It’s Time To Leave Afghanistan

[Richard]

Political view from New Hampshire.

It’s Time To Leave Afghanistan
Bob Bestani, NHBR, 28 Jul 2010

Bob Bestani is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 1st Congressional District, and a businessman who helped start two businesses in Afghanistan.

BLUF - Our security can be much better defended by securing our borders and investing our money in our intelligence capabilities.

http://www.nhbr.com/businessnews/opi...ghanistan.html

And so it goes...

Richard

[akv]

My .02,

Mr. Bestani's article was food for thought but I disagree with his opinions. I'm sure there are parallels between our involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, however his Hanoi analogy can be interpreted either way. Berlin and Tokyo are also bustling and vibrant, partially because we were committed and put in the resources to rebuild these countries instilling stability and a chance for prosperity going forward. Hindsight is 20/20 in some ways Vietnam seems less convoluted due simply to IMHO the unique challenges of Afghanistan's mountainous terrain. We chose not to go into North Vietnam and topple Hanoi, what if we had? In contrast, we could take Pakistan over, but the challenge would remain to root AQ out of those dark mountains. Would they find similar cover or refuge in the topography of Yemen, Somalia, etc?

As for the price, we are losing good troops over there, what is the value of preempting further attacks on our shores, possibly nuclear or chemical ones? Their sacrifices should not be in vain, so we need a clear plan, but the cynic in me thinks enhancing our border security is at best seeking a cure for an ailment instead of preventive medicine, but more likely proposing a cyclical solution to a systemic challenge . It is much easier to paint over the holes in a wall than to fix the wall, but what is the utility here besides winning an election? Would enhancing our intelligence capabilities entail developing "illegals" for Afghanistan like the dozen Russians we expelled, or buying more high tech gizmos that can monitor everything but the motivations of the Afghan people?

What if instead we said, America stands with the Afghan people, we will stay as long as it takes to rid the Afghan people of the plague of these foreign insurgents and radicals, to build a secure and prosperous nation and a stable region, which is also aligned with America's best interests.

[Utah Bob]

America has never had a taste for protracted foreign wars.
Folks were even getting tired of WWII's crusade and we were only in it for less than 4 years.
Drawn out wars far from home have been the downfall of many an empire regardless of how noble the reason for them may have been (and it usually wasn't very)..

[nmap]

Whatever the merits of the war...

Whatever the merits of the Afghan people...

We might want to reflect on the implications of a number.

$13,262,365,556,893.52

Your individual share of this is: $42,944.57

That's the current federal debt. It increases by $4,120,000,000 every day.

Can we afford to stay the course? I wonder.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by nmap

Whatever the merits of the war...

Whatever the merits of the Afghan people...

We might want to reflect on the implications of a number.

$13,262,365,556,893.52

Your individual share of this is: $42,944.57

That's the current federal debt. It increases by $4,120,000,000 every day.

Can we afford to stay the course? I wonder.

Peak army?

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

We could afford to stay the course in Afghanistan, what we cannot afford is this multitrillion-dollar healthcare entitlement, the current out-of-control costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and this $800+ billion "stimulus" bill; they could actually have used the stimulus money alone to fund the Afghanistan war for the next seven years.

Granted on most of the above, in that healthcare et al are undoubtedly bloated.

But, to what end are we staying in Afghanistan? What does "victory" look like, and when is a reasonable time that it might be achieved? Oh, by the way, even if we define the above, how do we make it happen?

The "bad guys" will pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Money, which is tight and about to get tighter, would be better spent pre-emptively identifying possible locations and preventing the spread.

Like healthcare, preventive medicine is usually the best path.

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

...But, to what end are we staying in Afghanistan? What does "victory" look like, and when is a reasonable time that it might be achieved?

Unfortunately, it seems that the present fight could go on for a long time. In my opinion, "victory" would be an absence of muslim terrorists attacks on US civillian targets, anywhere in the world. I know of no other way to accomplish this, other than to have forward-deployed troops on muslim soil. A "bug light" effect, so to speak.

Time frame? We have had troops forward-deployed in South Korea for a little over 50 years. In my opinion, the islamo-terrorist problem we are presently fighting is at least as serious, if not more so, than that found on the Korean peninsula.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The thing with Afghanistan as my limited understanding is, is that if the U.S. pulls out, isn't that like putting a piece of raw meat at room temperature and ignoring it, with the terrorists being the maggots?

Can't that make way for another 9/11?

On preventing the spread, how do you mean the U.S. go about doing this?

Sure. But those maggots exist in a target-rich environment.

