You can’t destroy Al Qaeda just by working in Afghanistan, though.
No, that wasn’t the point. The point was to stop Afganistan from giving aid and allowing open training of terrorists in their nation, so that Terrorism could operate in the open. That stopped. We hit Al-Quada hard. We destroyed their bases, caught a lot of the low level dudes, killed even more.
We weren’t even sure if Bin Laden was there. Catching him was gravy.
These guys rely on suicide bombers. They don’t particularly want to get away with it. As much as I agree with the idea of getting Bin Laden, it is not going to put of fear of being a terrorist into people who are more than willing to die for their cause.
You mean like in Vietnam?
In Vietnam, the NLF and NVA were forces which were regimented, organised efficient in use of weapons manpower and resources, not to mention secularist and fighting for independence and to a lesser extent, dominance of Indo-China affairs. In Iraq, this type of war won’t end once the troops leave, it’ll continue until they have regional dominance, and the ability to spread their views on a global level with impunity. There’s the difference. To note, the Government the US was supporting in Vietnam was nasty and weak, not to mention a geopolitical abstraction, and was unwilling to change it’s ability to govern in all the 30 years the US was fighting/supporting there.
Wasn’t that what we (or the powers that be) believed about Communism?
Though I can’t comment on the nasty part, the current Iraq government is not particularly strong and is the definition of a geopolitical abstraction. Hence the talk of three separate partitions, as unlikely as that is. Granted though, the government we are supporting in Iraq is leaps and bounds beyond what we were supporting in Vietnam.
Communism wasn’t 1,400 years old and indoctrinated into peoples beliefs and was propagated as a progressive force (womens equality, industrialisation, political emancipation etc) for everyone in society. As for what the US public or government believed, the story that Communism would be present in Jakarta was built up by them, not the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese had clearly defined goals, US out of Vietnam, and dominance of Indo-Chinese affairs controlled by them, that’s it.
In Iraq it’s markedly different, for instance, the catalyst for this war and Afghanistan was 9/11, a terrorist attack, in Vietnam, there was no such catalyst, only the prevention of the fall of South Vietnam and a loss of face, which the US brought armed force to defend.
We face a much more difficult situation, we withdraw, we lose face, but after that, the attack will still keep on coming, and provide safe havens for those who would wish to either;
A) Destablise pro American regimes in the Middle East.
B) Continue attacks against Western/Pro Western targets worldwide.
In Vietnam, the war had a defining end, in Iraq, you tell me after we withdraw, does it end?
Irrespective of South Vietnam, weak doesn’t necessarily mean nasty. The Iraqi Government is weak because one section of the populace rejects it’s formation, and it can’t spurn popular loyalty from the local level to keep the peace, or even defend it. Remember, transistional Democracy in Iraq is only 2 and half years old.
Which, for all it’s faults, it should still be supported, and if it’s with Coalition troops, then so be it, until it can get it’s own shit together. The fault of us is we believe nation building can be achieved within a few years, it can’t it’s a sustained effort until the ability of the Government to control it’s own territory can take place. Alot of Iraqis see a decentralised republican government as best way to govern it’s territory, but since Iraq has always been a heavily centralised state, there’s alot of consternation about this (primarily amongst the Sunni Community obviously)
Also take note, why would Syria and Iran want anything like a democracy quashed in what is their backyard?
A domino effect is still a domino effect.
I expect you’ve heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but if you haven’t, I suggest you read up on it.
I’ve read about it, it is not the catalyst, it is a mere incident provided to help the US more easily attack North Vietnamese infrastructure. But the major Catalyst was that the ARVN and South Vietnamese Government lost control of upto 40% of it’s own territory in 1965, and that the enclaves the US military had set up on the coasts weren’t doing much to deter the Vietcong. Hence major military deployment to save loss of face.
The NVA stopped fighting for limited strategic goals,so tell me, where are the limited strategic goals of a dozen or so Islamist militias within the Middle East? Communism was a means to an end in Vietnam, a tool used to whip up nationalistic fervor against the US military intervention, Al Queda in Iraq is calling for the destruction of the West, and it’s allies in the Gulf.
We didn’t “hit Al Qaeda hard”; we provided them with some new recruits, let the leaders escape, provided them with a massive training ground/propaganda tool in Iraq, let them decentralize and strengthen, and validated 9-11 as an effective strike by overreacting so much and so poorly. Granted, most of that is not the direct result of our attacking Afghanistan, but in the wider context we have failed miserably against Al Qaeda.
As far as our real purpose in Afghanistan ? We never had one; Bush & friends just wanted to get it out of the way so they could attack Iraq.
