The decision seems to rely on the assumption that the return to power of the Taliban would be unacceptable from the perspective of US interests, and that continued US military involvement in Afghanistan can prevent such an outcome from occurring [at reasonable cost to ourselves].
Yes. All we need is one more year, and then things will be different. I sense that we have turned the corner and that that Taliban are in the “last throes”. The next 6 months will be crucial.
I think probably not – staying is just delaying the inevitable. Unless we plan to stay for decades or permanently, things will happen beyond our control there. I think we oughta get out and stay out, while monitoring the region with satellites and intelligence, and if necessary, perhaps very occasional strikes to take out terrorist camps.
We wasted our chance to be a “force for good” in Afghanistan when Bush put it on the back-burner in favor of Iraq. If we’re going to wait for the fragile security situation to improve, we’ll be there for a hundred years.
The reason we invaded in the first place was to get bin Laden. He’s dead. That’s good enough as far as I’m concerned. I’m willing to leave them to their own devices.
As I said int he other thread, this smells like an effort to do as little as possible to make sure that the inevitable collapse happens while someone else is president. Not sure I can blame Obama for that, since “fixing” Afghanistan is an impossible task.
Not a whoosh: the return to power of Taliban would be a calamity, lending massive encouragement to the worst elements of the international Islamic faithful, such as ISIS and AQ, and such as the numerous Muslim radicals in neighboring Pakistan.
We should stay in Afghanistan for as long as it takes to suppress Taliban, even if for the entire 21st century, *even if forever. *
The Kunduz operation lends support to the thesis that it may not take too many of our troops, supported by air dominance, to do that job. But if it does take more, so be it.
Funny to see the silence in this thread from the Obama hopey changey worshippers afraid to denounce him in the lame-stream media because they love sharia muslims so much and want to kill Christmas with their death panels.
It’s his job to make the decision but I really don’t think Obama made the call. At all. In any way. It’s 100% a strategic matter to give the Kabul Gov more time.
It is my considered opinion that Afghanistan is pretty much hopeless. There is no “Afghanistan” as an organized, discrete entity. There never was. Remember when we first went, against the advice of wise and acute observants? Remember when we were flying shipping pallets of hundred dollar bills to buy off the various factions? Love the smell of burning money in the morning, smells like victory…
There is no Afghanistan. There is a polite political fiction that we are pouring lives and treasure into trying to realize. As much as I can sympathize with Obama’s idealistic hope to do something, in the cold light of realpolitik I find it impossible to believe that there is any such something.
Never should have happened in the first place, 9/11 drove us nuts, and Afghanistan was the most immediate result. Even with hundreds of years of powerful nations sending their best and brightest to kill and die there…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Out now. Its an awful thing to say, but its the truth. Out now.
If you don’t think Afghanistan has changed at all in the last 14 years - or even in the last four - you quite simply have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan.
The place may end up being a problem for quite a long time. But as of today, the problem looks like the size of a Mack truck. Five years ago, the problem looked like the size of that Twinkie the size of New York City that was referenced in Ghostbusters.
The choice seems to be whether we should let Afghanistan go on its own way now or in a couple years. Given the size of the commitment Obama announced, it’s probably about as small a commitment as the US could make that would make any difference. I think giving this slower drawdown a try is fairly reasonable. If it’s working, speed it up. If things aren’t working out, then… Back to the drawing board for plan b. Or g. Maybe q.
Well, it would reinforce to ISIS and whoever of exactly what Bin Laden said all along- that as evidenced by our actions in Somalia, it’s clear that the US is weak-willed and unwilling to fight, therefor all it takes is a few actions of terrorism or some ugly moments on TV to get us to give up on our allies in the Middle East and to leave the region completely-- which is exactly what they’d like. That’s what the whole plan was to begin with-- drag us into a long, expensive, unpopular war that will divide the populace, then declare victory when we ultimately give up.
I’m not sure that the answer is staying there. I don’t think there is an answer. But whatever we do will definitely be taken as a lesson by any number of baddies worldwide.
Why wouldn’t Obama have made the call even if “It’s 100% a strategic matter to give the Kabul Gov more time”?