that the USA is not rapidly flushing itself down the toilet.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Why should we assume the Afghan people will not join the modern world too like countless other peoples?
Why do you assume the Afghans have any interest in your world? If anything has been shown that is they prefer their culture and way of life over Walmart. Who's to tell them they are wrong? At the same time we aren't compelled to hang around for them to change their minds.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
The Afghan people has had plenty of time to seize the opportunity (with our assistance) to make Afghanistan better for all its people. If the Afghan people would have stood up (participated) for themselves during these past ten years, to eradicate the taliban, to make a better life for the present and their future generations, it would have happened.

I feel the Afghan people are stuck their own type of "battered woman" syndrom, Deep inside they can imagine a better life and future; but are truly incapable of taking independent action to make it happen.

When the 30 million afghanistan citizens decides to make the necessary changes in afghanistan to make it a brighter place, it will be done. Until then, it can't be done by any third party working by itself...... so let's GTFO.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,292
7,522
136
The ones choking and dying aren't Bushbots. How about someone light a fire under the current occupants butt? I don't care if Ru Paul took over for Bugs Bunny, someone needs to start now.


I don't need you or anyone else to tell me who is dying in this war, and you know full well my comments were directed at the loyal Bushies who have been doing all they can to revise Afghanistan into "Obama's War" I'm sure if Obama were able to facilitate some miracle over night pullout, the same crowd would be crowing about how "Cut and run Obama" left the place wide open for an Iranian puppet government or something... Were AQ to move back in after our exit who do you think will get the blame for that?

Obama and his generals don't have the luxury of ignoring the results of Cheney's 7 years of Dithering (unlike so many Bush supporters). Extricating yourself from the briar patch is usually a little more painful and time consuming than performing the stupid jump that got you there in the first place.

To us it's just about getting the guys home, but the Pentagon has to figure Iran into everything now too, which represents a situation that has gotten a bit more tense since 2003.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
Bottom line, if Afghanistan was improving obama would claim all the credit and extend none to former President Bush.

Obama has been the president during the last four years of our presence in Afghanistan. His decisions, or lack of, has greatly influenced our present day situation there.
To say that obama bears no responsibility for our current decline in Afghanistan or even the entire middle east, is completely unreasonable.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,048
126
Bottom line, if Afghanistan was improving obama would claim all the credit and extend none to former President Bush.

Obama has been the president during the last four years of our presence in Afghanistan. His decisions, or lack of, has greatly influenced our present day situation there.
To say that obama bears no responsibility for our current decline in Afghanistan or even the entire middle east, is completely unreasonable.
100% unbiased opinion I see.....have an agenda?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I don't need you or anyone else to tell me who is dying in this war, and you know full well my comments were directed at the loyal Bushies who have been doing all they can to revise Afghanistan into "Obama's War" I'm sure if Obama were able to facilitate some miracle over night pullout, the same crowd would be crowing about how "Cut and run Obama" left the place wide open for an Iranian puppet government or something... Were AQ to move back in after our exit who do you think will get the blame for that?

Obama and his generals don't have the luxury of ignoring the results of Cheney's 7 years of Dithering (unlike so many Bush supporters). Extricating yourself from the briar patch is usually a little more painful and time consuming than performing the stupid jump that got you there in the first place.

To us it's just about getting the guys home, but the Pentagon has to figure Iran into everything now too, which represents a situation that has gotten a bit more tense since 2003.
We can be out by years end and the result will be the same as if we stayed until hell freezes over. "Stay the course" mentality to keep an arbitrary timetable isn't good enough. I don't know how to make it plainer and no amount of finger pointing at the prior administration however justified corrects todays problems.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,343
4,768
126
We can be out by years end and the result will be the same as if we stayed until hell freezes over. "Stay the course" mentality to keep an arbitrary timetable isn't good enough. I don't know how to make it plainer and no amount of finger pointing at the prior administration however justified corrects todays problems.
The problem is...Bush broke it...and "O'Bammah" has been trying to fix what Bush broke...without realizing that even before Bush broke it...it was already un-fixable.

If Bush would have "stayed the course," stayed after OBL, run the Taliban out of the country...or killed them, then left...Afghanistan would still be a shithole, but our troops would have been out within a couple of years...instead of still fighting and dying there more than 10 years later.

YES, it would have been better for the Afghans and the rest of the world if Afghanistan would become "civilized" and joined the modern world, but that's not likely to ever happen given their apparent "fondness" for their "warlord culture."
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Why do you assume the Afghans have any interest in your world? If anything has been shown that is they prefer their culture and way of life over Walmart. Who's to tell them they are wrong? At the same time we aren't compelled to hang around for them to change their minds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it somewhat funny and tragic that Haybasusa would drag in Walmart as if was Afghan option Nato could ever offer to any average Afghan.

When all Nato ever really offered to Afghan people were new and more clever ways to kill other people. And when those new ways to kill are put into the three main insane groups hands, it only results in more irrational killing. If that is the definition to Afghan modernity, its not hard to understand why the Afghan people say thanks but no thanks.

Now if Nato had more troops and economic development assets, we could at least stayed in one small area and build something that showed the Afghan people some economic benefits of Western technology. Even if an Afghan wants to side with Nato, Nato will do nothing to protect them. Nor does Nato exhibit any respect for Afghan lives.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Bottom line, if Afghanistan was improving obama would claim all the credit and extend none to former President Bush.

