8 Years in Afghanistan...Let's Talk...

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by Maxamillion

The US has been playing us for years, in the news they never fully answer questions, and leave out lots of information to the public, if you ask me it's all about the oil in that region of the world, that we cannot afford to lose

BINGO

Google...

Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline

 

[senatorjeffsmith]

To compound matters we're still caught in the military industrial complex (figure below). Much of this is do to our forces being equipped to attack a largescale threat (a la old Soviet Union) rather than smaller nation states, many of which have headless terrorist groups.

 

[los yankees]

Both wars have been terribly mishandled and too politicized.

 

[sneakerfan93]

I don't understand either. It's just a big mess from the start and now it's gotten worst

 

[pololax]

The thing that really scares me about the War on Afghanistan is there is no end in sight. In that case, who knows what further conflicts arise, and like othershave mentioned, the United States has far too much pride to pick up and leave when trillions have been invested.

Many might say well Vietnam didn't really have an ending strategy either, but I see it as the times being extremely different. I think the United Stateshas many more issues on it's plate today then it did 30 something years ago, and to me this is extremely scary. The U.S is trying to pass health carereform, trying to fix our economic crisis, trying to fight a war in Iraq, trying to tackle everyday problems here in America such as education, unemploymentand shabby infastructure. I just don't see how expanding on a mission that has backfired over 8 years will do us good. It really, really makes me think.Think about it, the U.S. will not win this war. At the end of the day, no matter what, it's going to go down as a failure.

I learned that in order to start a conflict, you must have a well thought of plan.
1.) Clear Mission.
2.) Proper backing of that Mission, including Resources.
3.) Exit Strategy.

In my mind, the United States never cleary had any of those, and now we are suffering from it.

 

[sorkoram]

America has a reputation of finishing jobs and service men and women pride themselves on this. There's no telling how or when we will finish this campaign,but we can't just pull out of the area because of the time spent within the hotzone. (no pun) To be honest, I really don't see a way of"winning". (I've done a tour)

Make no mistake, things could have been run a lot more smooth in Afghanistan these past years, as far as strategic planning and tasks at hand, but it will takequite some time before we get things under control there. Increasing the number of troops would relieve a large portion who have extended and done more than 1or 2 tours. It's a really complicated situation(politics/actual concerns), but to clarify, we have been over there for far longer than 8 years.

For the argument above concerning our industrial military complex, it will continue to be that way as long as we are a world power.

 

[ca5perrr]

alot of good stuff being said in this thread, and the facts have been pointed out,

Originally Posted by Mojodmonky1


To answer your question OP.

You cant go drop a deuce in someone's house and then leave without flushing so to speak. In very general terms, the US didnt fully understand what it was getting itself into when it decided to invade Afghanistan. Especially now that they are fighting 2 wars and resources are being spread thin, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take control and finish this war. If the US were to pull back all their troops now and leave the country, it wouldn't be any better than when we first invaded, the US would lose face in the international community for losing, and the gov't would have spent countless billions with little to show for it. At this point they are already committed so they might as well finish the deed and hope for the best.

^^^i really agree with this, and thats the problem the US has, they never know how much really has to be done,

i been to afghanistan, was there for 7 month, and got to see the problem with my own eyes,
The US can keep tryign adnt rying but some things like culture and religion can't be changed over night,
alot of good is being done, alot of reconstructions and stuff like schools are being built,
the US has helped out the country alot, i just dont hear about it in the news (of couse)

 

[senatorjeffsmith]

Originally Posted by PoloLax

The thing that really scares me about the War on Afghanistan is there is no end in sight. In that case, who knows what further conflicts arise, and like others have mentioned, the United States has far too much pride to pick up and leave when trillions have been invested.

Many might say well Vietnam didn't really have an ending strategy either, but I see it as the times being extremely different. I think the United States has many more issues on it's plate today then it did 30 something years ago, and to me this is extremely scary. The U.S is trying to pass health care reform, trying to fix our economic crisis, trying to fight a war in Iraq, trying to tackle everyday problems here in America such as education, unemployment and shabby infastructure. I just don't see how expanding on a mission that has backfired over 8 years will do us good. It really, really makes me think. Think about it, the U.S. will not win this war. At the end of the day, no matter what, it's going to go down as a failure.

