The Taliban strong-arms villagers already, unless there are soldiers protecting the area 24/7. Getting rid of the Taliban requires a permanent security presence in an area. 150,000 thousand or so US and NATO troops won’t be able to hold more than the major population centers, and I’m not confident that the Afghan army will be able to cover more than that. The best hope is to arm the villages and let them fend for themselves if they are not fans of the Taliban.
Americans are not going to be thrilled with the outcome, since there will always be Taliban controlled areas. But I’m confident that we can prevent a full Taliban takeover, so this endeavor shouldn’t be a total loss.
So far, Obama is better than Bush II in his last 2 years, but I think Bush II in his last 2 years (The Surge, TARP etc…) was a hell of a lot better than Bush II in his first 6 years (invading Iraq, tax cuts for the rich etc…).
This is one of the best things I’ve ever heard anyone say, ever. Seriously, it’s brilliant and I’m stealing it
I couldn’t have put it better myself. Now, I’m a creaming liberal and am not a fan of war, but Afghanistan is the only conflict in my lifetime (42) that I feel is justified and the right thing to do. Do all the people on my (political) side forget that we didn’t start that war?
This this this. I couldn’t have said it better. Except that I’m 31, not 42.
An unstable Central Asia is a destabilizing force for peace and security for the entire world. Yes, the Afghanistan war sucks, I agree, and it has often been poorly run, but it needs to be fought. Quitting now will only be harmful in the long run.
Obama convinced Obama. No need to blame anyone else.
No it isn’t. Yeah, Pakistan is the big problem, but you have it backwards. What happens in Pakistan is critical to what happens in Afghanistan, not the other way around. We can crush the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that has no effect whatesoever on Pakistan.
I would like to see us get out of that mess, and save some of our own soldier’s lives by doing so, but I don’t see how to do that without leaving a worse mess. Afghanistan is the tiger, we’ve got him by the tail, and when we let go, we get eaten.
I’m not commenting on whether the war was justified or not, but Afghanistan was a war of choice. If the reason for invading was to capture or kill those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, couldn’t we have just sent in some special ops to take them out? That along with providing military aid to anti-Taliban forces like the Northern Alliance, and pressuring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to cease their support of the Taliban. I don’t see the necessity of having 100,000 western soldiers in the country. We could have at least tried that first, instead of going in full-force within a month.
Have you noticed that Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are still out there, in an enormous area, and nobody has much of a clue where they are? “Some special ops” might not work. The goals were to capture or kill the people responsible for the attacks and take out the network and government that were supporting them.
This is the sort of tripe spewn out by people who don’t actually understand how the world works.
So what if we went in and killed all the people responsible for planning 9/11? Grats, you now have a bunch of martyrs and others who were in agreement are now going to become more militant and take their place, and the cycle starts over again.
It’s not like a bunch of kids indoctrinated by the taliban regime are going to come to their senses and say “OMA, I guess we had it all wrong!”.
You remember that little conflict in Bosnia? Well, when the UN was busy not helping Muslims avoid being put in camps and killed by the Serbs, these guys started showing up and helping the Bosnians fight against the Serbs. They were called “mujahideen”.
Oddly enough, before the war, the Bosnian Muslims were not very militant at all. But many of the 9/11 hijackers trained in Bosnia.
Point is, you wanna fight terrorism or despotism (which we should), you need to do at least 3 things: 1) pacify hotspots 2) bring prosperity and 3) keep doing so until the populace embraces not being a third-world shithole.
As long as there are a lot of assholes talking about the good old days when they could stone rape victims and shoot up that other village who believes in the wrong Allah or make their political opponents disappear, you’ll continue to get kids being indoctrinated and you’ll keep getting terrorists and coups and government thugs and drug dealers and human rights violations.
So if we decide to go in and clean things up, we better have the balls to be in for the long term. It’s like antibiotics, if you only take a few, you just end up with a worse infection that’s more immune to treatment.
