Options for Afghanistan

[PALADIN85020]

Let me say right off the bat (and most of you know this), I am a dyed in the wool Goldwater/Reagan conservative. I believe that the least government is the best government - getting out of the way to let us run our lives the way we see fit. I also believe in a strong national defense and secure borders, with only legal immigration allowed. But I'm not a "hawk" regarding our involvement in Afghanistan.

So with that background, I'm now looking at the options for us in Afghanistan.

First, why are we there? Ostensibly, it's to fight back at Al Qaeda, originators of the attack on our soil on 9/11/2001, and the Taliban, their co-conspirators.

But Bin Laden, the titular leader of Al Qaeda, is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, by all intelligence estimates. And the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership is fluid, widespread, and lacking in a definable chain of command. The Taliban is also widespread and decentralized.

Afghanistan is NOT really a country. It's a region of thousands of tiny fifedoms, controlled by warlords who largely deal in drugs for financing. There is a central government in Afghanistan in name only. No one there pays any attention to it, and it's corrupt to the core. The terrain in Afghanistan is mountainous, treacherous, and favors defense rather than offense.

And we have troops there who are paying for that assignment with their lives on a daily basis. Are we fighting to turn Afghanistan over to its central government for control? Not likely. As mentioned, the "government" is ineffectual and corrupt. Are we fighting to protect the Afghan people? Most of them lead a third-world existence and are dependent on the drug trade for their livelihood. So are we there to protect the poppy fields or eliminate them? Either way, the people of the country get screwed. We're fighting Al Qaeda? WHO is Al Qaeda and who is not? Who is the Taliban and who is not? Are we killing civilians, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or all? And who does THAT piss off and make more venomous? The answer is ALL OF THEM. The longer we stay, the more virulent is everyone's opinion against the U.S.

Iraq was a different story. Different terrain. A more organized central government. A more cohesive populace, with some notable exceptions. We're turning that country in a Democracy, and it will be both a beacon and keystone for future democracies in that region in the future. That was an achievable objective, and I think that objective is being reached now.

Great Britain tried to civilize Afghanistan and failed. The Soviet Union tried to subjugate the country and failed. We don't even know why we're there, and we're failing also.

Are the lives of our service men and women worth whatever we think we're trying to do there? Do our "leaders" really understand the situation there and the effect our presence has on the region? I don't think so.

I think the solution is to get out of Afghanistan, and the sooner the better. Let it fester. As for Al Qaeda, I think that some dedicated special forces skilled in the language and customs of the country, equipped with the proper tools and able to blend in, can provide the human intelligence we need to attack them with unmanned drones and other means from the air. We already have 24/7 aerial recon.

The result will probably be just as effective against Al Qaeda, and may lead us to Bin Laden just as well. And it will not incur the massive resistance any populace will have against an occupying force. Remember the movie "Red Dawn"? Think of us as the invaders, the occupiers, and you'll readily see why we are hated in the region.

I see our options as:

1) Get out. Now. Fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban with other means than full military involvement.

2) Send more troops in to do more of what we're doing now.

3) Try to do it half and half - send more troops in and try to get the Afghan "government" to take over. Try.

4) Encourage our politicians to run around in circles, debate, spend billions of our tax dollars on feel-good social programs, create new rules of engagement, emphasize Miranda rights to POWs and make speeches about political correctness forever and ever, amen. They know how to run a war better than the generals. After all, they are politicians and have an unending supply of crackpot theories as well as teleprompters.


You may disagree with my assessment. Comment!

 

[klondike]

Paladin - I am not sure what option that this falls under but it looks like a Special Forces assignment where an Afghan govt holds the cities and hopefully, a few provinces and Spec Ops keeps the Taliban guessing the where and when we hit them. We would have a shrinking footprint as the locals train up.

 

[walnutred]

Pick any three countries whose name ends in 'stan. Carpet bomb with neutron bombs, which are designed to kill biological matter not damage structures. Offer the newly vacated territory to Israel in exchange for not building any new settlements in Palestine.

The 2008 primaries showed me we had no intention of winning in that part of the world and the election confirmed it. As far as I'm concerned everyone shoudl have been home before the new President took office.

 

[windjammer]

I think we should get out of there right now. Those people will never be changed....give everyone of them a gun and let them kill each other..

 

[Bullseye 2620]

I think we should get out of there right now. Those people will never be changed....give everyone of them a gun and let them kill each other..

They've already got all the guns they need, captured from the Russians, and from stores we sent to the Karzai government which mysteriously disappeared only to turn up on the battlefield being used against our troops.

The only strategic interest I can determine in the region is making damn sure the Islamic whack-jobs do not get their hands on Pakistan's nukes. I say get the troops out now, except for the small special forces contingents needed to help the Paks protect their nukes, and to train the Afghans and target and neutralize Taliban and al-Qaida targets of opportunity.

No one -- not since the Mongol Ghengis Khan asserted his control by killing most of the population and systematically ruining the little arable land in the country in the 1200s -- has been successful in controlling Afghanistan. The Persians, the Brits, the Russians all failed, and if we get sucked in further, we will too.

What is the compelling national interest in Afghanistan we are being called upon to defend with blood and treasure?


Bullseye

 

[Oaklands]

I have made this statement before. We either need to give them the troops they need with a "Great Gameplan" to get it over with and get out of there, or we need to pull out and forget about it.

I agree there is no reason to leave troops there when we are not going to give them the necessary support.

 

[M29since14]

Aren't you good folks forgetting that the president made it his war during the election?

That is precisely why I believe he will cut and run. He knows there are no consequences for his actions... in the media, at least.

Our opinions don't matter.

 

[dennis40x]

Fight to win or leave now a compromise of either is the road to hell.

 

[Dennis The B]

Paladin makes very cogent points.

We're not in a position to "unify", and "create" a "modern" Afghanistan. As noted, they're a loose band of tribes, war lords, etc., who are so badly splintered and corrupt, that no unification is possible.

However, as with Woodrow Wilson, we are engaging in "nation building", and using examples such as suppression of female rights, as a primary driver to deploy troops there. This is another classic case of meddling where we have absolutely no national interest.

U.S. and NATO forces are not fighting an offensive war. We only control the areas we occupy. There is no real offensive action, and the rules of engagement are so restrictive as to render the power of NATO forces almost impotent.

There is absolutely no economic reason for the United States to be there. They have no natural resources for exploitation, and they rely only on the growth and harvest of opium poppies as their international currency.

Get out. Fight Al Qaeda where we find them, and let the Taliban fight the war and drug lords.

 

[2000Z-71]

I suggest reading a book title "Horse Soldiers". It's an up close look at the Special Forces operations in the early weeks of the Afghan conflict. It has not received the attention that it deserves. In addition to being a great story, it gives insight into why Afghanistan deteriorated and fell under Taliban control. Since we lost interest in Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout, it basically fell into a lawless state. The Taliban was able to come to power offering a sense of law and order.

We were very successful with the initial campaign of toppling the Taliban. We worked with groups within the Northern Alliance and helped them do the fighting. Unfortunately we have turned into an occupying force now. If we pull out now, Afghanistan will fall back into lawlessness and the Taliban will probably see a resurgance. They're already operating in Pakistan and our pullout would basically give them a base to strike into Pakistan. I'm not comfortable with the idea of a fundamentalist Islamic state on Pakistan's border.

What's the answer, I'm not exactly sure. To pull out will mean we did nothing for the last 9 years and we could be facing more problems in the future coming out of Afghanistan. Having politicians fight a limited war with timelines is even more frightening. Same outcome as pulling out but more Americans die in the process.

Unfortunately, I think we've been there for so long we're basically looking at nation building as the only way out. Problem is we're trying to bring civilization to a country whose national pastime is playing polo with a dead goat.

 

[Joni_Lynn]

Since our leaders probably don't intend to let the military do it's job to the best of their ability we shouldn't be there.
We need another stimulus package that would build several bulldozer factories over there. Build hundreds of nice big dozers and then bulldoze the country until it's flat

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I do not believe in the "Cut and Run" approach, it sends the wrong message and encourages the Bad Guys.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I see our options as:

1) Get out. Now. Fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban with other means than full military involvement.

2) Send more troops in to do more of what we're doing now.

3) Do it half and half - send more troops in and try to get the Afghan "government" to take over.

4) Encourage our politicians to run around in circles, debate, spend billions of our tax dollars on feel-good social programs and make speeches forever and ever, amen.


You may disagree with my assessment. Comment!

Option 1.

I'm not convinced there is much for America to 'win' in Afghanistan with additional troops, or with keeping the current troops there. Chasing Bin Laden and his thugs from Afghanistan to Pakistan seems of questionable value to America. Invading Afghanistan has allowed America to develop one heck of a good intelligence network in that part of the world which was deperately lacking prior to 9/11. I believe that is of great value which can be maintained post troop withdrawal.

 

[JcMack]

Name another country that has entered a war to win the hearts and minds of the opposition. We will never ever win a conflict like this with our country so influenced by bleeding hearts. The Russians went in there with a no quarter attitude, and lost. I realize the war in Afghanistan was the final financial blow to the Soviets, but 10 years with negative results? We need a military presence in the region, but I think the time has come to pull back troops and bomb our adversary into submission or annihilation. Feeding American troops into this slaughter is insane

 

[n4zov]

As I see it, the following are facts that cannot be ignored:

1) The general American public has no stomach for a prolonged fight in Afghanistan or anywhere else regardless of the cause or its importance.

2) The only reason it has gone on as long as it has is because the average citizen has no personal stake in who is fighting and dying because of our all volunteer military.

3) The political decision was made long ago to get out and it is only a matter of when we leave.

4) The only important question remaining is how many men and women will be sacrificed and how much treasure will expended before we pack up and come home.

The sooner we get out the fewer Americans will die for what was a lost cause even before the first shot was fired. This whole experience is simply "Vietnam Lite." Only the names of those involved have changed.

 

[michael thornton]

its just a big pit where we throw our tax money(that we dont have) to help people that dont want help, and have been fighting for so long they dont even know why, and they will keep on fighting! how many of our boys have died? how many more will die? and it wont change a thing, the war we should be fighting is here on our on soil, were it counts

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

IMHO.

As has been stated, Afghanistan has always been the way it is. The British during their colonial days could not hold it, nor could anyone else for any length of time.
The people in that "nation" are happiest when they are fighting..if not foreign armies, than with themselves. They have been doing this since Genesis 1 verse 2.
A victory there is obtainable...but it just depends on how far we are willing to go and it will take years and billions of dollars. We as a nation do not have the stomach to do what would be required to win that war (poisoning water supplies, bombing roads and passes, napalming poppy fields and food supplies,rendering land completely unusable etc.) which would be vicious.
I believe that Bin Laden is in Pakistan and is being protected by their government. I also believe that if we put the effort in we could find him, but capturing him alive (assuming he wouldn't do what Hitler did in the bunker) would turn out to be an embarrassment to the US Government as he would probably spill the beans on a lot of American dirt going back to our original support of him during and after Soviet occupation.
I also do not believe that he is the "head" of anything. If anything, he is the face of Al Queda....like Baghdad Bob during the Gulf War. The real head(s) of that organization are either sitting in a boardroom somewhere or are what the US considers a close ally.
I do not believe in "nation building". The only time we were really successful at it was the Marshall Plan. Besides, our system cannot work everywhere...to try to force our way on a people who are not nor will ever be ready for it in our lifetime is no different than the Soviets shoving communism down their neighbors throats after WWII.
The best (and sad) part of this is to leave behind small Spec Ops guys for the sole purpose of keeping the pot stirred up and the tribes fighting each other...if they are doing that and are contained...they'll spend all their efforts killing each other and leaving everyone else alone.

 

[m1gunner]

Get all the boots out. Turn the fight over to Space Command (yes, there is such an animal, it is a branch of the USAF). They have some neat toys that can work in conjunction with the UAVs. Control what we can by remote control and quit killing our guys for nothing.

Even if this has little effect, the end result will be no different than where we are headed with 100,000 troops in country.