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.
We keep trying to tell these people what they can and can't do on their own land.
Afghanistans number one crop and export is Opium.
Could you imagine what we'd do if someone invaded the United States, and told us we could no longer grow corn?
We need to stay and finish this job. We had good reason for being there, an insurgent group supported by the government of a foreign country attacked us. We overturned the government, and are trying to annihilate the insurgent group.
The Taliban banned Opium to, but what better way of allowing the people of Afghanistan to do what they want, and get one up on the Taliban by allowing them to grow opium if they want to?
I mean, since the war started, the Taliban have been stockpiling opium, for money to fight. They have changed their outlook on opium, maybe we should at this point?
We can't win this war without the support of the Afghan people. Maybe its time that we start letting the Afghan people do as they will, not as we want them to? They hate the Taliban, they don't want them back. However, at this point we aren't much better, which is why they aren't helping us anymore.
Time for a change, so we can win this war, and be out of this place.
The problem was much simpler before 1979. When we had a military ally in Iran, the neighborhood was a little easier to manage. Given that we now occupy Iraq and have paid a dear price to be there, I propose a permanent military base inside Iraq, on the Iranian border and accessible from the Persian Gulf. We could withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part, but still keep our options open at all times. Predator drones and other air assets could be stationed there along with land forces. We gotta station them somewhere. Why not where they can serve as a deterrent?
We need to stay and finish this job. We had good reason for being there, an insurgent group supported by the government of a foreign country attacked us. We overturned the government, and are trying to annihilate the insurgent group.
We can't win this war without the support of the Afghan people. Maybe its time that we start letting the Afghan people do as they will, not as we want them to? They hate the Taliban, they don't want them back. However, at this point we aren't much better, which is why they aren't helping us anymore.
Time for a change, so we can win this war, and be out of this place.
I'm sure that many do hate the Taliban, but they now hate us more. Given a choice between a local tyrant or a foreign invader after the local tyrant has already beaten another foreign invader (Soviets). Much like the North Vietnamese expelled the French before the US entered the scene.
Here is a compelling argument against our current method of dealing with Afghanistan. The parallels with Vietnam are sobering but I think this is due to the underlying policy which our foreign policy is born in.
I'm sure that many do hate the Taliban, but they now hate us more. Given a choice between a local tyrant or a foreign invader after the local tyrant has already beaten another foreign invader (Soviets). Much like the North Vietnamese expelled the French before the US entered the scene.
Here is a compelling argument against our current method of dealing with Afghanistan. The parallels with Vietnam are sobering but I think this is due to the underlying policy which our foreign policy is born in.
I think they view us as a foreign occupier, because we won't let them do what they want on their own land.
US Soldiers are still under orders sometimes to destroy poppy fields. Its obvious that the Afghans want to grow poppy, their government is behind it, their people are behind it.
At one time, the Taliban was against it, but they've changed that view, in order to gain support.
Why can't we let the people of their country run it their way, and all we are there for is stabilization and to secure their borders until which time they can do it themselves?
We were viewed as better than the Taliban, but now we aren't, because we are trying to force our western morality on these people. Lets stop doing that, and maybe they'll change their view of us again.
How would the US like being invaded in the same way ? We'd have the mother of all hissy fits. We have no right to take over other countries, no matter what shade of pink, and all warm and fuzzy the "kinder gentler" (cough) military tries to color it. First we bomb you, then we kiss ya ? horsecrap.
How would the US like being invaded in the same way ? We'd have the mother of all hissy fits. We have no right to take over other countries, no matter what shade of pink, and all warm and fuzzy the "kinder gentler" (cough) military tries to color it. First we bomb you, then we kiss ya ? horsecrap.
Lets say that a Christian group took over control of the United States, forcing their view of morality down our throats, making women a second class person, taking half of your money or more to "expand Christianity" world wide to other countries that didn't hold to their beliefs. Then, that Christian group started bombing other countries to get them to change.
We'd probably be happy that someone would invade us and dethrone such a group. The same was the case when we invaded Afghanistan.
The problem would come in, if the group that invaded us tried to force their morals and choices on us as well. Then at that point, you're no better than the last guys we had are you?
We need to take a different strategy, one that lets the Afghans make their decisions the way they want, and lets us get what we want. A stable government, that doesn't harbor terrorist groups that are a threat to the United States.
How can we admit defeat when we have yet to define victory?
Or at the very least, define the right measure for victory.
Which leads me to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumbo31
We can't win in Afghanistan period. It's too late to change the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. They have an endless supply of people ready to die, we don't.
If the definition is to win the hearts and mind and leave behind a "stable" Afghanistan, then I would tend to agree with you, especially if we are not prepared to double down on both blood and treasure.
Personally, I am of the same view as Biden, the mission before and now should be to destroy and disrupt al Qaeda to that doesn't, in my mind, require winning either the hearts and minds of the Afghans or establishment of a stable government. What it does require is developing and maintaining reliable intelligence assets in Afghanistan which can pin-point al Qaeda elements and facilities in order to destroy them by any means necessary.
If that means a return of the Taliban, so be it, as unfortunate as that will be. But, a free, democratic and "progressive" Afghanistan would be a wonderful thing, it cannot be our primary objective. If by allowing the Taliban and al Qaeda to return brings them out in the open, all the better.
PS - For the most part everyone on this thread, so far, deserves a rep point of a civil and thoughtful conversation.
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.
