What to do about Afghanistan!

[DanC76]

Like this solder's mother said, "They either need to come home or we need to end it!" What do you think?

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/21591711/index.html[/URL]

How much longer is this war going to last? The UK had problems with Afghanistan, the Soviet Union got their butts kicked, and now the US! When will it end?

 

[Telstra]

I think targeted assassination of extremist groups without invading a country is still the best way to fight the war. Less people getting killed too.

Because those groups don't have a "proper" country who supports them.

 

[naked gent]

I must be in the minority because I think things are going ok in Afghanistan and the idea of sending more troops there so we can 'win' will only cost us more lives and money with little else to show for our effort.

Looking at the recent arrests in Denver and Dallas (and even Texas if you wish) what we see is men who would like to stage attacks in this country, and who are already here, but when they attempt to contact al-qaeda they either were ignored or ended up talking to the F.B.I.

Given that terrorists who are already in this country should be of high value to those who wish us harm and given that they were not utilized I take that as evidence that our efforts in Afghanistan are working......at least as a diversionary tactic.

Sometimes in war a front in opened up not so much with victory as its aim but to force the opponent to fight not where he chooses but where he must and I think thats what Afghanistan has become.

We don't need to 'win' for this outcome to continue we just need to keep the enemy engaged. While this sucks for the Afghan people I have no faith in our ability to 'nation build' in that country and don't much like the current government or any likely future one.

In short I think the status-quo is good enough for us......in Afghanistan a tie is as good as a win.

 

[hotatlboi]

We need a new strategy that works (possibly with more troops but only if that is appropriate for the strategy) or we need to GFTO.

 

[JB3]

We need a strategy PERIOD. It seems that Obama is content to do what GWB did with Afghanistan; absolutely nothing. Sitting on his hands because he's afraid to make a decision that might cost him politically is the cowards way out, and its something that it seems Obama is all too inclined to do. (to be fair its something that Bush did as well)

 

[Kulindahr]

The United States Treasury cannot continue indefinitely to fund war in Afghanistan with no clear outcome. We are wasting money and the lives of our soldiers.

Hear, hear!

I believe we need to win this war. If th UN coalition leaves, the Karzai government will collapse; the Taliban will return to power and once again give Al Qaeda refuge. Further the Taliban will support the Taliban in Pakistan which could lead to the fall of the Pakistani government. Since Paksitan now has 80-100 nuclear warheads, the consequences for the United States could be disasterous.

I fear we would see a nuclear detonation in one or more U.S. cities.

At least two.

Should Pakistan fall to the Taliban, we'd have very little choice but to perform a preemptive strike against all their known nuclear facilities -- and cross our fingers. We might even have to cut a deal with India for them to take over the country.

 

[Kulindahr]

We need a strategy PERIOD. It seems that Obama is content to do what GWB did with Afghanistan; absolutely nothing. Sitting on his hands because he's afraid to make a decision that might cost him politically is the cowards way out, and its something that it seems Obama is all too inclined to do. (to be fair its something that Bush did as well)

Obama's strategy so far has been "listen to the generals". The trouble with that is that they're up against a wall of possibilities: the only way to give them what they really need in Afghanistan is to send all our forces presently in Europe and Asia -- and that might not be enough.

Or we could see if China will hire out a couple of million Chinese.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry that you've come to expect Presidents like George W. Bush to rush into war with no strategy whatsoever. Thank God we have a President who actually THINKS about the consequences of his decisions.

Hey, Bush had a strategy!!

What was that, again? Oh, yeah -- SHOCK AND AWE!

 

[palemale]

There will be no good outcome in Afghanistan. Only the least bad outcome, which I hope we achieve.

The Kharzai government, installed by Bush, is a disaster, hopelessly corrupt and incompetent. Under those circumstances, success is pretty much impossible if success is measured by installing a stable government that is competent to run the country and suppress the Taliban. Our strategy should be to get out as soon as feasible with as much stability as possible.