Of course, we can just pull out as soon as we get some bad press. Of course, that means we get to deal with the consequences. Or even better, we can ignore the problem entirely as long as you are comfortablewith the results.
The moral of the story is that we’re all fucking connected in this world. Things that happen on the other side of the planet affect us in serious ways. Ignoring the reality of how the world interacts and allowing that ignorance to shape our policies is foolish, wrong, and possibly just evil.
Upstepping our presence in Afghanistan is not (mostly) about the payback from 9/11, making more martyrs, etc. It’s (ostensibly) about preventing the next 9/11, as a nation-state controlled by the Taliban would be a very friendly base for Al Qaida to launch their next attack (against Israel, us, etc).
At the time, I remember Democrats saying that we should get out of Iraq, that the real focus for the war on terror needs to be in Afghanistan. If that’s changed, then Obama hasn’t really detailed his thinking as to why. In fact, this strategy is very dumb, in my opinion. All he’s doing is advertising to the enemy as to when we’re leaving. Do we not think they will play the waiting game?
As I said earlier, I’m with George Will: either put in the 150k troops as Kenner suggests and hold the civilized areas, or pull the fuck out. No inbetween, all you will do is get a lot of Americans killed. All in, or fold your cards (and save your chips for the next hand).
No to the underlined part. Holding the civilized areas, means sitting there to be a target. You don’t accomplish anything by just holding. It’s right up there with “maintaining a presence”, as far as I’m concerned. The US Military is not a police force - it is not chartered, trained, or equipped to do that. It should never be just a bunch of targets, potential body bags, “holding” something while the enemy has free run of the country.
No.
We either fight or we leave. We either attack them or they attack us. There is no “holding”. You search out and attack the enemy. You harass him. You don’t let him operate. You don’t give him a chance to catch his breath. You do not simply hold. Better to leave today, right now, than to simply “hold”. If you are just going to “hold”, you have lost the war.
Fight or leave.
We can not, should not, and hopefully will not prop up the Karzai government indefinitely. Sooner or later, the Afghan government will have to take over. Better if they and we are the ones deciding when, rather than letting the enemy do it.
What I mean is, we do what worked in Iraq (well, I understand that ‘worked’ is sort of a vague concept there, but at least the violence is down, and the surge, which was city-based according to my USMC friends, has at least given that country of something of a shot to survive as less of a threat to America).
Hold doesn’t mean we stand at every streetcorner twirling a baton and whistling like some Irish flatfoot. It means that we do the door-to-door, urban insurgency beatdown strategy that Patreaus coined. Clean it out, train them up, and then GTFO, etc.
It sure doesn’t happen in 18 months though. And it really doesn’t happen if they know they can run out the clock on us.
That’s been out there since at least 2004, and I think a few years longer. But I don’t think this addresses my point. The Waziristan area alone is huge. “Some special ops” probably works if you know exactly where your target is. If you don’t, how’s that going to work?
And furthermore, the report says “a larger troop commitment” might have lead to greater success at Tora Bora. Not a special ops strike force - a bigger force.
The Taliban isn’t an imperial power. They are mostly confined to Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan and are not about to invade Alaska anytime soon. The Taliban is not going to take over the Pacific or Atlantic oceans, unless I am *vastly *underestimating their navy.
If they tried to take over Xinjiang, I’m sure the Chinese will be able to hold them back. Iran is not about to fall to the Taliban.
If the Empire of Japan was limited to Japan, Taiwan and the Liaoning peninsula, I don’t believe we would need to wage war against them. In reality, they were a threat to the US mainland and our Pacific territories. The Taliban is mostly a threat to people in a landlocked Asian country.
The President isn’t prolonging the war in Afghanistan. He gave a time-table for withdrawal. Anyone who thinks he’s prolonging the war in Afghanistan is a moron.
But I guess they’d prefer we left Afghanistan a shattered husk littered with American ordnance so that when the Taliban take over they’ll be better armed than they were before.
