I wouldn’t call myself anti-war as I was in favor of the war in 2001, but today I don’t know why we still need to be there. The problem for me is that the mission in Afghanistan is so vague. I mean, Bin Laden is most likely dead, and the Al-Qaeda that carried out 9/11 is gone now. If our objective was to get the people responsible for 9/11, then we’ve done it and can declare victory and leave.
Ok, I appreciate everyone’s responses here. I was wanting to get the feel for the anti-war peoples perspective on what’s been going on, and hoping to get some input on events there since I haven’t seen much comment on this board about it yet. I’m going to just give a few brief comments and responses and then let the anti-war folks continue on if they like to discuss the subject.
I think this is a wide spread misconception that is based on the fact that Afghanistan languished under GW, who’s main focus was always on Iraq. However, the goals of the allies going into Afghanistan didn’t solely revolve around capturing Bin Laden. They stemmed from the fact that the Taliban directly provided material aid, shelter and support to AQ, allowing them to set up training bases and even incorporating several AQ members directly into their government. The goals therefore revolved around getting the Taliban out of power, keeping them out of power, and taking away from AQ the capability to openly train and stage forces, as well as the direct support of a nation state, even a weak and poor nation state. I’d say even with Bush et al’s fumble footed and ham handed methods we mostly accomplished those goals. However, THIS effort is more tightly directed and focused, and it shows a level of understanding of the situation in Afghanistan that was completely lacking in the Bush days. Frankly, I think Obama (and his planners, staff, the Generals and they guys in the field, our allies, etc) are knocking this out of the park and doing everything (so far) perfectly.
First off, this effort is directed in the south, not in the heavy northern mountains. It’s directed at what is, for all intense and purposes, Afghanistan’s bread basket (or opium basket, as it’s currently being used) which has been under Taliban control for a long time, and which they are using as a cash cow, growing drugs for sale that fill their coffers and provide the funding to continue the fight. So, the target isn’t just some random area…there are layers of reason behind why and how this area was selected and such a major offensive is being launched there.
Secondly, contrary to some assertions in this thread, the Taliban are VERY harsh masters to the local farmers, especially the foreign fighters (just like in Iraq), and there isn’t all that much love lost between them and the local populations. The Taliban has been able to keep folks in line the same way that foreign fighters did things in Iraq…by terrorizing the local population into submission. And, frankly, the US and our allies haven’t helped things. We tend to use hammers and see every problem as a nail, and this hasn’t endeared us much to the local populace. Even if you live in fear of some raving fanatic with an AK threatening or even killing your family it’s hard to have any love for the guys dropping precision guided munitions on your village to get at that guy with the AK either. THIS offensive though has a very interesting psychological element along with the guns, bombs and soldiers. This time around we gave the local population (and the Taliban) a lot of warning as to when and exactly what we were intending. We gave them the whole time table for it…when and how the offensive would start, which areas would be bombed, and where the troops would be coming from. Think about the many levels of psychological effect there. We are basically telling the population that we are so strong that we not only don’t care that the Taliban has advanced warning (because they can’t do anything about it anyway), but that we care about the locals enough to warn them so they can at least try and get to safety…and when the Taliban stop them and force them to stay despite the warning (which has happened), then it’s the TALIBAN who look bad. And, to top things off, we (NATO, the Afghan troops, etc) have published the ROE, which clearly states that if there is a question about whether there are civilians present the troops are not to engage with heavy weapons even if they are being fired on.
Sure, there have been accidents, but from what I can tell civilian casualties have been keep about as small as humanly possible, considering the other sides tactics and the tactical environment the troops are moving through. Again though, think about the psychological effects of these actions…and think about the fact that SOMEONE on our side has two brain cells to rub together (finally). I don’t think this will be a magic bullet or anything like that, but it’s bound to have a positive effect on how the locals view us, and an equally negative effect on how they view the Taliban (especially the FOREIGN Taliban fighters).
At any rate, I think there is more going on here than some of the anti-war folks realize…this isn’t just the same ole same ole American War Machine™, and Obama isn’t just Bush in a new suit and able to talk. And that brings me to my last point before I fade out…this isn’t an AMERICAN operation (though we are providing the bulk of the troops). It’s a NATO operation in conjunction with Afghan troops.
-XT
Bin Laden is most likely dead? Where are you getting that from? He released a video not long ago that seems to have been current.
The real pity is the way American effort is directed. The money being spent could go a long way toward improving Afghani development and living standards, but no, the money needs to be spent so as to benefit American businesses. Afghanis have their own version of Republican government (Loya Jirga); we should encouraging such a council now, but no, we need to prop up the increasingly unpopular and corrupt pro-American while pretending to teach “American-style” democracy.
One could understand such malice and hypocrisy when Dick Cheney was in charge, but Obama?? All I can think is that the neocons have completely taken over Washington, with the rationalists stuck posting at SDMB. 
How much money do you think is going to the development of the Afghan (note spelling) economy?
The Russians threw up their hands after how many years in Afghanistan? We will probably do the same or think that we “won”, leave the country then what? It wouldn’t surprise me that things return to their pre-war conditions. And we’re still lookin’ for OBL, aren’t we?
Might Afghanistan become our next Korea? Stay tuned.