:rolleyes: You actually think that they are afraid that the example of Iraqi “democracy” will cause democratic pressure in their own countries ? Quite the opposite; the ongoing disaster in iraq has been a massive blow against ME democracy. We’ve done a great job convincing the people there that democracy = bloody anarchy.
Al Qaeda is a trivial force in Iraq; most of the fighters are either fighting each other, or us because we invaded. And if we leave, either Al Qaeda will leave or they’ll get massacred; the Iraqis won’t have any reason to tolerate them once we are gone.
I said the over aiming objective of Al Queda was to get rid of the US Allies in the region, alongside the strategy to destroy the West, nihilistic goals maybe, but their goals they are nonetheless.
If Iraq is stablised shifts towards a representative Government (let’s face it, you’re not going to see Arab style autocracies anymore in Iraq) then why would Syria and Iran be turning a blind eye to the countless Jihadis and terrorists working to undermine and letting them go through their respective countries?
Well, they’re doing a good job, or rather we are doing their job for them
First, an “Arab style autocracy” is probably the best Iraq can hope for at this point; Saddam II. Certainly it would be an improvement over what they have now. Total anarchy or a more extreme version of Iranian theocracy is more likely, I think.
Second, what makes you think that they are worried about terrorists and jihadists ? They have us and Israel to serve to draw them away. Besides, the terrorists and jihadists are frankly not that big a deal, despite our paranoid fantasies.
Suppose there was really good video showing our successful attack killing Osama, and a DNA analysis proving that the dead body was really him, no kidding, everyone believes it.
Anyone who thinks that would have any sort of negative effect on the cause of Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad is just not paying attention. Martyrs are a dime a dozen. Successful martyrs are ones you have killed! Right now, Osama ain’t one. We might well have turned Saddam Husein into one.
Tris
Of course not; we’re going to see a Persian style autocracy.
The Arabs won’t like that - and Iran has an Arabic minority - not to mention the Kurds.
Let’s ask some people who were around when it happened. Anybody?
[quotepThe NVA stopped fighting for limited strategic goals[/quote]
What does this mean?
The limited goals would be eliminating their own governments. And are you telling me that religious fanaticism isn’t being used to whip up nationalistic fervor over there? Come on.
Not to mention Sistani is opposed to the Khomenist version of Mullaocracy.
There intentions were to dominate local Indo Chinese affairs and that was it. No revoultion protracted to take on the whole world. The Marxism was basically a rallying point for Vietnamese nationalism.
There is no basis of loyalty to the state in the Middle East, since primarily all of those states were drawn up, and allegience is based primarily on tribe. In Iraq, some of the terrorists in the country are fighting to establish some sort of pan-Islamic caliphate. Nationalism is contrary to what Islam preaches. I don’t doubt that a majority of Iraqis consider themselve to be part of that country, but it doesn’t come at the forefront of their major concerns.
Fair point, it shouldn’t be called nationalist. But you’re still advocating a domino theory, and I think it’s a crock. That theory resulted in tons of unnecessary deaths in Vietnam, and I think it’s a waste that some people want to think of terrorism the exact same way they thought of Communism.
Think all you want, but we’ve seen plenty of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan Saudi Arabia, Morrocco, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Bali, India, Pakistan, there is a concerted effort amongst some in the Muslim community to bring down the present regimes and implement the harsh brutal laws they interpret, not to mention be in a constant state of war with the United States.
Ok, let’s say Al Queda defeats the US in Iraq, hypothetically of course, you tell me what happens then?
They’ve already declared an agenda to topple US Allied regimes in the Middle East, not to mention to attack US interests globally everywhere anyway, so the so called ‘domino theory’ applies more than it does in Vietnam. Because strategic goals perpetuated by Al Queda call for the destruction of the US as a nation, where as in Vietnam it was to remove influence and unite the country, and latter dominate Indo-Chinese affairs which I keep saying.
They get massacred by the Iraqis. Who will no longer have reason to put up with them, and have the home field advantage, unlike us.
OK, but getting back to the OP (ahem), what do we do with Afghanistan if we pull out of Iraq? Will that free al Qaeda elements in Iraq to refocus their energies on Afghanistan? Do we maintain our presence in Afghanistan indefinitely? Will the American people accept that if it results in the same sort of continuing casualties we’ve seen in Iraq? At what point could we say “Our work here is done,” and leave Afghanistan?
Frankly, it looks to me like a neverending occupation in the making. I can’t imagine a time when we would feel comfortable leaving Afghanistan (and thus taking the pressure off of the Taliban and Pakistan).
And to be clear, I’m not advocating pulling out of Afghanistan in the near future. I think it might well be dangerous to do so. I’m trying to envision what set of circumstances would ever permit us to leave Afghanistan, short of being driven out.