Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up such garbage?

[MovingTarget]

Just the other day I saw people alongside the road protesting the war in Afghanistan at the Veterans Memorial Park when I was driving home. That wasn't so much of a surprise, but then again, I live in Tuscaloosa, AL...about as "red" as it gets. Perhaps opposition to this war is more widespread than I had previously thought.....maybe.

 

[Lemon law]

I can't totally disagree with the LunarRay take On Saddam, but from the neocon viewpoint, hell hath no fury like a neocon scorned. And there is a special place in hell for any Tin Pot dictator who does not stay bought. Both Noreiga and Saddam took CIA money early on, and lived to see themselves to ascend to the tops of their dunghills, but when they had the unmitigated gall to think that being head banana meant they could cut their own separate deals, be its the Russians or with drug money, they go from trusted friend to public enemy #1, and therefore must be made an example of.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Obama just told the 82nd out of Bragg that they are to stay another 2 months. They are not happy. They were told 12 months, and today he decides to extend it to 14 months. Imagine getting ready to come home then getting slapped with that.

Well, yes that is not good news about them but they are needed there. It is their job. That is what the get the big bucks for. I think every one of the 82nd will do their job with focus and determination and while doing that the extra two months won't be in their mind like it is in ours. Many may want to stay there and get the job done. That is what I'd like to think, and I think I'm right.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Obama just told the 82nd out of Bragg that they are to stay another 2 months. They are not happy. They were told 12 months, and today he decides to extend it to 14 months. Imagine getting ready to come home then getting slapped with that.

Well, yes that is not good news about them but they are needed there. It is their job. That is what the get the big bucks for. I think every one of the 82nd will do their job with focus and determination and while doing that the extra two months won't be in their mind like it is in ours. Many may want to stay there and get the job done. That is what I'd like to think, and I think I'm right.

I'm sure they will. I'm in a area where two bases meet, Fort Bragg and Camp Lejune and so any time there is a death or a change in deployment it gets around fast. It gets hard on the families when you set up stuff for their home coming and then you learn it is another 2 months, it kind of puts a damper on the community.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I can't totally disagree with the LunarRay take On Saddam, but from the neocon viewpoint, hell hath no fury like a neocon scorned. And there is a special place in hell for any Tin Pot dictator who does not stay bought. Both Noreiga and Saddam took CIA money early on, and lived to see themselves to ascend to the tops of their dunghills, but when they had the unmitigated gall to think that being head banana meant they could cut their own separate deals, be its the Russians or with drug money, they go from trusted friend to public enemy #1, and therefore must be made an example of.

There are a few here who's thinking seems always spot on. I often wish I had thought more about what I'd just posted or waited for some of you all to post so I could assimilate what you folks said into my thinking as well.

LL, do you think April Glaspie's 'talks' with Saddam before Kuwait was a set up? And in either case the not going to Bagdad when we could have seemed strange at best to me. I don't agree that the not going saved lives. Well, not all that many, anyhow. I also think at that point we'd have been better able to make nice with Iran with more favorable results and would have been in a better position to influence Afghanistani issues.

IOW, we blew it after GW1. What say you?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Obama just told the 82nd out of Bragg that they are to stay another 2 months. They are not happy. They were told 12 months, and today he decides to extend it to 14 months. Imagine getting ready to come home then getting slapped with that.

Well, yes that is not good news about them but they are needed there. It is their job. That is what the get the big bucks for. I think every one of the 82nd will do their job with focus and determination and while doing that the extra two months won't be in their mind like it is in ours. Many may want to stay there and get the job done. That is what I'd like to think, and I think I'm right.

I'm sure they will. I'm in a area where two bases meet, Fort Bragg and Camp Lejune and so any time there is a death or a change in deployment it gets around fast. It gets hard on the families when you set up stuff for their home coming and then you learn it is another 2 months, it kind of puts a damper on the community.

Yeah, I know. But, ya know... I know the feeling of coming home having not done what was set out to occur and that thinking allows me to say:
I'd rather the folks at home have a bit of inconvenience if it means that the folks at war afar can come home with a broom stuck atop their vehicles indicating a clean sweep... Job done. That feeling must transcend anything negative that may occur. Aside from the time to grieve for the fallen brother.

