No one but you cares about a party that a few folks had in Afghanistan. As everyone except you has said in this thread, we just want US troops home. I’ve said all I need to say, and more, about the party.
I explained to Dissonance what I mean when I say the war is winding down. See above, perhaps you missed it.
Just as I call you on your written suspicions about the truthfulness of an American officer serving in combat for our nation you admit you have nothing to back up your suspicion and mount the no one cares exit strategy.
That few Americans care to know much about the war in Afghanistan makes my point in this thread.
So thanks for that.
Sure would be nice to leave at some point though, wouldn’t it?
It’s a political issue, and the objectives are political ones. That the state be modern and somewhat tolerant and Western-influenced was a major objective; just look at the invitees to the 2001 Bonn conference.
That objective is at odds with the goal of a stable government, because Afghans seem to want a harsh Islamic government.
Preventing the Taliban from retaking control isn’t impossible, but apparently I don’t consider that alone to be the sole measure of success.
Where did I remark that we’d be forced to leave by armed resistance? Re-read the sentence of mine you quoted. See the part about leaving a modern, stable state?
Depends - is the government actually representative of the people? Or is it a corrupt anocracy that we’re propping up with dollars? These things matter.
You are far more focused on the insurgency than I, clearly.
Again - we are focused on very different outcomes.
You are, except when you’re talking about girls in school. I’m speaking of the bigger picture.
The value of a government isn’t in how many troops it can put in uniforms. Its level of popular support, ability to implement legislation, transparency and intolerance of corruption, are all crucial metrics.
Meanwhile, actual performance of the Afghan forces ranges from “poor” to “terrible”.
Where have I read all this before…?
By reading it:
That’s not a quote from a participant, that’s the military’s journalist flat-out telling you what the point of the article is.
And that is an argument how? Should someone argue that the event is not really happening? Should someone argue that the event 'weakens the friendships of two different cultures? Should some one argue that they are not different cultures? Should someone argue that its not an annual custom? I’ll guess I’ll have to ask again.
How did you establish that a report about an Afghan and American Holiday Party was being presented as an argument for something?
Are you in position to determine that you see the bigger picture and I don’t? The jist of your argument says NO! You are declaring that the value of the government is not how many troops it can put in uniform, (which by the way is not my full argument *), and then you list what I presume is your bigger picture metrics. I agree with your metrics by the way, but where your big picture ideas fail miserably is that not one single one of those metrics can be produced and sustained when there is a major organized insurgency determined to destroy each and every one of those metrics and then some. So BIG PICTURE H.A. is Achieve the capacity to defend the fledgling government from that ruthless, vicious insurgency and then once that capability is achieved then work on the metrics.
*My full argument about the ANA and ANP is more than numbers. It is that they have been in the lead in Kabul since 2008 and since 2010 the transition has been ongoing and successful. This is commonly one of the aspects that are referred to as gains.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_87183.htm
IF you have the counter-argument to ISAF reports, let’s see them.
It would be nice had al Qaeda not attacked us and killed several thousand on American soil and al Qaeda’s leaders were given sanctuary in the Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
That would have been nice. But that is not reality.
And what is wrong with staying when Afghan’s are engage in the lead and Americans are there for back up for a while… Down to 10,000 strong… trainers and Special Ops fast response teams if that presence means the gains are sustained and progress is made on your government metric big picture stuff… I’ll put a few thousand of our Special Operators up against 20,000 Taliban worthless killer pigs any day as long as the Afghans themselves are holding major security intact in the lead.
To me it would be nice to kill every last Taliban goon who wants to fight and keep girls out of schools - and if it takes 10,000 of our best and finest there to finish them off … I’m for it.
If the Afghans quit fighting for some reason on a day to day basis then I’m for bring all of them home. But right now I’m not. Conditions on the ground don’t warrant it. And conditions are that more Taliban need to be killed or captured before we quit what 90% of Americans supported doing at the start.
Human Action is opposed to the US military involvement in Afghanistan but cannot argue against the military objective to remove the Taliban from power and help sustain a replacement government by equipping and training an army and police force that can defend it against an insurgency. An insurgency that folks at Bonn in 2001 may have underestimated as our own US President did.
All problems for HA appear to be political ones with a government that could not defend itself but for the military objectives of the ISAF primarily lead by the USA.
The mere fact that 4 million girls are attending schools now when under the harsh Islamic government of the Taliban in 2001 girls were banned from attending schools makes Human Actions assessment quite irresponsible according to the reality on the ground. A large part of the population is at odds with the Taliban and the harsh so called Islamic rule to ban girls from being educated and becoming literate.
By stating as an objective fact that the event “strengthens the friendships of two different cultures”. That is the intended takeaway.
Getting opinions from both the cultures involved would be a bare minimum. I’ve been rather clear on this.
