It’s Time To Leave Afghanistan

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Why did they pour in a bunch of troops after the fact and change the model that worked so well?

Because we aren't many and don't own battlespace. The rolling stone gathers no moss, but guess what? We planted roots and extended our stay, which needs extraneous forces for security in their own right.

What will Victory look like here? I'm not sure but it better come with a welfare check......I'll reserve the rest of my comments, but I can tell that most of you have higher expectations than what the afghan people have to offer or are willing to provide. My $.02........

[JJ_BPK]

I am not a quotable historian, but I have a couple observations about types of war.

In simple words I see two distinct types of people that START wars,

1. A war by a singular state that has all the needs to support it's vision. Be it religious or political based. The entity that starts the war THINKS it can do it alone. These types include WW II's Japan & Germany, France's Napoleon, Rome's Julie Caesar, Spain's Franco, and of course US's George Washington.. They all had the support of the people AND the financial backing of the rich.
   
   
   
2. The wars started by street organizers that don't have shiite in their pockets, don't have a large base, don't have the countries financial backing. Examples are Cuba's Castro, Ho Chi Min, Che, Gandhi, Moses, & William Wallace of Scotland. These war lords are true street organizers. They "talk good", lead well, are valiant warriors, have commanding presence,, BUT they don't have money. They occupy lands and get local support,, UNTIL they consume all the local resources or are pushed out by another short term "leader" . Some, like Ho Chi Min, Gandhi, & Castro actually go on to create nations. Most are like William Wallace, they are winners for a short period, they lose support, and fail miserably. There are some of the type II's that truly make history, but the majority are forgotten in 5 years as almost rans & coulda wons.

Of the two types, the Middle East has a disproportionate amount of the latter.

The problem with the type II's is the other side never really wins either. Look at France in Africa & Vietnam, England in India, The Germans in South Africa, and the US & UN & NATO in Eastern Europe, when the Soviet Union dissolved.

Where am I going,, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are type II wars. Small time losers trying to be big shots.

In 30 years nobody will remember their names, but they will remember the impact on thousands on lives.

My vote would be to step back, let the losers lose, and strengthen the US from our shores.

I am not an isolationist, just a realist that feels this area of the World is not worth the blood we are shedding.

My $00.0002

[nmap]

Brush Okie's question triggered my own question - why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S. I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by nmap

I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error.

I love it when you post silly stuff like this. Ignorance is definatly NOT your long suit.

Originally Posted by nmap

Brush Okie's question triggered my own question - why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S. I recognize, of course, that I may merely have displayed my ignorance - but I always appreciate corrections when my understanding is in error.

Ahh yes where do the Afghans stand on the war against the Taliban? Well, for one thing, the Afghans aren't waging a war against the Taliban. The Americans are at war with the Taliban. For years Karzi has been calling the Taliban "Afghans" and going to great length to distinguish them from foreign (unwelcome) fighters. We have refused to listen or take Karzi seriously as a partner or as the leader of the Afghans.
BTW, don't think for one second that the American Liberator/Invaders are not Ferengi -- Don't forget the pattern:
The Soviets were the solution to a weak monarchy
The Mujahadeen and the War Lords were the solution for the Soviets brutality
The Taliban were the solution to the excesses of the War Lords
The US invaders were the solution for the excesses of the Taliban and a good way to get rid of the foreign Muj who had overstayed their welcome
What is the solution to us?

[Richard]

FWIW - people tend to better grasp the tenuousness of the situation there when I use the analogy of a police officer responding to a domesitc disturbance call at a low-income housing complex late at night after the PD has already made a number of recent drug raids there.

And so it goes...

Richard

[akv]

Originally Posted by Nmap

why should the Afghans, whether their army or their civilians, fight this war? As long as we pay them (welfare, in other words) then I suppose their paycheck is a reason. But I don't perceive them as being fundamentally opposed to the Taliban in terms of beliefs, morals, or ethics. In fact, they seem more likely to be natural allies of the Taliban and natural enemies of the U.S.

Nmap,

Afghanistan while her own culture and never an industrialized secular state wasn't nearly as oppressive before the Taliban took over and forced the country to march back in time and adhere to their fundamentalist take on Islam. A great number of them while Muslim aren't even Afghans, yet there is a hierarchy where Afghans are looked down upon in their own land. Until someone comes along and overthrows them the Afghans have to keep quiet and endure to survive. IMHO its more granular than well they are all Muslims right.

For example, most Americans are Christians, on the whole my experience with religious folks is they tend to be good people with strong beliefs and moral values. At the same time there are sects of Christians who reject modern medicine for their sick children, or prove faith by dancing draped in poisonous snakes in Appalachia. Hey, more power to them, but if they took over the country had overwhelming weaponry behind them and mandated we all live by these rules how would that go over? I'd guess the majority of their fellow Christians here wouldn't want any of this.