 

[Lemon law]

LunarRay asks, "LL, do you think April Glaspie's 'talks' with Saddam before Kuwait was a set up."

And my take is probably not. More of a very unfortunate mistake by a typical lightweight diplomatic political appointee, with the brainpower of an ant. In more normal events, such an ambassadorship is simply a political plum and a reward for political support of the current POTUS, in return they get to cut all the ribbons they can eat while hosting State dinners. And the the smart political appointees leaves the real job of diplomacy to professional diplomats.

And instead Glaspie made her self into an idiot of the first magnitude by shooting off her mouth before her non existent brain was in gear. And for that very unfortunate sin, I can't per say blame GHB, we should blame a system that entrusts any trust to political plum amateurs conducting the job of professional diplomats.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

To answer the topic question, we're still in Afghanistan because to put it bluntly, we took our eye off the ball and once we "pacified" Afghanistan we turned our attention toward Iraq instead of rebuilding Afghanistan, insuring stability and continuing to root out the Taliban / islamic fundamentalists, and suppressing opium.

Not surprisingly, once we turned our attention to Iraq, the Taliban began reconstituting themselves, opium made a resurgence.....etc.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Until Karzai is gone, the fucking Taliban and warlord arselicker he is, we can just move the troops right out.

Too bad he's fucking propped up as the saviour that has the support even if he HAD lost, democracy my cute arse!

You want to see democracy in Afghanistan, send enough troops to supervise the election offices, make sure they KNOW what the other guy stands for and make fucking sure that a propped up Taliban lover like Karzai can't even run for it.

That's a start, the next deal would be to change the agenda that he's been pushing for all these years, after that eradicating the Taliban is a job that can actually be done. Of course, no one in charge really wants that to happen. So move them out, it won't matter if it's tomorrow or in ten years, the Taliban has won.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

John, I knew Karzai wasn't going to be any use immediately after he first came to power. Someone I worked with in the past has family connections in Pakistan, and the joke was that Karzai would make a great President of Kabul, meaning that outside of the city he had no authority, respect or control. The usual tribal structure remained unaltered. He was another Chalabi.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
John, I knew Karzai wasn't going to be any use immediately after he first came to power. Someone I worked with in the past has family connections in Pakistan, and the joke was that Karzai would make a great President of Kabul, meaning that outside of the city he had no authority, respect or control. The usual tribal structure remained unaltered. He was another Chalabi.

Your coworker was correct, but it's worse, the deals he have made with the Taliban and three of the warlords, as well as the archaic laws he has introduced to appease the Taliban make me sick to my stomach.

And this is the guy the US and the UK supported and continues to support?

The man needs a long walk off of a short cliff and pretty fucking fast too because no matter how much the Marines fight in one end and the Pakistanis with the help of the USAF and specop teams fight in the other he has invited extremist elements to live in the comfort of our fucking protection against outside forces.

The man needs to go and the laws he instituted needs to be gone.

I know of a 12 year old girl who was sentenced to life in prison because a husband of another woman raped her, the law said she was guilty of adultry, the punishment for the man? Are you joshing? Men are not guilty under Taliban law.

This is from a Kabul court, this is what we are fighting to defend.

What a fucking waste of time.

 

[LunarRay]

I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
John, I knew Karzai wasn't going to be any use immediately after he first came to power. Someone I worked with in the past has family connections in Pakistan, and the joke was that Karzai would make a great President of Kabul, meaning that outside of the city he had no authority, respect or control. The usual tribal structure remained unaltered. He was another Chalabi.

Your coworker was correct, but it's worse, the deals he have made with the Taliban and three of the warlords, as well as the archaic laws he has introduced to appease the Taliban make me sick to my stomach.

And this is the guy the US and the UK supported and continues to support?

The man needs a long walk off of a short cliff and pretty fucking fast too because no matter how much the Marines fight in one end and the Pakistanis with the help of the USAF and specop teams fight in the other he has invited extremist elements to live in the comfort of our fucking protection against outside forces.

The man needs to go and the laws he instituted needs to be gone.

I know of a 12 year old girl who was sentenced to life in prison because a husband of another woman raped her, the law said she was guilty of adultry, the punishment for the man? Are you joshing? Men are not guilty under Taliban law.

