- This topic has 7 voices and 33 replies.
-
Posts
-
Afghanistan has no oil and their only export of any significance besides terrorism is opium. If we win, we uphold our ideals and bring peace, freedom, and maybe democracy to a people that have seen almost constant war since 1979. I don't know about you, but I am still idealist enough to think those are things worth fighting for. I know I have advocated realpolitik before and I am apparently going against the grain here but I am really not. If we win in Afghanistan, then that has dire implications for radical Islam everywhere in the world. Our apparent victory in Iraq has set them back(while incidentally getting thousands of terrorists killed there instead of America), reforming a backward place like Afghanistan will sound the death knell for the Radicals agenda throughout the Muslim world. The whole point is showing that peace and toleration are better than radical Islam and cultural and economic isolation.Even better, if we keep the research up in 20-30 years we wont need their oil anyway. Until then, we have to accept the reality that we will be engaged with the Muslim world in some shape or form. We can either set the conditions or let them do so. Right now we are setting the conditions. I would always rather have my enemy react to me than vice-versa. Maintaining the initiative is one of those few cardinal rules of warfare.
We got more problems in Appalachia than they do in Afghanistan. We're just chasing boogie men from cave to cave and getting soldiers killed for nothing. No matter what happens, as soon as we leave, Afghanistan will be just as poor and unstable as when we found it. Somebody will just replace the Taliban to maintain order. I say we give it one more year and pull out.
Our apparent victory in Iraq has set them back(while incidentally getting thousands of terrorists killed there instead of America), reforming a backward place like Afghanistan will sound the death knell for the Radicals agenda throughout the Muslim world.
I find this a little to optimistic. I agree that something had to be done with Afghanistan but trying to reform an entire country that doesn't want to be reformed is a herculean task, if at all possible.All reforms that can stand the test of time need to be rooted from within the country, because at the end of the day it's the same people that will be left there. That's why I think physically being there was the wrong move for the US both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion you should've outsourced both wars to local entities that were symphatetic to you. As with any oppresive regime there were plenty of dissidents to choose from.
We got more problems in Appalachia than they do in Afghanistan. We're just chasing boogie men from cave to cave and getting soldiers killed for nothing. No matter what happens, as soon as we leave, Afghanistan will be just as poor and unstable as when we found it. Somebody will just replace the Taliban to maintain order. I say we give it one more year and pull out.
I respectfully disagree.We could not outsource either war because none of the dissident groups trusted us anymore after what happened to the Marsh Arabs and Kurds in Iraq in 91-92 and the way we abandoned the mujahideen in Afghanistan once the USSR was defeated. We had to be there physically to prove ourselves to them. After hearing some of the talse of the effectiveness of Saddam's oppression first hand I am not certain that mere logistic support would have been enough to topple Saddam anyway. His army may have been a paper target by Western standards but it was more than adequate to the task of maintaining him in power against domestic opposition.
We invaded Afghanistan because of 911. We invaded Iraq because we were tired of Saddam (and probably other reasons). I'm glad we removed Saddam, but we screwed up the aftermath royally. Afghanistan is just a place for American indignation to be vented. We've vented long enough, it's time to move on.
We invaded Afghanistan because of 911. We invaded Iraq because we were tired of Saddam (and probably other reasons). I'm glad we removed Saddam, but we screwed up the aftermath royally. Afghanistan is just a place for American indignation to be vented. We've vented long enough, it's time to move on.
Even during the Bush years, I was concerned about what seemed like an endless stay in the country. While the U.S. can invest hundreds of billions rebuilding such a country over the short term, a long term project like this simply is not economically prudent. Now with our economy in the tanker, fiscal strains will continue to show. I think that the lack of an end-game in Iraq was the most problematic. Surely there must have been teams forecasting scenarios there before we invaded. I do not know what they were expecting. Did they simply underestimate what it would take before we could leave? Probably.
