Should we stay or should we go? There was a recent attack on two outposts, 8 Americans died and 2 Afghan security force members died. This is the highest casualties in a year there. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/afghanistan.troops.killed/index.html?iref=newssearch
I'm really torn. If we stay, more Americans die. For a country we really have little at stake in. If we go, tens of thousands will be murdered and more so enslaved and terrorized. All because we left. I'll bet Obama looses some sleep on this one. I know I would.
I think we should stay. I think some of the problems is how McChrystal and the US military is in limbo waiting on Obama. There isn't much direction right now. Barack is riding the fence on this. Should I stay or should I go? Either be in it to win it or get out. His uncertainty I think sends the wrong message to the military. How can your militaries heart be totally in it if the commander in chiefs isn't?
The time is ripe for a primetime address from the Commander-in-Chief on the Afghanistan war. Instead, I'm sure we'll get the 7th address about healthcare in the next few weeks. Show some leadership, Mr. President. Your troops are dying at a record pace for this war.
But even if you find him, do you take care of the continuing problem? I don't think you do. Stay there and put the taliban and al qaeda away once and for all. The only way I would favor a pull out is if the focus turns towards Iran. Then you could once again, take care of another problem and bring the war on terrorism to Iran in this situation you would take care of two problems at once.
Well I don't think there is as big a problem in Iran. I think most of the people in Iran would agree with the US if their current "elected" officials were disposed. But I don't think it's our* place to take over.
"Putting away" the Taliban and al-Qaida "once and for all" would involve many years and many more lives. Like, a lot. Oh, but you'd be cool if we didn't as long as we invaded Iran in an effort to draw all the terrorists in the region into it. Really? That's... wow. Do you get your foreign policy ideas from Risk?
As I understand it, our objective in Afghanistan was to take out Al Qaeda and not the Taliban. The Taliban were offered the chance to turn over Al Qaeda (and Bin Laden) and we'd have never sent any troops there otherwise. If we're there to get Bin Laden, let's go get him. Experts seem to think they know about where he is, and it wouldn't take 40K troops to go there and root him out. If the civilians are hiding him or protecting him, we don't have to spend one minute figuring out how to do some surgical sort of military action. People compared Iraq to Vietnam, trying to smear that effort with the failed and miserable effort in Vietnam. There was never any comparison. However, there is a good comparison with Afghanistan. 1,2,3 what are we fighting for? We can escalate things there to 500K troops (size of Vietnam effort) and still lose. Things have only gotten worse as we added more troops, per Obama's campaign promise. I don't see that sending more makes one iota of sense, nor does any sort of "victory" where Afghanistan is a "rebuilt" nation (rebuilt from what to what?) What's the mission? What does victory look like? What is the exit strategy? Where are the press trying to take pictures of the soldiers' coffins as they're returned to the US?
Spot on. I don't know him, but I guess he is a republican? I also agree with Denny. I really think its time to pull out for the most part, and leave in special forces for surgical operations to get terrorists. That and airstrikes (drone preferably), imo, is the best option. I don't want any more US troops dieing... please...
I think he's got varying opinions, like a lot of us on this board. I think we all rush to label people based on one or two of their opinions, though. Some people I can't agree with one damn thing that comes out of their mouths, but I've agreed with him on a few points. This one, however, makes me dizzy. Taking out al-Qaida is a no brainer, and we're not even trying any more. We've resorted to becoming a stop gap for the Taliban, which people in this country don't understand. They're not the unquestioningly evil cave dwelling sons of bitches like al-Qaida are, with a clear moral path leading to their destruction. However, there are tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan who live like the Taliban and are ruled by the Taliban. We view them as oppressive, but their ways are a different culture. We didn't start fighting them until they didn't give us Osama. I'm not saying that letting the Taliban take over Afghanistan is a good idea (it's not), but we didn't seem to mind their massively oppressive culture until very recently. Oh, and sending 40k troops into the area where Osama is hiding would result in many civilian deaths, and I think that's what's preventing us from doing it at this point. The tide is turning against bin Laden, and our government (foolishly or not) seems to have decided to wait it out and hope he fades into obscurity amongst Muslims instead of putting him back into the headlines (as well as hearts and minds) by martyring him and whole grip of civilians to boot.