This is from a Kabul court, this is what we are fighting to defend.

What a fucking waste of time.

How is the main oposition candidate (Abdullah Abdullah?) compared to Karzia?

 

[Lemon law]

KMFJD asks, "How is the main oposition candidate (Abdullah Abdullah?) compared to Karzia? "

http://topics.nytimes.com/topi...ah_abdullah/index.html

Sadly the NYT does not seem to delineate his platform, but I fear Abdullah has too many ties to corruption.

As for Karazai, IMHO he is an honest well intentioned man that naively turns a blind eye to all that problems in an effort
to pretend everyone in Afghanistan can simply get along if they pretend hard enough. In other words he has the backbone of a chocolate eclair when it comes to the needed job of stamping out the cancers growing in the Afghan government, especially in the area of corruption and drug money. And thus Karzai is part of the problem and none of the solution.

As it is, Karzai spend the 90% of his time abroad trying to raise funds

And now it looks like there will be a run off election between Karzai and Abdullah who together got 80% of the vote if anyone can place any trust in what looks like a fraud laden election.

 

[Lemon law]

I believe ModerateRepZero is engaging in revisionist history when he notes, "Not surprisingly, once we turned our attention to Iraq, the Taliban began reconstituting themselves, opium made a resurgence.....etc."

Because it was corrupt war lords and corrupt Karzai government officials who lead the way in reconstituting opium production well before the Taliban started coming back. But now is somewhat correct because the Taliban is saying me too in using drug money to help finance their opposition. But make no mistake, the lion's share of drug money in Afghanistan still goes to feed non Taliban corruption.

And why, in nutshell, large numbers of troops are needed to conduct an occupation. Because once the various insurgencies and corrupt power bases are allowed the the room to grow into stable institutions, they turn into very hard to kill monsters. And large numbers of initial occupation troops allow for killing them before they multiply. And what did not happen in either Afghanistan or Iraq, nature abhors a power vacuum.

 

[brencat]

There is nothing of value we need in Afghanistan, and Karzai's govt is wholly corrupt and in league with our Taliban enemies. Time to remove most of our forces but leave a small killer force / special ops teams there to quietly hunt down al-Qaeda types.

Ironically, Iraq IS a country worth saving now...so our focus needs to make sure the gains that have been made there are preserved and expanded upon.

 

[Thump553]

Why are we in Afganistan? Have you forgotten 9/11 and who attacked us? We are there to prevent that from happening again. To do so will be a hugely tough job-turning Afganistan into a stable country with a real government. This goal certainly wasn't made easier by six plus years of neglect and treading water done by the previous administration (after a great start).

I'm not saying that the current government in Kabul is worth spit. But I can't think of a worse alternative than rolling over and giving control of Afganistan back to the Taliiban and AQ.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

It could have been fixed but the US didn't want that, the initial overwhelming force drove the Taliban out of the general area, the NA worked with the initial UK force that was there right after the bombings, if the US hadn't decided to piss on the troops in Afghanistan to go chase ghosts in Iraq it would have been a completly different situation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
KMFJD asks, "How is the main oposition candidate (Abdullah Abdullah?) compared to Karzia? "

http://topics.nytimes.com/topi...ah_abdullah/index.html

Sadly the NYT does not seem to delineate his platform, but I fear Abdullah has too many ties to corruption.

As for Karazai, IMHO he is an honest well intentioned man that naively turns a blind eye to all that problems in an effort
to pretend everyone in Afghanistan can simply get along if they pretend hard enough. In other words he has the backbone of a chocolate eclair when it comes to the needed job of stamping out the cancers growing in the Afghan government, especially in the area of corruption and drug money. And thus Karzai is part of the problem and none of the solution.

As it is, Karzai spend the 90% of his time abroad trying to raise funds

And now it looks like there will be a run off election between Karzai and Abdullah who together got 80% of the vote if anyone can place any trust in what looks like a fraud laden election.

Why do you continously keep this shit up, he has deals with three war lords, the taliban and the last thing he supported was a law that REQUIRES women to be sex slaves in marriage.

Compared to Karzai Abdullah is a fucking beacon of light when it comes to being corrupt and instigating violence against women and children.

