Well, fuck me, I guess.
OK.
I’m happily married, but thanks, fuck you all.
I’m sure we could bribe someone to let us base our drones for less than what the war costs us. When we pull out, let the Afghans know that we reserve the right to bomb terror camps.
[del]And fuck you, your wife and your children’s children[/del].
So far, given the lack of direct rebuttal to the OP, I declare it
Resolved: We Should Not Be In Afghanistan.
Fuck anyone who disagrees (without cites) to any particular in the OP.
And, as ever, fya.
Reliable intelligence always has a human component to it. Infiltration. Its worth its weight in gold IF the informant is reliable.
Satellites and drones are nice for what they do but its not the same as having actionable intel on the ground.
Resolved: Meh.
If we can find someone willing to shoot at U.S. troops, then we should go there and shoot back.
Israel?
Only half the fucking world which we’ve armed at taxpayer expense.
fya.
Can’t we just selectively nuke Afghanistan and be done with it? Nuclear weapons aren’t nearly as bad as people make them out to be in the long-term. Hell, we have nuked our own soil and lots of other places as well. Nuking Japan was the best thing that ever happened to them. I don’t see why we can’t just nuke Afghanistan into the 1st world one bomb at a time. I know I try a lot harder when someone threatens to kill my whole extended family if I don’t toe the line. Pull the U.S. troops back and start lobbing one a day until there is significant improvement in behavior. It is basic psychology and it will work. Flowers don’t grow well in radioactive fertilizer either.
Christ this post is funny as hell. I was just re-reading this thread for some reason, and I guess I missed this one the first time.
At this point, the “al-Queda” and “We have to kill them over there” arguments are complete BS. That much is clear.
And we’re not going to go all in on a proper COIN strategy (which isn’t even really a strategy, but don’t get me started). There’s absolutely no will to stay there long-term. What good would it do?
So what are we going to do? Will it be another surge? That only “succeeded” in Iraq because, compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is stable and functional. But that doesn’t mean that the surge will have worked in Iraq at the end of the day. That was all marketing for the people back home. Make it look like we’re doing something important, hope for some level of stability for a little while, declare victory and leave. That shit isn’t going to work in Afghanistan. We can’t even control the road between Kabul and Kandahar.
It seems to me that all we’re doing is maintaining strategic flexibility in the Middle East, at exorbitant cost, by having our forces in position to move against Iran or Pakistan. Why?
Care to elaborate?
I still believe in the mission in Afghanistan. “Where Empires Go To Die” bedamned. We have gained a foothold against extremists in that region and we should continue to fight them, no matter the cost. Not having another 9/11 (or Madrid, or London) is worth it (to me). If we conduct ourselves properly and induce the general populace into the idea that they can think and vote for themselves, then it can work.
I realize I’m being incredibly naive here.
How does spending a shitload of money there (under)manning remote outposts prevent another 9/11? Even the military admits that there’s like 400 al-Queda left, and they’ve likely moved to Pakistan.
It doesn’t matter what badasses we are, we’re not suited for this type of mission.
…or as the guy who thinks that you can catch the gay from eating chicken
That would be monstrously evil, turn the entire world against us, and ensure that we have millions more enemies. And it wouldn’t encourage anyone to cooperate with us on anything, since we show no reluctance to attack people who try to cooperate too. Besides which, we’d be so hated that cooperating with us would just get you killed by your friends and family; that happens in Iraq, and we haven’t even gone on the genocidal nuclear spree you are advocating there.
It wouldn’t help us in the slightest. nor would we deserve to be helped, or to be anything other than utterly destroyed if we acted as you suggest.
Goddammit, Nazi Germany wasn’t like that either !
Hitler’s death did jack shit, he wasn’t a necromancer and his army didn’t poof into dust the second he put a bullet in his brain. Germany toppled because it had been ground to fine paste on two fronts, for years on end. It toppled because it had *nothing *left to go on, not even young men to send to their deaths. Had Hitler died during Nazi Germany’s heydays, someone else would have taken over the nuthouse and business would have continued as usual. Probably Himmler.
Sorry for the side rant. It’s just one of those notions that annoy me for no reason.
Or before May’ 42, this guy. He had all of Hitler’s vicious ruthlessness, without the psychotic rage, and was 15 years younger. Somebody who might have acutally listened to his generals…
Thank you Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš!
As for the OP, fuck the Taliban and anyone who defends them.
Say what you fucking will, have you noticed nobody at all (not even me) is defending the fucking war in Fucking Iraq? Fuck George Bush.
That was a big part of the problem in Iraq, too. We weren’t suited for this type of mission. But we are becoming better and better at it. Our stupid civilian leaders in the early 2000’s should have foreseen the type of conflict both wars would devolve into instead of having some misplaced grandiose notion that we would be greeted as liberators.
And can you cite this “400 Al-Qaeda left” statement? This is like the second or third time I’ve seen someone use that number on here and I’ve never heard that claim before.
Look, I agree that we need to get out of Afghanistan, and soon. But not until our military leaders are confident that the country can at least keep its government from collapsing.