I agree. But I do see fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan having a very similar outcome to Vietnam. I think that going after Al-Qaeda through more of a intelligence/surgical route would be better. At the same time if we leave Afghanistan, how do we know it won't become a safe haven for terror as it was pre 9/11? I think surgically striking in places in Afghanistan and on the border tribal areas is the best option and will continue to look more appealing as technology improves. But I do not think sending more troops is the answer, nor do I think completely leaving that area is the answer. Somewhere in the middle, but obviously what we are doing is not working, and it would be foolish to stick with the status-quo and have our troops continue to die for limited improvements. You are right. That was harsh. But I am completely against an interventionist foreign policy and nation building unless it directly and seriously affects our country's national security.
I think we should play The Clash over huge loudspeakers in every valley, every draw, every nook, every cranny of Afghanistan. But not until every member of our military is issued top-of-the-line shitty-music-proof headphones.
I think people missed my Country Joe and the Fish reference: The Fish Cheer & I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag Gimme an F! F! Gimme an I! I! Gimme an S! S! Gimme an H! H! What's that spell ? FISH! What's that spell ? FISH! What's that spell ? FISH! Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Vietnam So put down your books and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Well, come on generals, let's move fast; Your big chance has come at last. Gotta go out and get those reds — The only good commie is the one who's dead And you know that peace can only be won When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Huh! Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow, Why man, this is war au-go-go. There's plenty good money to be made By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade, Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb, They drop it on the Viet Cong. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Well, come on mothers throughout the land, Pack your boys off to Vietnam. Come on fathers, don't hesitate, Send 'em off before it's too late. Be the first one on your block To have your boy come home in a box. And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
While at the doctor's office today, I read through Time magazine. They had several articles and a photo section on the effort in Afghanistan. It got me to thinking/rethinking. It was nothing in particular in the magazine, though. All this time, while Obama's been taking heat for being deliberate about his ultimate decision what to do there, I've been OK with it. Bush took a similar time period before the surge. I don't see that rushing into sending more troops at that time or now in Afghanistan is a bad thing. However, it's sure looking like all the trashtalking that's been done about the effort there to date has emboldened the enemy. And that I do pin on Obama and the Democrats. It's like the Taliban are now laughing at our leader, and becoming more and more daring. Now I wonder if there wouldn't be a bloodbath there if we scaled back our forces to where they were before Obama's first plan to win this war. I also wonder if maybe we're turning the Taliban from assholes interested in ruining just their own country into really dangerous assholes with a more global mission. What worked in Iraq was us coming to an understanding with the tribal leaders we were fighting against. Namely the Sunni in Anbar province. This allowed us to use all our forces in other areas and especially to train the Iraqi army and police forces. The same thing may be possible in Afghanistan, though it's a very long term program. We could probably peel off some moderate Taliban by including them favorable in our plans for the future. If we provide enough security for them, they may even fink on the really bad guys we do want to capture or kill. The thing is, Afghanistan is unlike Iraq in that it never really had an army or police force - that's the long haul proposition. We're probably going to have to pay the farmers to grow something other than their poppy crops, and protect them against the Taliban who will certainly threaten them with life and limb for not delivering the funds for their guerilla operations. And I still think we should mass a force, go into Pakistan where we think Osama is, and go get him. Apache Pilots Shocked by Size of Attack on Afghan Outpost Top Troop Request Exceeds 60,000 American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains [video=youtube;mL7ESCHRv_I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7ESCHRv_I[/video]
Denny, I see what your saying, but it's not really practical. We could take 100,000 troops into Pakistan and still not find Bin Laden. And what if we do? Someone will just take his place. And how long do we want to stay there as policemen and die? Don't get me wrong, I am not stating we need to leave now, but we need an exit strategy. Otherwise, we will stay there indefinitely- literally. Is that what we want?