You're fucking pathetic now, didn't you listen to a fucking word i told you?

Abdullah would be an improvement, a fucking FROG would be an improvement over Karzai, he has two hands, one in the pocket of the US and the other is used to jerk off whoever the local leader of the Taliban is (it changes pretty rapidly these days).

 

[Lemon law]

I sadly cannot just blindly assume, just because I know Karzai is a rotten choice, that the other choice is necessarily better.

This link seems to be more definitive regarding the Abdullah position.

http://www.bookerrising.net/20...ullah-abdullah-to.html

And the very second that Abdullah suddenly starts embracing war lords like Dotsun and his bunch, he no longer seems like a reformer worthy of the name.

In the previous successful military occupations of Japan and Germany, the occupying forces were in mo hurry to turn governance over to local civilian hands even though they worked with such groups early on, and thus could pick and choose regarding whom they could trust.

But now that an October run off election between Abdullah and Karzai looks increasing likely, it may be a choice of trading a headache for an upset stomach or not. Heads we lose, tails we lose is and remains my take.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

It could have been fixed but the US didn't want that, the initial overwhelming force drove the Taliban out of the general area, the NA worked with the initial UK force that was there right after the bombings, if the US hadn't decided to piss on the troops in Afghanistan to go chase ghosts in Iraq it would have been a completly different situation.

I'm quite interested in what our military are doing and where. I've no more information than the next person, of course. I listened to Sec Def and Chairman JCS on C-Span and they spoke to McChrystal's mandate from the new Obama strategy for Afghanistan but that it is in the early formation stages. I think Obama gave that strategy late March '09 and they don't have the assets in place yet. McKiernan's departure seemed a slap but bringing McChrystal in despite his recent past must mean that the methods are about to change big time to a more 'appropriate' way.
Do you have the confidence that this is going to work?
I'm not sure if you are currently in military and of such a rank etc. and free to offer an opinion on this so I'd not want an answer that may jeopardize you or any Esprit de Corps.

 

[Lemon law]

To LunarRay,

I know your question was directed to JOS, but after giving JOS more than an an adequate time to respond and also finding him posting on this forum this morning, I will take a stab at the question.

We have to realize that we have many fine and dedicated military people serving in Afghanistan, and JOS is certainly one of the better ones. And they have a certain faith and a matching ability to carry out the military side of the Afghan mission. And they somewhat rightly think if they can kill enough of the bad guys, a bottom will be reached and victory will be achieved.

But if we think of the military side of any occupation as just one cylinder in a six of eight cylinder engine, we can start to see why the military solution by itself is not enough to develop any real effective power to take us forward. . Because we also need the cylinder of economic development, the cylinder of ending corruption, and a true multifaceted occupation that will make the life of the Afghan man or woman on the streets better and safer.

And the one enduring eight year lesson from Afghanistan is that the military solution alone is not enough, and is not at all realistic at the troop numbers we have or are likely to ever have.

And the other lesson is that the fine men and women serving in Afghanistan are very good at what they do in terms of implementing a military solution, but are severely handicapped with inadequate troop numbers which really delimits what can be realistically done.

But the top generals are not good at what they should also be doing. And maybe Obama and his generals will evolve a better more multifaceted strategy, that is not known yet.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'd love to be 'tongue in cheek' saying that that's Afghanistan for you, doing stuff according to their religious beliefs and how on earth can we alter that. But I can't. It is what they do and what they believe so how can we disabuse them of that belief with out terminating the believer? Under what authority can we do anything there. No amount of support for anyone can change the reality of that situation. They simply don't think like us. I suppose the woman folks would be eligible for entry to the US on the obvious grounds leaving the men folk to go F themselves.
We can't win there without a massive effort and massive loss of life. The Soviets tried for 10 yrs but with different motives now here we are.
Another Cluster whatever it is called.

It could have been fixed but the US didn't want that, the initial overwhelming force drove the Taliban out of the general area, the NA worked with the initial UK force that was there right after the bombings, if the US hadn't decided to piss on the troops in Afghanistan to go chase ghosts in Iraq it would have been a completly different situation.