Obama has been the president during the last four years of our presence in Afghanistan. His decisions, or lack of, has greatly influenced our present day situation there.
To say that obama bears no responsibility for our current decline in Afghanistan or even the entire middle east, is completely unreasonable.
Yeh- Dubya rammed an iceberg, thinking it was Moby Dick, so it's now Obama's fault!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Even as a dimocrat, I am very disappointing in Obama's Afghan stupidity. Obama's fantasy Tattoo, is that Obama can reuse the failed GWB tactics in Afghanistan and somehow get better results than GWB got

When it comes to Afghanistan, its futile to ask if Obama was smarter than GWB. When the only intelligent question is to ask why the American people were so stupid as to elect two certified idiots in a row?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,292
7,522
136
We can be out by years end and the result will be the same as if we stayed until hell freezes over.
I think it's one thing to speculate on the reactions of your countrymen, especially when they've been resorting to the same tired talking points for years, and completely another thing to speculate on the future status of destabilized foreign nations who have a number of groups 'playing the game'.
I find your proclamation general to the absurd.
No more convincing than me saying after such a pullout, a crisis will soon develop which calls for the deployment of even greater resources in the area, and culminates in war that produces a higher death count than 10yrs of Afghanistan. Oh if only we had done it right!



"Stay the course" mentality to keep an arbitrary timetable isn't good enough. I don't know how to make it plainer and no amount of finger pointing at the prior administration however justified corrects todays problems.
Maybe I should have underscored how I want them the hell out of there too - I just don't want it done in a way that emboldens our enemies and might ultimately cause our war fighters to have to return and/or engage in a related conflict.

No amount of whining by those far removed from the issue will negate the need for Obama and his military leaders to consider geopolitical consequences for some immediate pullout. Acknowledging the presence of regional players like Iran, as well as it's behavior towards the vacuum left by exiting American forces, is not "pointing the finger" at the previous admin. I don't know how to make that any plainer either.

I too don't think Afghanistan can be "fixed," it all comes down to us leaving in a way that benefits us the most or hurts us the least. Hopefully Congress can be on board with it. I seem to recall someone trying to close down Gitmo but our esteemed Congress saw things different and prevented it.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
Yeh- Dubya rammed an iceberg, thinking it was Moby Dick, so it's now Obama's fault!
No, it's not obamas fault, but damn obama has been in office 3.5 years, he does own a growing percentage of the responsibility for the present situation in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Even as a dimocrat, I am very disappointing in Obama's Afghan stupidity. Obama's fantasy Tattoo, is that Obama can reuse the failed GWB tactics in Afghanistan and somehow get better results than GWB got

When it comes to Afghanistan, its futile to ask if Obama was smarter than GWB. When the only intelligent question is to ask why the American people were so stupid as to elect two certified idiots in a row?
Tactics have changed a lot under Obama, more like what they should have been all along.

But the pooch, she had already been screwed... The Bushistas obviously never intended to pacify Afghanistan with fewer than 40K troops. It was just a propaganda springboard to Iraq.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I can't per say agree with Kage69, I have always said Afghanistan was winnable, but given the Nato tactics we the American people choose, we grasped defeat from the jaws of victory. And ignored the lessons of every war college on earth, in any past successful military occupation in history, if you don't pony up 1 troop per 50 in population, the occupying power never wins the peace. In Afghanistan, that number would be 620,000, and never did we ever come up with a 1/5 of that.

But the very smart Dumsfeld fired Shinski for daring to question his wisdom, and now we have a Leon Pinhead telling us if we get to stay a few more days, we will kill ever terrorist in the region.

As we in America blame the stupid Afghan people who won't buy a turd when they see it. While I hope to ask, with the dumb tactics we used, our defeat was inevitable.

At least 3 trillion dollars down a two rat hole occupations, and 6000 thousand American lives pissed away too. We are on a roll here, lets get into an Iranian quagmire next. Do the math, a 85 million people Iran will take at least 1.7 million more troops. Isn't the third time a charm? Its the answer to our unemployment problem. Bring back the draft. After that we can fix the Pakistani wagon, and go back to Vietnam, and put the French back in control of South Vietnam. Meanwhile our funeral industry will blossom as we must greatly expand our National burial ground at Arlington. Its the neocon dream and the project for the new American century. The rapture and the second coming of Jesus Christ is just around the corner.

Our next President will have all the answers, especially since it won't be Ron Paul. If a little post traumatic stress is good, isn't more ever so much better?
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
Why wasn't the 620,000 troops needed to fix Afghanistan deployed by our current president?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Tactics have changed a lot under Obama, more like what they should have been all along.

But the pooch, she had already been screwed... The Bushistas obviously never intended to pacify Afghanistan with fewer than 40K troops. It was just a propaganda springboard to Iraq.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't agree with the Jhhnn assertion, at least GWB mostly respected not putting US combat troops in Pakistan. As a result, Pakistan has now withdrawn US permission to use its roads as a supply line into Afghanistan. Meanwhile Obama has greatly stepped up drone attacks in Afghanistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan, and even Pakistan itself. As the USA now has only one dubious rail link supply line link into Afghanistan, and since rail roads are easy to blow up, Obama ignores military 101. A military without a secure supply line is dead meat.

Its how the USA won the American revolution when the Frech cut Lord Cornwallis supply line at Yorktown, its how Hitler lost a million troop army of General Paualis in Russia, how the French lost at Dien Bian Fo. I could go on with examples, but Obama and Leon Pinhead have proved, IMO, to be even more stupid in Afghanistan than GWB.

I may have different opinions on Obama's domestic performance compared to GWB, but military wise, I can only conclude GWB and OBAMA are both total idiots as war time Presidents.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Why wasn't the 620,000 troops needed to fix Afghanistan deployed by our current president?
Because his predecessor already sucked the Treasury dry with half-assed bullshit & diversion of resources to Iraq, and because his political opponents are on an austerity kick...

And because previous "efforts" have poisoned the well, screwed the pooch, gelded the stallion, turned too many afghans against us. Obama is just trying to create a little breathing room to save face & declare victory, kinda like Nixon in Vietnam, or the Surge in Iraq.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY