Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am going to argue that it is not only time to get out of Iraq but also out of Afganistan. We have already got our pound of flesh for 9/11 and I don't find any value in spilling any more innocent blood in the memory of those lost in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC. Afgans will fight our foreign presence like they fought the British over a hundred years ago. Britain tried and failed in adding Afganistan to British India. The Soviets tried and failed in adding it to their sphere of influence. The USSR put a lot more troops in Afganistan and inflicted much more violence against this people. However, they ultimately failed and this failure also contibuted to the destruction of the Soviet state. As Americans do we want risk the same fate as the USSR? Are we prepared to commit mass murder on a scale beyond what the Soviets did to win?
The predominant reason we are in Iraq was to end one of the 5 most murderous governments in world history. We did that. However, we had no stabilization or exit strategies and many US companies have raped the US Treasury for “work” there- for which I’m still waiting for Pelosi to fulfill her promise to bring them to justice.
It’s a somewhat similar reason for Afghanistan. The objective was two-fold. First, the militant takeover was a murderous regime that was subjugating women to horrors unmentionable and the explosion of illegal drugs exportation. We wanted to turn both around. We’ve been modestly successful and really should turn it over more fully to the UN. I think Obama will do that.
I am going to argue that it is not only time to get out of Iraq but also out of Afganistan. We have already got our pound of flesh for 9/11 and I don't find any value in spilling any more innocent blood in the memory of those lost in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC. Afgans will fight our foreign presence like they fought the British over a hundred years ago. Britain tried and failed in adding Afganistan to British India. The Soviets tried and failed in adding it to their sphere of influence. The USSR put a lot more troops in Afganistan and inflicted much more violence against this people. However, they ultimately failed and this failure also contibuted to the destruction of the Soviet state. As Americans do we want risk the same fate as the USSR? Are we prepared to commit mass murder on a scale beyond what the Soviets did to win?
I would argue the whole "war on terror" is a fundamental misnomer, like it or not, terrorism has been in existence ever since we evolved into human form, it's part of human nature to resort to whatever means necessary to fight your opponent and defend your family, your land, your country against, real or imagined, hostile attack. The only difference is the advancement of technologies make modern terrorism more lethal. It's kinda like crime, no country, no culture, no political system have ever eliminated murder, and nobody ever will. While periodically there are political slogan regarding "war against crime, or crack, or murder, etc", I don't think anybody in his right mind would really consider it a war or whatever problem of crime can be solved by launching a war. Launching a "war on terror" is kinda like hiring a surgeon to get rid of your daughter's teenage angst. It's a fundamentally a wrong approach. First one needs to realize, like crime, terrorism can't be eliminated, nobody did, nobody will. The only thing you can do is to make effort to minimize terrorism threat against yourself, your country, military force can serve a meaningful purpose here, but just police can only play a very limited role in crime reduction (if people are pushed to a corner, he/she will commit crime, if the criminal reward is large enough, somebody will commit crime, no amount of police on the street can stop crime from being committed), you can only come up with a way to REDUCE terrorism, especially terrorism against US if first you could understand the nature of the problem. (I personally believe the so called "they attack us because who we are not because what we did" is complete bullsh*t, there are deeper causes, and we need to address these causes in meaningful, less America-centric way to reduce the reason so many people hate America so much to commit suicide to kill Americans. But let's assume they attack us really only because they hate America's way of life, then what? Religious wars have been fought throughout human history, the end result were always two sides learning to live with each other. ) Those who didn't consider terrorism a fact and a problem before 911 are either too uninformed or too easily swayed by governmental propaganda, hello, Timothy McVeigh, remember? Terrorism was there, is there and will continue to be there as long as human is still human. Launching a war to "eliminate terrorism" without even bothering to understand the culture of your opponent, the fundamental nature of the problem, let alone what terrorism exact is, is doomed to failure.
I am going to argue that it is not only time to get out of Iraq but also out of Afganistan. We have already got our pound of flesh for 9/11 and I don't find any value in spilling any more innocent blood in the memory of those lost in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC. Afgans will fight our foreign presence like they fought the British over a hundred years ago. Britain tried and failed in adding Afganistan to British India. The Soviets tried and failed in adding it to their sphere of influence. The USSR put a lot more troops in Afganistan and inflicted much more violence against this people. However, they ultimately failed and this failure also contibuted to the destruction of the Soviet state. As Americans do we want risk the same fate as the USSR? Are we prepared to commit mass murder on a scale beyond what the Soviets did to win?
At the time the USSR was invading Afghanistan its per capita income was about equal to Mexico's. What caused the USSR to collapse was the price of oil had fallen and without the oil revenue, it couldn't pay for the war.
While the present US economy has its challenges, I don't think the war in Afghanistan is an existential threat to the US whether we win it or not.
After several civil wars and the war with Russia, there really isn't much infrastructure in Afghanistan to begin with. In more advanced countries the threat of blowing up something people care about tends to get people to comply with the demands of your military. We can't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age because its already there. So in that sense the power of the US military doesn't give you that much leverage.
But there is an excellent chance that this war in Afghanistan(especially if it escalates) will destabilize Pakistan and that is a problem. Pakistan has nukes, a lot of religious fanatics and a highly corrupt government with a past history of nuclear proliferation.
The most likely scenario for Al Queda to get nukes is during the chaos of a coup or revolution in Pakistan. As part of the war in Afghanistan we are now bombing camps in Pakistan. In the US the reporters are calling these camps training camps for Al Queda and the Taliban, but in Pakistan the newspapers are reporting all of the civilian deaths from these bombing missions.
A claim of promising to defend the Pakistani people from US imperialism is about all one would need to justify a coup in Pakistan by senior member of the military. The coup doesn't need to succeed for the terrorists groups to take hold of the nukes. If there is one group that I do think Al Queda probably has throughly infiltrated its the military of Pakistan.
The predominant reason we are in Iraq was to end one of the 5 most murderous governments in world history. We did that. However, we had no stabilization or exit strategies and many US companies have raped the US Treasury for “work” there- for which I’m still waiting for Pelosi to fulfill her promise to bring them to justice.
It’s a somewhat similar reason for Afghanistan. The objective was two-fold. First, the militant takeover was a murderous regime that was subjugating women to horrors unmentionable and the explosion of illegal drugs exportation. We wanted to turn both around. We’ve been modestly successful and really should turn it over more fully to the UN. I think Obama will do that.
The drug rap is specious because the Tailban viewed the opium traffic as anti-Islamic. They virtually stamped out opium cultivation in the areas they controlled. This issue was one reason they lost control of the area under the Northern Alliance and was exploited by the USA to take out the Tailban. The Karzi government is benefiting from the opium trade and it is now opium exploding in our Afghanistan.
At the time the USSR was invading Afghanistan its per capita income was about equal to Mexico's. What caused the USSR to collapse was the price of oil had fallen and without the oil revenue, it couldn't pay for the war.
While the present US economy has its challenges, I don't think the war in Afghanistan is an existential threat to the US whether we win it or not.
After several civil wars and the war with Russia, there really isn't much infrastructure in Afghanistan to begin with. In more advanced countries the threat of blowing up something people care about tends to get people to comply with the demands of your military. We can't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age because its already there. So in that sense the power of the US military doesn't give you that much leverage.
But there is an excellent chance that this war in Afghanistan(especially if it escalates) will destabilize Pakistan and that is a problem. Pakistan has nukes, a lot of religious fanatics and a highly corrupt government with a past history of nuclear proliferation.
The most likely scenario for Al Queda to get nukes is during the chaos of a coup or revolution in Pakistan. As part of the war in Afghanistan we are now bombing camps in Pakistan. In the US the reporters are calling these camps training camps for Al Queda and the Taliban, but in Pakistan the newspapers are reporting all of the civilian deaths from these bombing missions.
A claim of promising to defend the Pakistani people from US imperialism is about all one would need to justify a coup in Pakistan by senior member of the military. The coup doesn't need to succeed for the terrorists groups to take hold of the nukes. If there is one group that I do think Al Queda probably has throughly infiltrated its the military of Pakistan.
Not to fight fire with gasoline, but there is a great power that will not tolerate either a failed state or an islamic extremist in power in Pakistan.
This state has more than enough military power take over Pakistan and denuclearize it. This country is India. I would communicate to both nations we would look the other way if India felt compelled to do this. How's that for realpolitik.
Not to fight fire with gasoline, but there is a great power that will not tolerate either a failed state or an islamic extremist in power in Pakistan.
This state has more than enough military power take over Pakistan and denuclearize it. This country is India. I would communicate to both nations we would look the other way if India felt compelled to do this. How's that for realpolitik.
India has nukes, but its not exactly a great power. The Indian military isn't really set up to fight offensive wars. It lacks the type of resources to both get troops to foreign lands and the ability to supply them when they get there. This is why it got bogged down in all of its past wars with Pakistan and why it lost when it fought the Chinese. Moreover the central government in India is like the EU in Europe, its really weak. So when it comes time to prosecuting a war, it is easy for the governing coalition to fall apart.
Since the 70's the Tamil Tigers have been fighting a civil war in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is basically a failed state adjacent to India. If India can't fix that, than they are unlikely to have much impact on Pakistan a much bigger country with a lot more people and a lot more area to secure.
The Soviets tried and failed in adding it to their sphere of influence. The USSR put a lot more troops in Afganistan and inflicted much more violence against this people. However, they ultimately failed and this failure also contibuted to the destruction of the Soviet state. As Americans do we want risk the same fate as the USSR?
What you're overlooking is the the Afghanis were aided by the U.S. particularly the Stinger missile system:
Quote:
LEAD: Afghan guerrillas have been destroying Soviet and Afghan aircraft at the rate of more than one a day since the insurgents started using Stinger missiles supplied by the United States, according to State Department assessments and intelligence reports.
This by itself may have led to the soviet pull out although that can be debated, it most certainly put the final nail in the coffin so to speak as the Soviets could no longer rely on air support after that. They don't have this advantage today at least to the extent they had it back then and the U.S. capabilities are quite extensive to say the least at the present time.
Getting back to you topic the U.S. most certainly should stay. When the Soviets left in 1989 so did the U.S. and the rest of the world. This led to the rise of the Taliban controlling Afghanistan and ultimately the events that occurred on 9/11.
As I said on another thread. Why, considering that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens, are we in Afghanistan anyway?
The only reason I can figure is a petroleun pipeline route fronm the Caspian Basin to anywhere that is not Russia is involved.
Because in case you did not notice, and I gather you did not, the Taliban had given Al Qaeda free run of the place. Specifically, they were allowed unfettered access to set up training camps and use the place as a safe haven.
Somehow, I do not see how our energy needs would be served by building a pipeline through a barren nation that has been at war for the past 40 years. Its certainly not worth a war, so was the Al Qaeda infrastructure a vast prop built by Bush to justify action? With all the money spent, you could have built 10 pipelines and routed them via the Moon.
Funny how nobody ever asks where the majority of Afghans are in all of this. What do they want? What vision do they have for their nation? Do they even want a nation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