If you look up the horrible changes to freedom, commerce, education, and particularly the lives of women these Taliban brought to Afghanistan in 1996, one could see why the people wouldn't support them once they felt secure. Why should we care, not because we are crusaders, simply because we can't allow this place to ever again be a haven for attacks on America.

Finally folks argue well if the Afghans really feel this way why don't they revolt? The best answer I have came from A J Gregor, a crusty old poli sci professor in college who lectured after there were protests about some neo nazi group allowed to speak on campus.

"People think it's brave to march and protest against Nazis these days, how many of these same people you see out there would be out protesting Nazis if we were in Berlin in 1942?"

[fng13]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

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.

Best question of this thread.

The lack of what victory looks like is IMHO why this war is "unwinnable." I think the war is necessary to protect us, but as far as "winning" in afghanistan it seems unlikely. Terrorists are not constrained by borders, to me afghanistan is just the current field/stadium, if "winning" means pushing terrorists out of Afghanistan they will just find an away field.

My war strategy for defeating Islam.

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions, I-pods, those $100 laptops, and bottles of Jack D and start air dropping them in.

Seems like a cheaper way (fiscally and in terms of human loss) to show them that there are better things in life then killing for allah.

[Richard]

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions...

It's already in the works...

Richard

[ZonieDiver]

My war strategy for defeating Islam.

Buy 1 Billion Playboy Subscriptions, I-pods, those $100 laptops, and bottles of Jack D and start air dropping them in.

During an "OpFor" course in 1980, that was my actual strategy for stopping the "Russkies" if they came screaming across the borders in Europe. I included Playboy Bunnies, lots of "Big Macs", and more than a few Corvettes.

It seemed as good as some of the other scenarios, and a bit more likely to at least slow them down.

(The course was taught by a captain who had been recently promoted to 0-4 and told us he was what we all prayed for. His last name was Warr. Har har!)

[nmap]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

During an "OpFor" course in 1980, that was my actual strategy for stopping the "Russkies" if they came screaming across the borders in Europe. I included Playboy Bunnies, lots of "Big Macs", and more than a few Corvettes.

You know....a simplified version might be the answer.

Supply free food. Nobody can resist free food, especially if it tastes good, right? So the Afghans get it. Morning, noon, night - even midnight. Great burgers and fries, chocolate malts, chicken fried steaks with mashed potatoes and gravy, pies, cakes, sweets of every sort...breakfast tacos...donuts....ice cream...fried chicken and potato salad...all they can eat and more!

Now, notice that none of this is expensive. None of it violates their religious code. They can eat to their heart's content.

We make them fat. Fat as blimps. Fat as a Christmas goose. Fat as hogs. So fat they can hardly waddle down the street. (Evil Grin!) They won't have the energy to do terrorism.

Then we hit them with couches and television...and finish them off with video games... (Evil Grin!)

By the way, I attached an evil grin smiley...just in case....

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by nmap

Supply free food.

Then we hit them with couches and television...and finish them off with video games...

No can do.
McCrystal closed all the BK's, Taco Bells and Green Bean coffee shops before he left

U funnie

[Penn]

What is often misunderstood about Afghanistan and Pakistan is their international border. The border that separate the two countries does not exist; one was created, it is known as the “Durand Line” , but the treaty was never ratified by the Khan, nor accepted by the largest, 50 million strong ethnic group, the Pashtuns.

The treaty created by the British in 1893 establishing the border, split the Pashtuns, with half in Afghanistan and half in Pakistan.

Opening the attached link will evidence this fact. Further, Hamid Karzai the duly elected President of Afghanistan is a Pashtun of the Popalzai clan, important because it royal; which is why he said that Afghanistan and Pakistan could never be separated, but were in fact cousins.

The Taliban are mostly Pashtuns.

The northern alliance which we initially supported was not Pashtuns, but a confederation of other tribes, who could only match the political power of the Pashtun, by join forces.

However, once Karzai was installed, I mean elected, the association with the other marginal tribes became a question of political value.

Pakistani ISI is Pashtuns dominated.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CC4Q9QEwBg

Spelling error corrected

[Richard]

What is often misunderstood about Afghanistan and Pakistan is their international boarder.

And that's why I'll never rent out any of my spare rooms to anyone who doesn't have a US Passport.

Richard

[Penn]

Very funny, I LOL, but in all seriousness that is the essence of this troubled region.


The Penn brain is no longer in elementary disorder,
having addressed its broader borders,
that puzzling inherent boarder ,
his attention deficit disorder.

[Richard]

Very funny, I LOL, but in all seriousness that is the essence of this troubled region.

In all seriousness, I think that is a major problem in many regions of the world - artificially created national borders which hinder the natural and historical migratory flow of large groups of peoples with a collective ethnic identity and contrive to replace their existant historical identity with an artificially contrived national identity.

In the interim - "Prepare to repel boarders!"

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02