I learned that in order to start a conflict, you must have a well thought of plan.
1.) Clear Mission.
2.) Proper backing of that Mission, including Resources.
3.) Exit Strategy.

In my mind, the United States never cleary had any of those, and now we are suffering from it.

Just like Vietnam...

 

[los yankees]

I don't think its about oil. If it is, then where is it? Why isn't it in my car?

If I'm not mistaken a Chinese based bank owns that pipeline.

 

[pololax]

Originally Posted by ca5perrr

alot of good stuff being said in this thread, and the facts have been pointed out,

Originally Posted by Mojodmonky1


To answer your question OP.

You cant go drop a deuce in someone's house and then leave without flushing so to speak. In very general terms, the US didnt fully understand what it was getting itself into when it decided to invade Afghanistan. Especially now that they are fighting 2 wars and resources are being spread thin, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take control and finish this war. If the US were to pull back all their troops now and leave the country, it wouldn't be any better than when we first invaded, the US would lose face in the international community for losing, and the gov't would have spent countless billions with little to show for it. At this point they are already committed so they might as well finish the deed and hope for the best.

^^^i really agree with this, and thats the problem the US has, they never know how much really has to be done,

i been to afghanistan, was there for 7 month, and got to see the problem with my own eyes,
The US can keep tryign adnt rying but some things like culture and religion can't be changed over night,
alot of good is being done, alot of reconstructions and stuff like schools are being built,
the US has helped out the country alot, i just dont hear about it in the news (of couse)

Can you elaborate more on the reconstruction efforts? I know they are occuring, but like you said we don't here of it that much.

A question I have that maybe you can answer is, what purpose do new schools, roads, medical buildings etc. serve if the country is still in shambles withviolence after violence, corrupt government, basic essentials being limited to only a few individuals, etc?

 

[b smooth 202]

It's bigger then the US vs Afghanistan. It's the old Holy War. Crusades. History didn't go anywhere.

 

[callhimar]

A great book on the subject of both Iraq and Afghanistan from a first hand point of view is The Forever War by Dexter Filkins. He tells of his experiences inboth countries. The section on Afghanistan is quite small but explains the situation there.

For the most part, we're creating more terrorists than we are detaining. Every time you enter someones home on suspicion of them having weapons, you'recreating new hate. The same goes for families of civilians killed and so on. The more we continue to practice this brazen policy on the ground, the more thepeople of the country will hate us and view us as an occupying force and not a liberating force. That is precisely the problem. When viewed as the occupier, noone will back you.

This is a good article that I read a few weeksago in the NYTimes by Robert Pape. He wrote "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" which is another very good book.

AS President Obama and his national security team confer this week to consider strategies for Afghanistan, one point seems clear: our current military forces cannot win the war. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander there, has asked for 40,000 or more additional United States troops, which many are calling an ambitious new course. In truth, it is not new and it is not bold enough.

America will best serve its interests in Afghanistan and the region by shifting to a new strategy of off-shore balancing, which relies on air and naval power from a distance, while also working with local security forces on the ground. The reason for this becomes clear when one examines the rise of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan in recent years.

General McChrystal's own report explains that American and NATO military forces themselves are a major cause of the deteriorating situation, for two reasons. First, Western forces have become increasingly viewed as foreign occupiers; as the report puts it, "over-reliance on firepower and force protection have severely damaged the International Security Assistance Force's legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people."

Second, the central government led by America's chosen leader, Hamid Karzai, is thoroughly corrupt and viewed as illegitimate: "Local Afghan communities are unable to hold local officials accountable through either direct elections or judicial processes, especially when those individuals are protected by senior government officials."