I'm quite interested in what our military are doing and where. I've no more information than the next person, of course. I listened to Sec Def and Chairman JCS on C-Span and they spoke to McChrystal's mandate from the new Obama strategy for Afghanistan but that it is in the early formation stages. I think Obama gave that strategy late March '09 and they don't have the assets in place yet. McKiernan's departure seemed a slap but bringing McChrystal in despite his recent past must mean that the methods are about to change big time to a more 'appropriate' way.
Do you have the confidence that this is going to work?
I'm not sure if you are currently in military and of such a rank etc. and free to offer an opinion on this so I'd not want an answer that may jeopardize you or any Esprit de Corps.

No, nothing will work now, the Taliban are in every city, supported and propped up by local officials and more importantly supported and propped up under the table by the Afghan government.

Admit defeat and pull everyone out, nothing good will come out of this now.

You can't hit ANYTHING from the air without killing a bunch of civilians and that will make the situation worse every single time it's tried, we could have fixed this in the beginning but now it's over.

Look, almost all troops over there are overseeing safety for transports and population while the Taliban are growing in numbers NO ONE is really fighting them, it's more self defense against attacks and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse and with every counter attack from the air in populated areas we are giving up mor land in another.

So the question is really, can it be done now? No, not with the attitude we have and should have, we'd have to fuck the entire nation including parts of a boarding nation up to do that, this isn't a war that can be won with specops and minimal civilian casualties anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, we need to accept 80% civilian casualties if we are going to fight to win this one.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To LunarRay,

I know your question was directed to JOS, but after giving JOS more than an an adequate time to respond and also finding him posting on this forum this morning, I will take a stab at the question.

We have to realize that we have many fine and dedicated military people serving in Afghanistan, and JOS is certainly one of the better ones. And they have a certain faith and a matching ability to carry out the military side of the Afghan mission. And they somewhat rightly think if they can kill enough of the bad guys, a bottom will be reached and victory will be achieved.

But if we think of the military side of any occupation as just one cylinder in a six of eight cylinder engine, we can start to see why the military solution by itself is not enough to develop any real effective power to take us forward. . Because we also need the cylinder of economic development, the cylinder of ending corruption, and a true multifaceted occupation that will make the life of the Afghan man or woman on the streets better and safer.

And the one enduring eight year lesson from Afghanistan is that the military solution alone is not enough, and is not at all realistic at the troop numbers we have or are likely to ever have.

And the other lesson is that the fine men and women serving in Afghanistan are very good at what they do in terms of implementing a military solution, but are severely handicapped with inadequate troop numbers which really delimits what can be realistically done.

But the top generals are not good at what they should also be doing. And maybe Obama and his generals will evolve a better more multifaceted strategy, that is not known yet.

I wish you had written this post a lot sooner and i'd understand your position much better.

But you are wrong, without safety for the civilian population you can't do anything else and that is what's been tried to do since "the war was won".

The problem is that without defeating the enemy political solutions are useless, so are all efforts to try to normalise the situation for the population, you have to remove the threat and THEN you can work on local safety for the very few who will still commit crimes.

I'm saying that if we want to win, we have to strike hard and without caring about who gets in our way, we need the USAF and the RAF along with specops for targeting and regular infantry to walk through and pick up any survivors.

It's been done before, i've been in a location where it was done right from the start and the civ count was higher than anyone will ever know but no one will care because whatever it took, it was worth it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The greatest chance Afghanistan had for freedom was when we went in originally. Rumsfeld was so enthralled by technology he believed we didn't need a larger force to secure the country. Rumsfeld was calling the shots, so the number of troops were enough to "win", but not achieve lasting results.

Because the administration put Saddam at a higher priority than Al Qaeda, resources were spent in Iraq. I believe that a 500k force along with all the fancy bells and whistles Rummy was so fond of would be necessary to rout the Taliban and the others.

Once that happened, an understanding of social and political dynamics could have secured the peace, however we assumed that they were Little Americans just waiting to burst forth like tulips in spring, which was complete horseshit.

Now there is no military option which will work because the Taliban is firmly entrenched and has firmed up ties with the local controlling powers. They might be chased out, but not the Taliban are the "good guys" and we aren't.

I can't think of an administration less capable of understanding war and it's consequences than the last one. An eight year train wreck.