Look around. Look at Mexico. Look at Africa. Look at Indonesia. For that matter, look at Pakistan. There are lots of areas with fast-growing, young, Islamic populations that are in largely irredeemable poverty.

If we spend ourselves into oblivion, our global influence will decline. We face, then, a hard choice - do we accept an incremental risk increase from terrorists, or do we accept a world much less amenable to our influence?

By the way - yes, of course we have a great many inane programs. Yes, those programs need to be cut. You're right. But those little cuts aren't enough. We may well need to cut everything...yes, every social security check..every Medicare check...every budget...by a third. Even the official numbers out of the CBO would require a 15% across-the-board cut.

See Table 1

Keep in mind, if we continue our present policy, we may well see "Peak Army" as Sten mentioned. So...which is the greater risk? Which has the greater cost for our society?

And ZonieDriver brings out another point. Just what are we buying? Are we really getting improved safety from another 9/11?

[Eagle5US]

Originally Posted by nmap

Whatever the merits of the war...

Whatever the merits of the Afghan people...

We might want to reflect on the implications of a number.

$13,262,365,556,893.52

Your individual share of this is: $42,944.57

That's the current federal debt. It increases by $4,120,000,000 every day.

Can we afford to stay the course? I wonder.

For some odd reason, given the current "government" I feel this number would be damn near close to what is quoted above even if Afghanistan had never happened.

Eagle

[nmap]

Broadsword, those are all nice ideas...it's just they will all, IMO, encounter fierce opposition. Although you and I can discuss the ideal, actual reform is going to involve practical politics - I'm not at all sure that the changes you mention can be made.

Or, perhaps our politicians will become admirable leaders....

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by nmap

Or, perhaps our politicians will become admirable leaders....

The cow being led to slaughter thinks the herdsman is an admirable leader.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The United States won the initial main battle in Vietnam, the Battle of Ia Drang, and Ho Chi Mihn was going to surrender, but because the American media made out as if the battle was a huge loss and public opinion turned against the war, Ho Chi Mihn decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out and he could look like the victor.

Never heard that one before. cite?

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The cow being led to slaughter thinks the herdsman is an admirable leader.

A Frinkin Men!!!!!!

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Regarding Vietnam, wasn't Vietnam a different animal from Afghanistan? I am no expert on the Vietnam War, so correct me anyone if I am wrong on the following, but didn't a lot of the casualties in Vietnam occur because for most of the war, North Vietnam and Cambodia were off-limits to bombing?

I remember having read that a group of generals drew up a list of crucial infrastructure targets in North Vietnam to attack but President Johnson would not allow it.

Also Cambodia had a policy of neutrality which the United States sought to respect, so the U.S. would not attack Cambodia. The Vietcong (or the NVA??) went into Cambodia however and took it over and would attack American soldiers from Cambodia and North Vietnam, then cross back over to rest and resupply, because the U.S. wouldn't attack those areas.

Some crucial Soviet supply lines also ran through Cambodia as well.

It wasn't until President Nixon opened up North Vietnam and Cambodia to bombing, which then ended the war from how it had been going, that this stopped, and Hanoi wanted to talk.

When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, the South didn't fall due to lack of troops, it was because Congress cut the funding to South Vietnam and it then fell to the North.

The United States won the initial main battle in Vietnam, the Battle of Ia Drang, and Ho Chi Mihn was going to surrender, but because the American media made out as if the battle was a huge loss and public opinion turned against the war, Ho Chi Mihn decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out and he could look like the victor.

Had they just bombed North Vietnam and Cambodia from the get-go, couldn't much of the whole thing been prevented?

I have read it said that Vietnam was a one-year war that was stretched out over ten years (U.S. combat troops entering in 1965 and Battle in Ia Drang in 1965, Saigon falling 1975).

Isn't Afghanistan different from this, in that Vietnam saw a lot of troops lost due to not being willing to use the conventional military to attack the enemy, whereas with Afghanistan, the nature of the country is that one can be fully willing to use conventional military, but purely conventional military doesn't work in a country like Afghanistan...

I'm not sure where to begin with this 'Cliff's Notes' version of the war in Viet Nam, so I won't.

I will just say that as a history teacher for many years, I am very disappointed in my field of endeavor.

[Utah Bob]

The United States won the initial main battle in Vietnam, the Battle of Ia Drang, and Ho Chi Mihn was going to surrender, but because the American media made out as if the battle was a huge loss and public opinion turned against the war, Ho Chi Mihn decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out and he could look like the victor.

Huh??