Unfortunately, these political facts dovetail strongly with developments on the battlefield in the last few years. In 2001, the United States toppled the Taliban and kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan with just a few thousand of its own troops, primarily through the combination of American air power and local ground forces from the Northern Alliance. Then, for the next several years, the United States and NATO modestly increased their footprint to about 20,000 troops, mainly limiting the mission to guarding Kabul, the capital. Up until 2004, there was little terrorism in Afghanistan and little sense that things were deteriorating.

Then, in 2005, the United States and NATO began to systematically extend their military presence across Afghanistan. The goals were to defeat the tiny insurgency that did exist at the time, eradicate poppy crops and encourage local support for the central government. Western forces were deployed in all major regions, including the Pashtun areas in the south and east, and today have ballooned to more than 100,000 troops.

As Western occupation grew, the use of the two most worrisome forms of terrorism in Afghanistan - suicide attacks and homemade bombs - escalated in parallel. There were no recorded suicide attacks in Afghanistan before 2001. According to data I have collected, in the immediate aftermath of America's conquest, the nation experienced only a small number: none in 2002, two in 2003, five in 2004 and nine in 2005.

But in 2006, suicide attacks began to increase by an order of magnitude - with 97 in 2006, 142 in 2007, 148 in 2008 and more than 60 in the first half of 2009. Moreover, the overwhelming percentage of the suicide attacks (80 percent) has been against United States and allied troops or their bases rather than Afghan civilians, and nearly all (95 percent) carried out by Afghans.

The pattern for other terrorist attacks is almost the same. The most deadly involve roadside bombs that detonate on contact or are set off by remote control. Although these weapons were a relatively minor nuisance in the early years of the occupation, with 782 attacks in 2005, their use has shot up since - to 1,739 in 2006, nearly 2,000 in 2007 and more than 3,200 last year. Again, these attacks have for the most part been carried out against Western combat forces, not Afghan targets.
The picture is clear: the more Western troops we have sent to Afghanistan, the more the local residents have viewed themselves as under foreign occupation, leading to a rise in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. (We see this pattern pretty much any time an "outside" armed force has tried to pacify a region, from the West Bank to Kashmir to Sri Lanka.)


So as General McChrystal looks to change course in Afghanistan, the priority should be not to send more soldiers but to end the sense of the United States and its allies as foreign occupiers. Our purpose in Afghanistan is to prevent future attacks like 9/11, which requires stopping the rise of a new generation of anti-American terrorists, particularly suicide terrorists, who are super-predators able to kill large numbers of innocent people.

What motivates suicide attackers, however, is not the existence of a terrorist sanctuary, but the presence of foreign forces on territory they prize. So it's little surprise that Western forces in Afghanistan have provided a key rallying point for the insurgency, playing a central role in the Taliban's recruitment campaign and propaganda, which threaten not only our troops there but also our homeland.

The presence of our troops also works against the stability of the central government, as it can rely on Western protection rather than work harder for popular support.

Fortunately, the United States does not need to station large ground forces in Afghanistan to keep it from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy that relies on over-the-horizon air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with training and equipping local groups to oppose the Taliban. No matter what happens in Afghanistan, the United States is going to maintain a strong air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and these forces are well suited to attacking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias - just as they did against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

The United States has a strong history of working with local groups, particularly the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the old Northern Alliance, who would ensure that the Taliban does not recapture Kabul and the northern and western regions of Afghanistan. And should more substantial threats arise, our offshore forces and allies would buy time and protect space for Western ground forces to return.

Further, the United States and its allies have made some efforts to lead Pashtun tribal militias in the southern and eastern areas to abandon their support for the Taliban and, if not switch to America's side, to at least stay neutral. For instance, the largest British gains in the southwest came from winning the support of Mullah Salam, a former Taliban commander who is the district governor of Musa Qala.

Early this year the United States started what it calls the Afghanistan Social Outreach Program, offering monthly stipends to tribal and local leaders in exchange for their cooperation against the Taliban insurgency. The program is financed at too low a level - approximately $20 million a year - to compete with alternatives that the Taliban can offer like protection for poppy cultivation that is worth some $3 billion a year.