The Russians knew they had lost. They left because they were increasingly being overwhelmed even in the cities. They couldn’t move around at all in the country side at the end. The situation we face isn’t even close to the one the Russians were involved in. Again, think it through. Who is providing the Taliban with billions of dollars in aid, weapons and training this time around? No one. They are attempting to fund their insurgency internally, through the sale of drugs…but they don’t have a super power sending them advanced weapons or providing them with training. For all of the rhetoric of the Der Trihs’, we aren’t acting anything like the Russians did during their occupation either. The Russians were brutal in a way that I think few people on this board really grasp. We aren’t talking about the occasional missile going off target, or the bombing of an isolated village…we are talking about the systematic slaughter of whole REGIONS under the Russians. These are folks who deliberately and with malace built IED’s in the shape of toys to target children and then dropped them in their thousands across the country side.
Much as we are disliked in Afghanistan, it’s no where NEAR the level of ‘dislike’ that the average Afghan native felt when the Russians were there. And there is no where near the level of resistance that there was when the Russians were there either. While none of this means it will be a slam dunk for us to ‘win’ (whatever the hell that means wrt Afghanistan), I don’t think a real parallel can be drawn between the situation today and that the Russians (or the Brits) faced when they were there.
-XT
There have only been audio tapes purporting to be by him for the last few years, the last one in January where he bitched abouty global warming. There hasn’t been an actual video of him in awhile. If Bin Laden is still alive, I think he would want to be on camera.
We’re turning a corner. In six months. We just got the number 2. As we stand down they’ll stand up. If we cut and run now we’ll embolden the enemy and they’ll follow us home – better to fight them over there than over here. Even discussing this sends mixed signals to our troops and allies around the world. There’s no need to set a surrender date. Why do you hate America?
Mmm. I think I’m bleeding internally.
In this thread we see the old case of a war defender analyzing tactics to justify his support. That’d be like saying it’s OK you cheated on your wife because you were really clever and were able to totally bamboozle her. Plus the other girl was really hot and a freak in bed. That may be all well and good but you don’t start the defense there. Similarly, you don’t defend a war by saying how smart you are in killing the enemy and gaining local civilian support or shuttling material and men around the world in this very impressive logistics system that puts Walmart to shame. No, you say it’s OK you’re occupying a country and controlling their internal policies because ________. Outside of another nation directly attacking you or an actual ally there’s not much you can put in that blank that will satisfy people like me, but that’s at least closer to being on track.
You can also see the opposite of this when we critique other country’s wars, especially countries we don’t like. We don’t say well jeez, if only they changed their tactics! We just say GTFO.
Afghanistan is a big waste of time, money, resources, men, and that fuzzy good will concept that probably doesn’t exist but people always talk about. It hurts America the longer we stay. Not as bad as Iraq, mind, but definitely a pickle. A more mean spirited person than I would wish we stay there a long time so we can be bled dry.
NOTE: If bases in the ME help America succeed in any ensuing resource wars as we rise above the ash of a post apocalyptic world, disregard the above.
Aren’t most zombies Muslim?
Eh. Audio vs video. That’s a pretty weak argument for him being dead. We can judge an audio or video based on whether it references current events.
That part you have correct. National policy determined by polls is absurd. I keep going back to ethics and morality. but that is me. Some people boner up with a nice foreign war that does not threaten them. I do not.
This is the same argument made in Iraq. They were behind our invasion and would throw flowers at our feet. I knew better then and know better now.
I think that’s an utterly stupid reason to withdraw from the war. It’s quite frankly being an ass in international foreign policy. It’s a minor diplomatic problem that can be worked out in a few hours long meeting by the Undersecretary of State and the Assistant Foreign Minister or something.
Anyways the Afghan War is just and we should stay there to slowly build up the country.
SOME governments feel that torturing their citizens is a serious affront.
And why should anyone think that would actually work? Or that we have any serious intent of trying?
We are going to stay there until some President finally either has the spine to leave or thinks he can blame someone else. And when we leave, we’ll have accomplished little but put ourselves further into debt. And probably produced yet another crop of terrorists for the future. Just as these White Man’s Burden, “civilize the barbarians by force” wars typically turn out.
Fortunately I have never advocated that we run policy via polls. You made sweeping allegations – that Afghanistan produces generations after generations of warriors, they all want us out, they all hate their government, etc. You are factually wrong on every count.
You can still advocate pulling troops out of Afghanistan – I have no problem if someone takes that position. But that does not allow you to project your bias onto other people and call it fact.
Oh, and as far as Iraq goes, whatever was said before that war (which I opposed from the beginning) has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual sentiment of Afghans today toward the NATO presence in their country. You seem to be confusing Afghanistan and Iraq even worse than George Bush when he spoke of 9/11 and Saddam interchangably.
I think the A Bomb was wasted on Japan. Afganistan would have been a much better target. Make a parking lot out of it and let it go back to being a desert.
I am anti war but this country has been harrassing the world for too long.
You are “anti war”, but want to commit nuclear genocide? My, what would you be like if you were pro-war?
I’m not entirely anti-war, as somehow we have to keep these evergrowing groups of ambitious young people occupied.
I’m more anti the idea that there is something noble and good about one side’s efforts, while the opposition’s actions are cowardly and evil.
Tell that to the Canadian that on, behalf of the Bush Administration, was beaten raw daily for a year.
Der Trihs,
War is hell. Or it used to be. Now it is just an endless “ring around the rosies”. It is sometimes neccessary when one is under attack to fight back. If they won’t surrender after a while you need to up the anti.
My Dad is a Veteran and he was a hero. Not for having to kill but for saving my life and my Country. The difference today seems to be not in war itself but the way we wage it.
I have to go to work, I love my jobs, my home and my country! God Bless America…