Bush had Seven Years to Fuck Up Afghanistan. Obama deserves more than Nine Months to fix it.

[berni_mccoy]

This is not a pro-war stance. It is a moral obligation we have to fix the mess Bush and the GOP created.

Iraq is on its way to becoming a stable nation and it has infrastructure, government and a society. Afghanistan is a group of tribes and the Taliban are waiting for us to leave to reassert themselves. Unlike the situation in Iraq, the world was and remains supportive of our efforts in Afghanistan. What is the goal in Afghanistan? To create a stable government and infrastructure to create a relatively safe place for diplomacy and prevent the reassertion of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Yes, they are waiting. They have taken up in Pakistan and are waiting. They are recruiting and making strikes on our troops there in Afghanistan. Bush allowed them to escape to Pakistan. Rightly so, Obama has no qualms about making military strikes on Al Qaeda in Pakistan. He said so before the election. He remains strong on that stance now and has followed through on it during his time as President. And Pakistan does not seem to be against such strikes. Al Qaeda is a problem for Pakistan as well.

Don't expect Obama to pull out of Afghanistan despite the political damage it will cause him from the liberal base. Anyone who voted for Obama, did so knowing that he would focus on Afghanistan and continue the war against Al Qaeda. If you expected otherwise, you were not listening to him during the election.

And yes, it will cost billions, perhaps trillions and we will be there for many years. Am I happy with this? No. And I don't think Obama likes doing it either. Bush had a chance to end this but he allowed it to continue and I think the reasons are obvious. What I do expect from Obama is to end it as it should have ended. But I expect him to use whatever means necessary to bring an end to it. That does not necessarily mean abandoning Afghanistan. That will not end it. Given the situation in Afghanistan, that will only allow it to continue.

[redqueen]

1. Thank you for making your points here

without posting a bunch of OPs with just three or four sentences each. Thanks for compiling it all into an OP with some substance.

:yourock:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The newest bit of propaganda is that there are only a handful of

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, however, if we were to ever leave they would be right back there training to kill you & I.

This kind of blackmail shit is unsustainable, however, Obama seems to be entertaining it.

[tekisui]

3. Good luck with that. The Taliban can out wait us.(no matter how long)

I also find it laughable that you use Iraq as an example of "becoming a stable nation".

There is no end to the war in Afghanistan, there is only us leaving. It seems that the end date will have to be decided by another(hopefully the next) President.

[AllentownJake]

12. As soon as we leave Iraq

They are going to start shooting at each other again. The only stabilizing force in Iraq is the money we are paying tribal leaders not to shoot at each other and us.

[tekisui]

14. They aren;t even waiting for us to leave.

They are still blowing each other up regularly.

[gkhouston]

4. I have yet to see any argument that pouring more people down this rathole *will* fix it.

Baldly stating that we have no choice without explaining why we have no choice doesn't convince me we truly have no choice. It makes me wonder if the other choices are unattractive but probably not impossible and the other choices aren't being presented because the decision being made is not easily defensible.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. 4 + 4 does not equal 9

He only had 7 years 4 months by my account to have his way with Afganistan.

[tekisui]

6. Bush did not have 9 years. He had 7.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Fine, corrected.

[AllentownJake]

7. We don't have trillions of dollars to spend on this

Afghanistan was a giant mess when we arrived, it will be a giant mess when we leave. This isn't like Iraq where we blew up a whole lot of infrastructure and destroyed a centralized controlling power (no matter how malevolent it was a central power is better than anarchy.)

Unless we are willing to send 500,000 troops and forcefully disarm the entire population to prop up a central government than this is a waste of blood and treasure.

Don't even try to give me this Japan and Germany shit. Japan and Germany had an organized government. They were civilized before we were forced to bomb the shit out of them. There was a social structure that both countries had evolved over centuries to build off.

Afghanistan has none of that. It is a tribal country which has had numerous failures over the 20th century in centralized government. If the Afghan people can't organize a central government on their own, what makes you think a foreign power can impose one on them?

[Sanity Claws]

8. Nine? Isn't it seven?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Oh, yes. Falling Dominoes again and the Taliban invading Atlantic City.

Obama, and the Pentagon, are playing CYA to avoid the bad PR of another lost war.

[AllentownJake]

25. Atlantic City could use the business

The NY and PA business is all going to the new Casinos built in those states.

[JonLP24]

11. Infrastructure? How much could they have really improved in two years?

I was there in Iraq in 2007 and it was in very bad shape. Man-holes(Think of a pot-hole but bigger) every where, uneven roads, guard rails mangled and bent like a curly fry. Aside from that Iraq has always had infrastructure, it's the war that damaged most of it and I can't imagine anything being seriously improved since I was there and considering there is still a war going on. As far as a society, not sure what you mean as there was always a society in Iraq.

