And let Afghanistan fall into chaos? Let the terrorists a new base to launch more attacks?
It won’t be a new base, even if we repaint and put up new curtains, the terrorists will still figure out that it’s an old base.
Fine by me. I don’t give a fuck. I’m not Afghanistan’s keeper, and “the terrorists” can set up a base anywhere they want.
I’m not so sure this whole “base” thing is as big a deal as it is presented. What is a “base”, anyway? “A place to plan evil attacks!” OK, where can’t you do that? What is so good about the godforsaken mountains of Afghanistan as a plotting locale?
And any “base” bigger than half a dozen tents is a targeting opportunity. Even if you have ultra-tight security, what good is a base that you can’t tell anyone about? If only ten people can know about it, only ten people can go there, might as well be an apartment in Hamburg.
Adding to 'luc’s comment it’s also worth pointing out that 9/11 wasn’t the result of any kind of “base,” but rather a plan that unfolded over a number of years in different countries with AQ cells in them – most crucially inside the very US, where the terrorists earned their wings.
As for The Taliban proper presenting any sort of real threat to the US and/or NATO countries, please, that’s even more ludicrous than trying to paint Saddam and his rag-tag military as potential world conquerers.
Fear remains the name of the game.
It’s interesting how the US government has managed to define this as a two-nation problem, especially when we all know these people have little interest in how the west defines their territories. Even if the impossible was achieved in Pakistan and Afghanistan, take your pick of the unmapped, unknown, road-less regions to the north of those two countries - it’s about ‘Afghanistan’ x 10.
This well sums up what I’ve long thought. Unless they are constructing hardened, underground sites a la Iran’s nukes, they sound like fine targets for air strikes. I’d far prefer to beef up intelligence, interrupt their supply/information/support systems, work on building ties with other nations, and build up a quick strike force, than the extremely costly and unpredicable strategy of boots-on-the-ground.
Bottom line, if bad guys choose to situate themselves in civilian areas, I’m far less concerned with collateral damage to those civilians than I am with US troops.
Get the hell out. What kind of threat is a backward country run by war lords to us? The Taliban is not Al Queada. They are in Pakistan, Somalia, North Africa and parts of the Indonesia. Our military has said there might be 1000 Al Queada in Afghanistan. There might not be any at all. We need to have intelligence operations to find them. Blowing a trillion dollars in Afghanistan will solve nothing. Unless putting an oil pipe line through it qualifies as a worthy aim.?
Since they are in Pakistan ,is that the next country you want to attack? They are financed by Saudi Arabians. Does that put them on your list too?
No we have a moral duty to protect Afghanistan, and I don’t want them taken over by the batshit insane Taliban. As for Pakistan we have launched military strikes and the Pakistani army has finally made efforts. As for the Saudi bastards I suggest we fight an economic war by drilling in the US (which you liberals oppose) offshore and at ANWR and build more nuclear power plants.
We don’'t have enough oil to make any difference whatsoever.
Where the hell did we get a moral obligation toward Afghanistan. Better yet how can we protect them from themselves. The Taliban controls the country, according to our slanted estimates they control 85 percent and are circling the capital. Yet how is the Taliban a threat toward America? They seek traditional backward Muslim states. They would be happy if we just went away. They are no threat to us.
The Pakistani army is not making headway. they are just promising their asses off to keep our tax money flowing into their corrupt coffers. They are protecting and training Al Quada. They are harboring them. But due to the mountainous terrain, nobody can root them out.
Cite please. This being GD and not the ‘Lunatic Right-tard Hyperbole Wot I Read’. So cite please.
An interesting, fairly long NYTimes article was published this weekend that attempts to trace Obama’s decision making on Afghanistan over the past few months. From the first page:
Worth reading, I think.
No, we should withdraw all our soldiers, turn off the oil, and expel your ambassador until the US makes amends. You’ve sent one Canadian off to Cuba to be tortured and handed another over to Syria. We shouldn’t help you.
In the Orwellian world of Obama, victory is defeat, and escalation is withdrawal.
Obama announces 30,000 more soldiers-but most won’t arrive tillthe end of 2010. meanwhile, he promises withdrawl in 2011.
If you dissect the speeche, he is satisfying Gen. McCrystal, yet (simultaneously) promising to end the war.
Frankly, i wish he’s just admit teh whole thing was a mistake, ad get the hell out.