By reading it. It’s not difficult.
Man, you are combative. I didn’t say you don’t or can’t see the bigger picture, I said that I’m writing about the bigger picture, while you are, in these last few posts, tightly focused on the insurgency.
That presumes that this fledgling government is the best one to resist said insurgency, or even that a single government is the best approach. What makes you think that’s the case?
I don’t contest any of that, and never have. Yes, Afghanistanization is underway.
Final Post of 2013… Happy New Year. I posted the whole thing because of it’s uplifting spirit going into the new year. I doubt ISAF or U.S. Air Force Maj. Cathleen Snow will mind.
Nice photo in the link… Take a look.
Hopefully this will not be considered propaganda since it quotes an Afghan Scout Master. See Mohhamad Mayebi, 21, Scout Master. Of course he could be forced at gun point to say all those things…
That’s not an argument for staying indefinitely, you realize. Sunk cost fallacy and all that.
As long as there’s a plan to get them out soon, I can deal with it. I think Obama’s handling this pretty well.
What we leave behind won’t be pretty though, at least by our standards. It won’t be post-war Germany or Japan, that’s for sure.
Considering who the Bonn participants were, that’s entirely possible. That’s the fundamental contradiction of wanting a stable government and a Western-friendly government at work.
And again, “a” government doesn’t mean “this” government.
As long as we have civilian control of the military, all strategic military problems are also political problems. It wasn’t generals in charge of the Bonn Conference and creating our Afghanistan policy.
And if most people want a harsh Islamic government, what should we do then?
Please learn what propaganda means. It’s not what you seem to think. Why We Fight was propaganda, but it wasn’t untrue, nor was anyone forced to say anything at gunpoint.
dp
So, your evidence of the war “winding down” is a DOD blurb on some Christmas party?
How about you address the increasing level of Afghan security forces casualties I noted in one of my recent posts? I think that is a more significant metric than some party held on a US military base.
Also, I’m still waiting for you to explain to us why you so enthusiastically embrace this “Loya Jirga” and erroneous claim that its decision is representative of “all Afghanistan”.
Do you care to debate anything of substance about the war, or do you only want to talk about Christmas parties that are reported by the DOD?
There’s an old Chinese saying: Be careful what you wish for. You want more news stories about the war in Afghanistan? Well, be ready for a lot more bad news than good. I told you this in my first post. Or, are you interested in censoring the news so that only “good” stories are reported?
Wife’s not ready to go out yet… So here goes. If that is an argument who is the fine upstanding officer arguing with? Do you know with any kind of certainty that anyone participating in that event disagrees with that statement? If someone from Afghanistan was quoted in agreement I believe Mace explained that if they were there under some kind of obligation and or duress they would ‘lie’ to not offend anyone. IF the US officer being quoted there believes what he is saying to be true and no one spoke up and said they disagree than his journalism cannot be questioned. What you are asking for is some kind of opposing argument to something that no one there opposes. What do you want a legal signed statement from all participants in this kind of thing stating full agreement with everything said about it.
I hereby solemnly agree in the name of Allah and the our honorable President Hamid Karzai that the event I am attending truly strengthens the friendships of our two different cultures and I believe in Santa Clause but not Jesus but that is ok … these Americans here are my friends.
Nope not even close. That is a very silly interpretation of my messages on this topic.
The reader.
Nope, because they either weren’t asked, or their answers weren’t deemed acceptable. Only one side was presented. Now, where have I heard that before?
Oh, right:
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.
While that’s possible, it doesn’t excuse not attempting to portray both sides of the story. Also, there are ways around this sort of thing, like keeping sources anonymous. Again, basic journalism.
If he’s writing an opinion piece. If he’s writing a news story, there’s a bit more to it than that. Waiting to see if anyone shouts out disagreement, then publishing what others think without asking them, is journalism that can be questioned.
How do you know no one opposes it, exactly?
OK. What is your evidence then? Is it the increasing casualties suffered by the Afghan security forces? Is it he casualty rate by US military that is higher than any year during the first 7 years of this war?
Nope! It’s not ignoring the other side of conditions on the ground than what the proponents of quitting pay attention to:
Read more: http://mobile.tolonews.com/afghanistan/13282-8-insurgents-killed-in-afghan-raids
Those chose to die. These choose to live:
Read More: http://wakht.af/en/index.php/security-and-crime/5367-10-rebels-join-peace-process-in-nangarhar.html
Anecdotes do not equal data.
Data: Afghan security force casualties: 2,767 in 2013, up from 1,870 in 2012.
Data: Afghan civilian deaths up 10% in 2013 compared to 2012.
But who cares about deaths when the US had a Christmas party with a few Afghan soldiers?
This must be the first war in history that was described as “winding down” when the security forces suffered a 48% increase in casualties. Is the new year 2014 or 1984?