The problem with Iraq is that we are already there. It is not we can undo it and if we are there we should do the best job we can. The same applies for Afghanistan. We can debate whether we should be there every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but the fact is, we are there. We should be debating what do we do now and whatever we do we should think long-term and not short-term. We dont want to have to go back in 10-20 years, so it is in our own interests to establish a stable regime, even if it is not exactly an American style republic.
.... We dont want to have to go back in 10-20 years, so it is in our own interests to establish a stable regime, even if it is not exactly an American style republic.
+1
We dont want to have to go back in 10-20 years, so it is in our own interests to establish a stable regime, even if it is not exactly an American style republic.
I don't think anyone can dispute this. The question on my mind is can you in fact do this in such an unstable location, with an even more unstable population. Do you really think its possible?
The problem with Iraq is that we are already there. It is not we can undo it and if we are there we should do the best job we can. The same applies for Afghanistan. We can debate whether we should be there every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but the fact is, we are there. We should be debating what do we do now and whatever we do we should think long-term and not short-term. We dont want to have to go back in 10-20 years, so it is in our own interests to establish a stable regime, even if it is not exactly an American style republic.
I agree with what you're saying. Yet I think there is some debate open as to the threshold of when we allow the Iraqis to be self-sufficient. If the Iraqis don't learn to provide for their own security, is the U.S. prepared to be there permanently? I doubt that would be the case, but we have been there seven years already. Not only has it cost us many lives and vast amounts of money, but it has also cost America its near-term future because it allowed the Democrats to obtain domestic power. I hope that it teaches future generations several valuable lessons.
What I think is funny is that Biden recently tried to take credit for the success of Bush era policies in Iraq. We are leaving soon and not because of the Democrats. We are leaving based on the timetable set forth in the SOFA agreement negotiated with the Iraqis during Bush's last year in office. the big question mark right now is Afghanistan. The Iraqis can and will stand by themsleves, their recent elections prove that. But can we achieve the same thing in Afghanistan? I am not sure if we can, but think it is worth a try. If nothing else, we should be able to put friendly warlords into power that will temper if not completely eliminate the threat of Afghanisatn as a base for terrorists. We also need to be looking at the Horn of Africa. We have troops there, but not enough to really achieve anything.
Like I said, give Afghanistan one more year, and then pull out. In the meantime, let's ratchet up our offensive and do as much damage as possible before we cut and run (hate the phrase but that's what we would be doing). Afghanization must commence now. We can give Karzai money and weapons to defend his government, but if he fails, that's on him not us.
If we are going to cut and run in a year why not do it now and avoid the inevitable casualties that will come in a another year? Like my dad always told me, “If you are going to do something, do it right or not at all”.
If we are going to cut and run in a year why not do it now and avoid the inevitable casualties that will come in a another year? Like my dad always told me, "If you are going to do something, do it right or not at all".
Okay you talked me into it. Let's pullout.
Well, here is an article making the point about pulling out would at least stop the casualties from direct combat:US deaths double in Afghanistan as troops pour in That begs the question of how many casualties we would suffer at home if Al Qaeda had free rein to reestablish there base camps in an Afghanistan free from NATO and American presence? Remember last time they had that we suffered over 3,000 dead in New York and Washington. Today they would have a nuclear capable Pakistan right next door and the regime in Pakistan is none too stable. You don?t think OBL would love to get his hands on a nuke? If we left the region his chances of doing so would go way up there. Is that something you are willing to risk? I would guess that a medium sized city like Louisville would be high on the list of nuke targets because it has not been hardened like LA, Washington, and New York have.Before we talk about pulling lout, let's have a frank discussion of the consequences for the US if terrorists regain a foothold because the Karzai regime collapses. Let us also not forget that if we have to go back it will be 2-3 times as hard to regain control once we leave because we will have sacrificed every bit of goodwill we have achieved in the last 8 years and shown ourselves to be oath-breakers. That last charge is no small thing in tribal society; in that part of the world your word really is your bond.