[kentuck]

13. That is a very valid point.

Bush dumped a ton of shit in the middle of the floor and some people want Obama to clean it up in 5 minutes.

[tekisui]

15. So how long do we have to wait to see results?

Or even a change in strategy?

I don't think that the Afghanistan surges are helping in any way to correct the bush failures.

[AllentownJake]

24. When our Treasury is empty and the people are in the streets

over the bad economy and the wars. Than we can declare Mission Accomplished.

Just like we can declare mission accomplished that the stock market is rising due to the deflated dollar and TARP money banks pumped into the market.

As long as things have an appearance of improvement (fuck whether they fundamentally are below the surface) everything is ok, remember a lot of these guys did some stints in the management of corporate Amerika.

[dflprincess]

39. Our treasury is empty

strange how this doesn't have to be "deficit neurtral" but health care does. I suppose it all depends on who is making money off the deal.

We will leave Afghanistan when it ceases to be profitable for the war profiteers.

[AllentownJake]

41. People are still lending us money

When that starts to fade, than we'll stop the war.

[kentuck]

26. And what would be your solution?

It's easy to say "withdraw the troops immediately". But are there real threats in that area that need our attention? Even if most of them were created by Bush and Cheney, it is not so easy to clean up, in my opinion. However, I don't know that our presence is going to help any at all?

[tekisui]

29. I liked Biden's plan.

Since it is all but impossible to even debate a full withdrawal, he suggested drawing down. Reducing our presence and footprint would lessen our people being a target. Use air strikes for AQ leadership(although I am not crazy about that). Forget about the Taliban. Seriously, they fight us because we are there.

[AllentownJake]

30. How do you liberate a society

with a literacy rate of 28%. The reason the Taliban is in charge over there is those are the only type of people that can rule such a society. The only thing an illiterate society can understand is religious leaders and force. This would be like trying to impose democracy on 13th century England. As noble as an endeavor as it might be, an illiterate society cannot have democracy.

Just like in Iraq, Saddam Hussien is the only type of government that can achieve in successfully keeping 3 concentrated tribal ethnic groups from going after each other. Tito was an asshole, but as soon as Tito was gone from Yugoslavia you see the results, same thing in Iraq.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Using airstrikes is the WORST thing we can do.

No matter how good our intel is, when you use jet aircraft against population centers you WILL kill innocents, and that WILL increase support for the opposition. That's what makes a troop increase necessary to continue the hunt for Al Queda, despite the increased risk to our troops. The guys on the ground are far less likely to take out anybody who isn't actually an enemy. When's the last time you heard about a squad of Marines shooting up a wedding party or a funeral?

Reading your posts, I don't think you have any idea WHY we are there in the first place. It only makes sense, if you don't understand why we are there that the obvious solution is to just leave. Your attitude is identical to Bush's - conflating the conflict in Afghanistan with Iraq, and ignoring the fact that they are two extremely different conflicts, with different antecedents and different solutions. Essential to understanding the differences is the fundamental difference that Iraq never attacked us, and was never a threat to us, while forces in Afghanistan were not only a threat but an active danger, i.e. the embassy bombings, the Cole, and (of course) 9/11.

Perhaps you don't remember, six years back, but when we went into Afghanistan the people there WERE glad to see us oust the Taliban. We had an opportunity then to eliminate Al Queda and to break forever the Taliban, but Bush fucked that up. Putting another 20-40 thousand troops into Afghanistan is NOT continuing Bush's failed war - it is addressing the problem as it should have been done from the beginning, and the jury is still out as to whether it is too late to get it right. But if the extra troops can keep the Taliban quiescent while concentrating on rooting Al Queda out of the border mountains as Pakistan continues to push from their side of the border, the end game will be the elimination of Al Queda - what should have been our goal from the beginning.

And THAT is what victory in Afghanistan will look like.

[AllentownJake]

44. Horse Shit

Just like in Iraq, the population was relieved to see the Taliban go away, until they met us.

The only success we have had has been around Kabul. Afghanistan is worse than Iraq because it is a series of villages with their own elders who make their own decisions based on what the elders think are good for the village.

You can't fight terrorism with troops. Better border security, Anti-Money Laundering regulations, and intelligence will do more to fight terrorism than 40,000 troops walking around Afghanistan creating more terrorist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Have you not been paying attention?

Do you think the people really WANT their schools bombed? Their wives and daughters sprayed with battery acid?

The population was relieved to see the Taliban go away until our jets started bombing their wedding parties and funerals. Troops on the ground DON'T make those mistakes. If we'd had 40,000 there from the beginning, this would have been over 4 years ago. Instead, Bush put 12,000 troops in country, supported by fucking B52s, and hired mercenary tribesmen to be the foot soldiers. Know what? Any soldier that can be bought, can also be bought by the OTHER side.