One reason we can expect a strategy of local empowerment to work is that this is precisely how the Taliban is gaining support. As General McChrystal's report explains, there is little ideological loyalty between the local Pashtuns and the Taliban, so the terrorists gain local support by capitalizing on "vast unemployment by empowering the young and disenfranchised through cash payments, weapons, and prestige." We'll have to be more creative and rely on larger economic and political carrots to win over the hearts and minds of the Pashtuns.
Changing strategy does not mean that the United States can withdraw all its military power from Afghanistan immediately. As we are now seeing in Iraq, changing to an approach that relies less on ground power and more on working with local actors takes time. But it is the best strategy for Afghanistan. Otherwise we will continue to be seen and mistrusted as an occupying power, and the war will be lost.

 

[ca5perrr]

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Can you elaborate more on the reconstruction efforts? I know they are occuring, but like you said we don't here of it that much.

A question I have that maybe you can answer is, what purpose do new schools, roads, medical buildings etc. serve if the country is still in shambles with violence after violence, corrupt government, basic essentials being limited to only a few individuals, etc?
The military sets up PRT's (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) all over different towns, to pretty much help out the towns, like u said buildthe city up, and try to help these ppl out. but the taliban still has a huge pull with these ppl. I can't answer your question because I ask myself thesame thing...
I guess its just something that the US does to show to the ppl that they are their to help them out,

 

[martdizzle23]

Originally Posted by Nyota de la star

Modern-day Vietnam.
I don't get why we're still there. If we're looking for terrorists the objective needs to be Pakistan.

hah please don't blame Pakistan for the US problems. The US always talks of cross border infiltration do you know why there is cross borderinfiltration because noone on the afghan side is protecting their borders, because those border afghan areas are high red zone areas in control of the Taliban.I've been waiting to discuss this for a while and prepared for it. Anyways the US wouldn't dare send in troops to Pakistani territory they know it iscounter productive and will do nothing for the US in the long run(fueling more public outrage against the US).

Musharraf knows the deal and would have been better in the long run for the US if he was still in power today instead of that "democracy" inIslamabad.

 

[callhimar]

While it is true that we can't blame Pakistan for our problems in Afghanistan, the Taliban has a huge presence in Pakistani tribal regions. This isundeniable. It is where a great deal of the Taliban leaders fled when American forces hit the ground and it is where the bombs are being produced to kill ourtroops. Also, you cannot blame Afghanistan for not protecting their borders, when Pakistan allows such lawlessness within these tribal regions. While a greatdeal has been done to combat this in the past year, it may not be enough. There have been a number of attacks within Pakistan as well, mostly from Talibanforces who now control these tribal regions.

 

[keepzdasneakz]

Originally Posted by PoloLax

I understand alot of what you are all saying. What really boggles my mind is the fact that, even if resources were not spread thing, for example, we were just in Afghanistan and not Iraq, would the situation really be that different? Terrorism has been around since the beginning of time, trying to end it will not happen. If we take out Bin Laden, his #2 will step in, and so forth. The problem with this war is that the true problem has to do with different cultures, religions, values, morals, etc. etc.

The drug trade funds terrorism, we all know what its like to fight a war on drugs, the same to fight a war on terrorism. In the end we will not win.

It's a shame that the United States hasn't learned from Vietnam. I know taking a loss will look bad, but at one point or another you must weigh the options. Have innocent servicemen and civilians die, spend countless amounts of money or look like the Global cop? To me, the United States has only one way to prove to the international community that we are still the global hegemonic power, that is focus on US (no pun attended) and only us.

I highlighted that part because that is one of the key issues. Though we elected the officials in their places, entrusting them to make the rightcalls, that obviously hasn't been the case. Fact of the matter is, the money ain't theirs, the lives being put at risk ain't theirs, and (all tooapparently, especially in the Bush administration where this started) they don't give a $%@+. They all have their own agendas...

