toldailytopic: Afganistan. If you were president what would you do about Afganistan?

[Yorzhik]

We should be completely committed to Afghanistan. I’m not personally into country building and thought originally that we should have gone in, kicked butt and then left—however, since we didn’t, we now have obligations to the people who have trusted us over there, as well as the need to save face against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

One last thing—even though I believe this—if the President doesn’t really want to win over there, then we need to pull our troops out. If we aren’t there to win—which we should be—then I don’t want anymore of our troops to die in a half hearted attempt to look like he is trying to win the war when he really isn’t.

Great! I was going to say this.

And the only thing I'd add is that in the early part of Vietnam we had a hearts and minds campaign that worked. The towns we worked in were places we relied on for the rest of the war. A similar hearts and minds campaign should be our highest priority over there.

 

[Aimiel]

The Taliban is still very much in Afghanistan, they've just learned better hiding places than they've ever had before. No matter how powerful we make their government, there will still be corruption and staying there is only making things better because of our new strategy: to befriend the residents, rather than treat them like future casualties. Yes, it costs us troops and money to do so, but it is worth it, since it is working.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Has anyone seen Charlie's War? What a great testament for how we messed up. We're always willing to spend billions killing bad guys, but not willing to give much less (millions) for developing peaceful education and infrastructure.

The problem is that Afghanistan is not a country, its a tribal region. No one, not us, not the Soviets nor the Brits before them have come up with an adequate strategy for dealing with tribal regions.

We need a solid intelligence presence there to watch for and deal with substantial organized terrorist training, and we need to invest in secure development zones central to tribal regions. When people experience security and comfort, they will want it for themselves and they will take over and grow the secure regions.

Pulling out of Viet Nam was wrong because it resulted in the killing of millions when we left. We have a moral obligation to clean up the messes we start.

 

[Aimiel]

Perhaps we will, in Afghanistan; we'll see.

 

[TomO]

If the US ever masters giant asteroid technology, you might get a hole like that. Otherwise, not even close.

:sigh:

 

[DocJohnson]

Yet, what if you leave the country so unstable it becomes an even greater threat to our own safety within a year or so?

Afghanistan was only considered a threat due to the fact that the Taliban was harboring terrorist training camps. I don't believe they were ever a direct threat to the U.S.

 

[Aimiel]

:sigh:

I thought your representation of what the earth might look like after field-testing our one-off 'Glassmaker' bomb. Might not be such a bad idea. :chuckle:

 

[Aimiel]

Afghanistan was only considered a threat due to the fact that the Taliban was harboring terrorist training camps. I don't believe they were ever a direct threat to the U.S.

Were you in coma in 2001? They wrecked several buildings in New York and even bumped into the Pentagon. It made all the papers.

 

[DocJohnson]

Were you in coma in 2001? They wrecked several buildings in New York and even bumped into the Pentagon. It made all the papers.

How many of the 19 hijackers were Afghans?

Clue: it rhymes with hero.

 

[Aimiel]

They weren't trained, directed and funded by dudes in Afghanistan? I thought they were. :think:

If we train, direct and find insurgencies into another country, is that not an act of war; whether done by the government or someone merely living in the US? It is. The only reason we didn't begin carpet-bombing when attacking the enemy in Afghanistan was we knew it wasn't Afghans (for the most part) that we're at war with, it's Egyptians, Saudis and Iranians, joined by their hatred for the US; hiding from their own government or working directly for them doesn't matter. What matters is rooting them out and terminating with extreme prejudice.

 

[annabenedetti]

I say bring the troops home. As soon as possible.

 

[Aimiel]

No one wants any less, but leaving the country a bigger mess than when we got there is inexcusable.

 

[annabenedetti]

No one wants any less, but leaving the country a bigger mess than when we got there is inexcusable.

Ten years from now, how many lives later, it will still be a mess. I think bringing our brand of democracy to that country is unworkable, as unworkable as it was when the U.S.S.R. tried their way.

 

[DocJohnson]

They weren't trained, directed and funded by dudes in Afghanistan? I thought they were.

They were trained in Afghanistan, yes, but not because the Afghan people wanted it to be that way. They were funded by Bin Laden... a Saudi.

The vast majority of Afghan people have great respect for America for helping them defeat the Soviets.

 

[Aimiel]

Ten years from now, how many lives later, it will still be a mess. I think bringing our brand of democracy to that country is unworkable, as unworkable as it was when the U.S.S.R. tried their way.

It isn't our 'brand' that matters, but merely freedom from oppression by force or threat. That isn't only workable, it's desired and longed for. The recent changes to strategy in Afghanistan are working just that. Seeking to enlist the help of locals countrywide, to overthrow those who threaten and oppress, with the help and encouragement of the people.

 

[annabenedetti]

It isn't our 'brand' that matters, but merely freedom from oppression by force or threat. That isn't only workable, it's desired and longed for.

Then why didn't we go in before 9/11, when the Taliban was wreaking such havoc?

Why haven't we invaded N. Korea, and other such countries? They want freedom from oppression too.

 

[DocJohnson]

It isn't our 'brand' that matters, but merely freedom from oppression by force or threat. That isn't only workable, it's desired and longed for. The recent changes to strategy in Afghanistan are working just that. Seeking to enlist the help of locals countrywide, to overthrow those who threaten and oppress, with the help and encouragement of the people.

The Afghan people already know how to overthrow an invading force. They did so quite well (with a little help from US) when the Soviets invaded. They can do so again if the Taliban tries to come back.

 

[Aimiel]

The Afghan people already know how to overthrow an invading force. They did so quite well (with a little help from US) when the Soviets invaded. They can do so again if the Taliban tries to come back.

They haven't left. They've merely scattered into the populace or wilderness. They return as soon as patrols leave a village.

 

[Aimiel]

Then why didn't we go in before 9/11, when the Taliban was wreaking such havoc? Why haven't we invaded N. Korea, and other such countries? They want freedom from oppression too.

Direct threats. Had Kim Jong (mentally) Il been successful with his missile test and come anywhere near Hawaii with a missile test, we might have nuked N. Korea by now.

 

[DocJohnson]

They haven't left. They've merely scattered into the populace or wilderness. They return as soon as patrols leave a village.

They will never return to power in Afghanistan. They can scurry around all they want in the mountains and in Pakistan.