Counter-insurgency IS possible and it can ONLY be done with troops - troops who understand what they are there for, who the enemy is, and what their goals are. Counter-insurgency is, by its nature, manpower intensive because the insurgents only have to be in one place, at their own choosing, while counter-insurgent troops have to be everywhere the insurgents MIGHT be.

You want to build a wall around America, because of the threat of a few thousand radicals in Afghanistan. Isn't it better to deal with the terrorists where they are? Our borders will NEVER be secure enough. Intelligence will ALWAYS be lacking. But we know where Al Queda is. You want us to just leave them there, waiting for the next time they hit us?

[AllentownJake]

47. 19 guys with box cutters

trained to fly planes in the United States. We are going to prevent that with troops in Afghanistan. Sorry, I don't buy it.

We will always, always have terrorism. Whether it is domestic or international. We have always had terrorism. There is not a time in the history of the world that Terrorism has not existed.

The Zealots in Roman time were terrorist, the revolutionaries in America were largely terrorist, the french revolutionary were terrorist, John Wilkes Booth was a terrorist, the anarchist that kill President Garfield was a terrorist the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand was an act of Terrorism, the group of Puerto Rican nationalist who shot up the US Capital was a group of terrorist, Oklahoma city was an act of terrorism. The guy in Texas who climbed the clock tower was an act of terrorism. The DC sniper was an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the price of living in a society. There will always be those who have become disillusioned with society and attack it or those who have a different political viewpoint than the majority and turn to violence.

Continual presence in the middle east will result in Terrorism. It is a cost of doing business there. It is a cost of propping up the governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Terrorism is the cost of empire.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Calm down and THINK about it.

Yes, the so-called 'war on terrorism' is a phony war. OTOH, the hunting down of Bin Laden and Al Queda is very real. Those 19 guys with box cutters did not just materialize on the planes. They were trained in Bin Laden's camps. They were funded from those camps. They had hundreds of allies in those camps.

We should ignore the camps?

If we KNEW that John Wilkes Booth was out to shoot Lincoln, should we have just stood back and waited for it to happen, hoping to intercept him at the stage door?

We KNOW where Al Queda is hiding. It isn't some vague 'war on terror'. It is a specific war against specific terrorists.

Personally, I think we should have dropped the 82nd into those camps as soon as we knew it was Bin Laden who did 9/11. Nobody in the world would have objected - possibly not even the Taliban, who didn't want to get caught up in US retaliation. We should have hit them before they decentralized. But just because they are no longer based in camps, that doesn't mean they no longer exist.

What we should do, and what I believe Obama in doing, is narrow the focus back onto Al Queda - not fight a 'war on terror', but regain the initiative against specific known terrorist groups that are an ongoing threat. This is NOT continuing Bush's failed strategy (if it could be called that). It is exactly the new approach that Obama said he wanted to see. We need to allow him some time to see if it works.

[AllentownJake]

50. Not like I have a choice

I think the entire idea is lunacy, to be sending more troops into a country, where Al Qaeda has largely evacuated for the Northern Region of Pakistan. Also at this time, we have to make an assessment of what is more effective in fighting terrorism. I believe we have more success in our intelligence networks and our anti-money laundering enforcement than we do with sending armies to try to find a few guys in a hostile environment.

Lastly I look at this as mistakes I've made in my own life. Sometimes you fuck something up so bad, that trying to go back and fix it is impossible.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. True, but consider this -

have you ever tried to squeeze water? All it does is run through the cracks, through the fingers, and escape.

Al Queda has pretty much evacuated into Pakistan. We were pretty unfocused for most of the past 7 years, but we did apply enough pressure to force them out.

Now, Pakistan is mounting operations in the tribal regions, and Al Queda is getting pressured again. Where can they go? If we leave Afghanistan, they just move right back across the border.

With our troops there, instead of questionable tribal mercenaries, watching the passes we can get them as they come in, or they can stay where they are and be crushed by Pakistan. Instead of trying to catch water with our hands, we would be the sponge that gets them as they are pushed across the border. It calls for a new strategy, new tactics, a new political paradigm where we marginalize the Taliban without bringing them into the fight, so that AQ has no local allies. Bush took the whole country and called everybody not employed by Exxon 'the enemy'. Instead of pushing factions together to band against us, we need to separate them, and destroy the one REAL enemy we have - Al Queda.

Remember, we are not fighting 'terrorism' - that was Bush's schtick. We are fighting a few, specific terrorists. An easily defined, manageable goal. AQ is the enemy.

