…crickets…
[quote=“wmfellows, post:106, topic:578826”]
So ten years on chasing one’s tails around, your solution is double down…
[QUOTE]
Your solution is what?
The Taliban’s pseudo-government is the government most in support of Al-Qaeda. While Yemen and Pakistan are new havens for them, they are under threat there by those countries’ respective governments.
With strong American bolstering of the government and aid, it is. Simply put, we have more resources than the Taliban, and if America’s will remains strong, simply educating the next generation of Afghans will defeat the Taliban.
Alright, I apologize for it.
Harem is the private area of any Muslim women, not just monarchs.
By slowly rooting the terrorists out of each area of Afghanistan and educating the Afghans against terrorism and extremnism , that will take time certainly but it is necessary. And if we were to leave even the modest gains made by Afghan women will disappear.
The simple thing is that without occupation-it would be worse, the Taliban would control most of the country and have comparatively more power.
Still, the statistics are better than that of the Iraq War a few years ago.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how that answers my statement. A government that overtly supports Al Qaeda is unquestionably a bad thing, but they have survived without that kind of support. The governments of Pakistan and Yemen are both opposed to Al Qaeda (although there are certainly factions in Pakistan that support Al Qaeda) but both of those governments are on shaky ground. The Yemeni government is no threat to Al Qaeda. They allow the U.S. to attack Al Qaeda in Yemen but it seems like even that has decreased recently. Pakistan’s government itself is opposed to Al Qaeda but it’s difficult for the government there to be actively involved with the U.S.
The resources part, at least, is true. And I’d like to think education and an improved standard of living will cure a lot of fanatical religious barbarism. Still, the military is not the Department of Education, and it’s going to be hard for a lot of Afghan women to get educated until the men stop beating them for going to school. Which makes me think you’re talking about more than one generation.
No problem. I appreciate the correction.
I have to admit you’re right here. I also think “houses” would have been just as clear as “harems.” 
If this were happening any more slowly, they would be going backward. It’s been 9 1/2 years and I wonder if anybody who supported extremism or terrorism has been educated out of it. (Certainly not everyone over there wanted to live under the Taliban.) And frankly this is another reason for people to question this errand. In 2001 the goal was supposed to be uprooting Al Qaeda and their supporters. There was no discussion of a neverending occupation. Almost a decade later you and Paul in Qatar are saying this is actually a U.S.-funded education and economic package for Afghanistan, that it’s going to take 50 years (and trillions of dollars) to work, and, in Paul in Qatar’s case, that even the current government isn’t good enough, so that’s probably going to have to be scrapped.
That’s probably true.
So what? You said most Republicans and half the Democrats support the war. It turns out the public is more or less split down the middle. The difference in support between Afghanistan and Iraq, I’m sure, is that Afghanistan was connected directly to September 11th, so a lot of people still feel it made sense to invade. But at this point a lot of people think it’s time to leave and many think it was a mistake to get involved in the first place. What you’re proposing is clearly not what was advertised. And I’m not arguing that makes them right, but it does make it hard to stomach this “what are you people whining about?” attitude and the shifting purposes of the occupation.
What I mean is that, Al-Qaeda can be and will be much stronger in a country with a government that actively supports them considering how strong they’re in Pakistan and Yemen.
Not necessarilly. It didn’t take long for Germany to be denazified or most of the Eastern Bloc to be decommunized (yes, I know Germany and Eastern Europe is like Afghanistan but in this case both had a fanatical ideology to the point of religion imposed on the people and those countries due to better technology and government control indoctrinated the people far more throoughly.
Well the cost of seriously uprooting Al-Qaeda and their supporters seems now to involve nothing less than the reconsturction of Afghanistan.
The US did underestimate the war and its scope but I do think the American people need to once more understand what happened on 9-11, who was behind it, and where it was planned and the military has to show progress on the ground to revitalize the war effort.
Then why has this lasted longer than the “de-Nazification?” I think this is actually about promoting some strains of Islam over others. And I think you have to acknowledge that the Taliban are not the only fundamentalists in the country. It’s true they took over and imposed their own rules, but there’s obviously a pretty large contingent of religious conservatives.
Unless you feel the occupying forces have been sitting around doing nothing for nine years, I think you mean re-reconstruction. And again this is not what anybody signed up for. This is part of the problem: the goals and the cost keep changing.
I’m not one to overestimate the intelligence of the public, but you seem to think they’re very, very stupid. They know what happened on September 11th better than you do, and they know who did it and where the attackers were initially trained. That’s why they supported this war in 2001. What they don’t know is how the current occupation (which you’re saying is about rebuilding an entire country and recreating its culture) relates to that, and they don’t know if it can work. Thousands of people have already died in this war over the course of nine years and the cost to the U.S. is something like $400 billion. You’re discussing a much more complicated, longer, and costlier project than the one the public supported in 2001. It’s already been a significant amount of time, and it sounds like little progress has been made, and what there is is fragile. That only makes it harder to trust that this bigger proposal is worthwhile. “This is what it costs now” is not really a sufficient justification, and I say that as someone who is not eager to abandon the women of Afghanistan or give Al Qaeda a chance to further destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.
At least you noticed I’m trying to make any argument. But FWIW, pulling out of Afghanistan before it’s time amounts to ignoring it. Ignored problems just tend to make them worse. You can call that a non-argument all you want, I’m fine with it. 