 

[martdizzle23]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

While it is true that we can't blame Pakistan for our problems in Afghanistan, the Taliban has a huge presence in Pakistani tribal regions. This is undeniable. It is where a great deal of the Taliban leaders fled when American forces hit the ground and it is where the bombs are being produced to kill our troops. Also, you cannot blame Afghanistan for not protecting their borders, when Pakistan allows such lawlessness within these tribal regions. While a great deal has been done to combat this in the past year, it may not be enough. There have been a number of attacks within Pakistan as well, mostly from Taliban forces who now control these tribal regions.

I agree its understandble but why are there no coalition troops or Afghan national army protecting the borders. There are literally noone guardingthese areas. Coalition troops are mainly confined to villages, towns, and cities but then complain when their city is in range of being overwhelmed by talibaninsurgents when they are so close to the border. And you must realize these border areas are places where the literacy rate is very low these are very proudpeople who can take actions very hostile or very peacefully which is why no empire even the british went into them, and why Pakistan since its creation has hadthese regions be governed semiautonomously. The video I put up can help explain. It's 30 minutes but very good explanation

 

[theconditioner]

I give this thread two thumbs up. Logical conversation without stupidity? Unheard of.

It's a shame that the United States hasn't learned from Vietnam. I know taking a loss will look bad, but at one point or another you must weigh the options. Have innocent servicemen and civilians die, spend countless amounts of money or look like the Global cop? To me, the United States has only one way to prove to the international community that we are still the global hegemonic power, that is focus on US (no pun attended) and only us.

OP, I'd say the more important issue is not whether or not we're a hegemony - it's whether we can serve as members of the international community -fairly and equally. Unfortunately, though, the US more than likely has more interests in staying a hegemony.

 

[devildog1776]

war is a profit. This war isn't designed to be won. No country has ever defeated Afghanistan...fact.

This operation is pointless. After being in Iraq for 4 months with no real plan. I realized this whole thing is a joke.

WW3 will be commenced once the dollar crashes....

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by Nyota de la star

Modern-day Vietnam.
I don't get why we're still there. If we're looking for terrorists the objective needs to be Pakistan.

the end

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

You simply can't win a war unless you have the civilians of that area behind your cause.

That is why Israel cannot simply wipe out Palestine.

israel's goal is not to "wipe outpalestine". If anything it's the other way around and it says so directly in the hamas charter

 

[informerx]

Hopefully this video will cheer you up bro, it's very touching..........

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by DubA169

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

You simply can't win a war unless you have the civilians of that area behind your cause.

That is why Israel cannot simply wipe out Palestine.

israel's goal is not to "wipe out palestine". If anything it's the other way around and it says so directly in the hamas charter

Right because killing thousands of children and other innocent civilians because a rocket almost hit an Israeli town is just. Bulldozing a persons home to makeroom for new settlers is completely fine under national law. The hypocrisy of saying an investigation into the war crimes committed may do damage to the peaceprocess, meanwhile the actual WAR CRIMES that were committed won't? That makes sense.

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by Beast4ya

cliffs please....

no ones going to read that....

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by DubA169

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

You simply can't win a war unless you have the civilians of that area behind your cause.

That is why Israel cannot simply wipe out Palestine.

israel's goal is not to "wipe out palestine". If anything it's the other way around and it says so directly in the hamas charter

Right because killing thousands of children and other innocent civilians because a rocket almost hit an Israeli town is just. Bulldozing a persons home to make room for new settlers is completely fine under national law. The hypocrisy of saying an investigation into the war crimes committed may do damage to the peace process, meanwhile the actual WAR CRIMES that were committed won't? That makes sense.

so because the weapons that they fired into israel aren't sophisticated enough to hit their desired target it's okay?

If they wanted to "wipe out" palestine then they could have done ita long, long tine ago. Instead of dealing with the global scruitiny and dealing with palestinian backlash. The goal of hamas is to destroy israel, Point blankperiod, says so in the charter.

but I don't want to derail the thread so if you wanna talk just PM me