[Winterblues]

16. And we accomplish that by bombing remote villages in Pakistan...How?

Building up Afghanistan's infrastructure, yes. Aiding the development of their police force and military, yes. Offering to help protect the Oil Pipeline that runs through Afghanistan, yes. Attacking villages in Pakistan and creating more enemies than friends in the area, NO... Not in the best interest of America..IMO.

[Luminous Animal]

19. TAPI can spend the money to protect its own fucking pipeline.

[AllentownJake]

22. Amen!

[iceman66]

17. Amen to that!

Obama is at least going to make an honest attept to "fix the mess" before pulling out, and I don't see why anyone should reasonably expect otherwise.

[AllentownJake]

23. because I don't like my fellow citizens dying to attempt to clean up

a mess that has existed since 1980? :shrug:

[iceman66]

38. But Bush messed things up worse

and we have at least some obligation to try and fix that.

[AllentownJake]

42. Afghanistan was under the complete rule of the Taliban

in 2001. Please tell me how we are leaving them in a worse shape now?

Let me make it clear, an illiterate, religious fundamental people, get illiterate religious fundamentalist leaders.

This is like trying to bring democracy to 13th century England.

Unless you have a plan to somehow make all the Afghans literate and more moderate Muslims, I really don't see how anytime we spend there will result in any Afghan government changing.

[iceman66]

45. Stability should be the goal, not democracy.

And, let's face it, there are probably a lot more actual terrorists over there now, as a RESULT of Bush's meddling, than there were in 2001.

That is a problem that needs to be dealt with and the solution cannot be entirely military. I think Obama gets that.

[ixion]

18. a military 'surge' is not 'fixing'

it's making a bad situation worse.

[berni_mccoy]

20. It wasn't a surge. It was a troop increase the Military has been needing for a very long time

Bush denied any sort of troop increase because he wanted Afghanistan to go to shit.

Obama is approving requests from the Generals to increase troops because the troops there are way too overextended.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

27. So without personal insults

Can you explain to me how 40,000 troops can bring order to a country with rough terrain and no recent history of a centralized government without totally disarming the entire population?

The Afghans outlasted the Soviet Union, I'm pretty sure they can outlast us.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Um, you were the one shouting chickenhawk.

[AllentownJake]

37. I'll respectfully apologize

Now, do you have an answer for my question on how we bring order to an illiterate society with tons of weapons, no recent history of centralized government, a religious fundamentalist background (even the "moderates" are fundamentalist), extremely rough terrain, lack of infrastructure, tribal history and alliances, oh shit I could go on all day in how they were broken before we got there.

What exactly are we fixing?

[cliffordu]

28. Yep. This ought to be given a sticky.

I cannot stand the idiots wanting to simply give up and walk away....

It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

[timtom]

31. Fix it, you say?

Hmmmmm....

[earth mom]

32. Terra Terra Terra. Fear Fear Fear. Al Qaeda is made up bullshit. QUIT the propaganda!

911 was MIHOP/ LIHOP as an excuse for ENDLESS WAR in the Middle East.

And Obama is carrying on the tradition.

Wake up.

[Orsino]

33. Please note the clearly marked exits, in case of emergency.

Such as an unwinnable war.

[tekisui]

35. How long, then, until we are justified in asking why and when will it end?

One year? Two years? One term? Two terms? I don't think Obama has the will to end it during his Administration.

[dflprincess]

40. Not until a Republican is back in the White House (God forbid)

until then it will not be the Democrats' responsibility or, at least, not Obama's. :sarcasm:

[pansypoo53219]

36. DAMN STRAIGHT.

georgee didn't just fuck up iWaq, he made the afghanistan situation worse. and he let osama go. oedipal ass.

[Thickasabrick]

49. Afghanistan has always been fucked up....ask the Russians nt

[berni_mccoy]

52. Russia didn't have the support of the rest of the world when they invaded.

[TexasObserver]

53. Even in Vietnam, we knew it was time to cut our losses after 8 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed in 1964, and we didn't really have a build up and start serious fighting until 1965. Seven years later, we still had Nixon promising us peace was just around the corner.

The US losses in Vietnam after 1972 were small, under 1000 troops lost from 1973-75.

Even in Vietnam, we displayed more sense than the strategy of staying in Afghanistan longer. There is NO reason to believe next year or the next will have any different outcome.

It's a dumb war, and it's virtually pointless.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. There is a slight difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan -

500,000 casualties with 52,000 dead compared to 20,000 casualties with 800 dead.

What's pointless is walking away, leaving Al Queda to regroup, re-establish itself with the propaganda coup of "we drove the Americans out", and then hit us again.

Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans. I want his fucking head on a pole.

[spanone]

54. 'suddently' the media is soooo concerned...24/7

[frylock]

55. you're right. we should give obama a full eight years to fuck things up..

even more.