Maybe I can explain something many people are unaware of that will if not help alleviate this concern, at least attempt to explain how this course of events came about. Remember, not making any arguments here, just stating some not-so-obvious or well-known facts…
In accordance with one of the prior decade’s quadrennial defense reviews and in support of that round of 90’s-era military budgeting, a DoD strategy called win-hold-win was espoused to justify the force level modifications being proposed at the time. There were a lot on inter-service rivalries and core mission roles being debated to arrive at this spending strategy, which basically amounted to a military staffing and procurement level that would support fighting only one and a half major overseas contingencies, where previously the U.S. military had always been built to fight two major wars simultaneously. Hawks in the the services and congress alike railed against it, but he budget axe fell like it always does and what came to be known as the win-hold-win force structure came into being.
Don’t go off and Google up some numbers to show what the military budget is, was or anything like that. This was about what the available money was being spent on, not how much. Taken together with cost overruns, inflation and rising contractor prices, altogether it translated to a significantly reduced overall military capability compared to years past. Post 9/11 the only practically feasible military approach was determined to be win-hold-win Aghanistan vis-a-vis Iraq. We simply did not have the force structure or levels necessary to properly prosecute both wars simultaneously in the fashion we are accustomed to. You can argue the wisdom of the decision to hold Afghanistan while we finished Iraq all you want and be a good armchair quarterback. The Pentagon planners and the POTUS decided to do what they did based on the what they had available to work with and the threat(s) they percieved at the time.
I gave four reasons why I thought it was time to leave, but it all comes down to one: We don’t have the money to expand our operations in Afghanistan and nobody in the US is currently willing to raise taxes in order to do so.
No amount of rolleyes will change the math here.
You’re right about this.
Well it seems to be what we need to fulfill our goals.
[/QUOTE]
The public has to know that if those costs of Afghanistan are going to be worthwhile, even more is needed. Were we to withdraw those costs would have been a waste
That, is a classic example of the sunk-cost fallacy. It does not matter how much we have spent in deciding if we ought to spend more. But of course the fallacy goes both ways. It is just as wrong to look at past costs and determine we must spend more as it is to use the same data to decide we must cut and run.
Either Afghanistan (and the other places) is or is not worth doing in the future. This determination is independent of the costs that have been “sunk” in the past.
If those are the goals, then yes, that seems to be what’s required.
I don’t think what’s being offered here would be overwhelmingly convincing to many people. I’m seeing an admission that the entire occupation is more complex than expected even at this stage and that it’s barely off the blocks. I think you can see I’m almost looking to be convinced on this and it’s not really happening.
Exit all Nato forces, negotiate with moderate Taleban for national unity government, continue to invest in intelligence assets to focus on tracking and destroying (via drones or special forces action or the like) the emergence of any Al Qaeda training camps.
Let the Afghans sort out their own bloody problems so long as whomever controls the territory understands that there’s no tolerance for hosting Al Qaeda. If they want to pursue 10th century politics and remain entirely domestic - Afghan focus, hey their culture, their lives.
My experience in emerging markets tells me that if the locals don’t want it on their own, foreigners can do fuck all to make it happen.
My experience also is that people are a lot more accepting of outside suggestions when it appears to be their own free choice, and not something imposed by colonial or neo-colonial forces.
Let the Afghans be Afghans, only policy baseline is if you let Al Qaeda operate out of your territory, you get stomped on. Otherwise, your country, your rules, your lives.
The general opinion of the public at the time was that the mission in Afghanistan was to beat the shit out of the people who attacked us, put whoever wound up in charge of the place on notice that if they did it again we’d beat the shit out of them again, and go home.
In hindsight, that strategy might have been more effective, and certainly would have been far cheaper.
All wars end with some sort of negotiations. But who the heck are these “moderate Taliban?” Anyone who treats with us loses creditability with the others. Has there been any example of this sort of negotiation in this war? These people support a formless nihilism. Nobody on that side of the table can make peace.
Fair enough, but what is ‘Al Qaeda?’ George Bush (the Lesser) seemed to think he saw them in Iraq. (But then again, the boy was simply scared of this own shadow.)
Also letting the Afghans be Afghans condemns those who end up in their territory to torture, rape and death for being female, gay or gosh knows what else. While what you are saying make sense, I really do not want to let innocent people be returned to their clutches.
As opposed to being raped, tortured and “gosh knows what else” under our rule. I fail to see why one is to be preferred over another. I don’t buy the idea that it’s somehow more noble to be tyrannized by Americans or their puppets than it is by someone else, despite our constant insistence on pretending it is.
But there is an end to Western occupation. The rule by the local bully boys goes on forever.
Give me a single instance of Afghan women being raped by American troops where the charges weren’t properly investigated.
Well, if the charges were not investigated, that would be rough to do.
Unless the West decides its security demands the soldiers stay another 50 years or so.
Governments can be overthrown.
No. We are not talking about the Afghan government. They have little influence on what happens at the village and province level. The Afghans are imprisoned under the rule of thousands of tyrannical fathers, local thugs, town elders, religious nutjobs and whoever can make his point by force.
Change the culture and the government changes, although that hardly matters. Change the culture, make the people free, healthy, educated and rich and our job is done.