I'm afraid the opportunity for the US to have made a real difference passed when we went into Iraq. Had we poured the resources that we expended in Iraq into Afghanistan from the beginning, there would have been a chance. We could possibly have trained Afghan troops, built schools, infrastructure and hospitals, repaired the devastated agricultural economy and perhaps set up a viable government structure. Instead, we dawdled while the Taliban regrouped. We lost Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm afraid the opportunity for the US to have made a real difference passed when we went into Iraq. Had we poured the resources that we expended in Iraq into Afghanistan from the beginning, there would have been a chance. We could possibly have trained Afghan troops, built schools, infrastructure and hospitals, repaired the devastated agricultural economy and perhaps set up a viable government structure. Instead, we dawdled while the Taliban regrouped. We lost Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago.

This all comes from Rumsfeld's fixation of the real world being like a RISK board. He thought that if you have your armies on the territory, it's yours.

But the world isn't colored cardboard, and people aren't plastic markers.

 

[cklover]

There are some facts that should be made clear here. The US is not the only country involved in Afghanistan. Start reading the news and pay attention to news sources outside the US and you will discover that many NATO countries have been there right from the start. There are countries other than NATO that have provided soldiers; New Zealand and Australia to name two.

The Soviet Union (that's right Soviet Union; not Russia) had problems in Afghanistan first of all because of their policies and attitudes towards the country. Secondly the Soviet Union went in with an all conscript army that was not properly trained in the type of warfare that they encountered. Thirdly decisions were taken at a level that was too high to affect what was happening on the ground at any given moment. Conscripts make poor soldiers because they have neither the capability nor the authority to do more than react to orders from above.

The British did not have as many problems in Afghanistan as has been made out to be the case. The history of the British in Afghanistan is too long to recount here so I will leave it at this. However others may want to investigate the history of the British in Afghanistan.

The US army is always going to have problems in Afghanistan because of their overwhelming reliability on technology to do the job for them. No one holds ground from the air or from satellites. Air power does not put boots on the ground. American soldiers are poorly trained for the job that they are required to do. The US Army like the soviet army makes decisions at a level that is too high to help the soldier on the ground.

I have seveeral more suggestions, but I will stop here for now.

 

[Kulindahr]

The US army is always going to have problems in Afghanistan because of their overwhelming reliability on technology to do the job for them. No one holds ground from the air or from satellites. Air power does not put boots on the ground. American soldiers are poorly trained for the job that they are required to do. The US Army like the soviet army makes decisions at a level that is too high to help the soldier on the ground.

Most American soldiers are poorly trained for the job -- but a lot are indeed trained.

Also, a lot more of decision-making takes place on the ground in the U.S. forces than it ever did in the Soviet ones, partly because the Americans have enough education to actually make decisions.

 

[cklover]

Most American soldiers are poorly trained for the job -- but a lot are indeed trained.

Also, a lot more of decision-making takes place on the ground in the U.S. forces than it ever did in the Soviet ones, partly because the Americans have enough education to actually make decisions.

The biggest problem that the American has is that only officers make decisions and decide tactics. Unless one has experience with both the American and Canadian armies then it is hard to grasp the differences and to see the folly of letting only officers make decisions.

 

[swerve]

I'm curious why Generals Patraeus and McChristal still have jobs...

I thought that the military was SUPPOSED to FOLLOW ORDERS from a CIVILIAN Commander in Chief...

NOT LEAK THEIR THEORIES to the press and HOPE that it boxes the Commander in Chief in a corner...

 

[01solara]

Have you actually been listening to the news? Obama and his advisors have been meeting almost daily to discuss strategy and look at various scenarios to end this 8 year long war. What the United States does next is not a decision to be made lightly. We saw what happened in Vietnam when the military insisted more troops were necessary. As a result we lost 50,000 U.S. lives and we STILL lost that war.

As part of his planning process Obama made a trip to see the caskets of dead soldiers coming back to the U.S. and meet with the families retrieving the bodies. He knows that whatever he decides, he will be responsible for the outcome. I'm glad he's taking his time. If I were a soldier, I'd expect nothing less.

I'm sorry that you've come to expect Presidents like George W. Bush to rush into war with no strategy whatsoever. Thank God we have a President who actually THINKS about the consequences of his decisions.

One of his problems that he thinks too long. He looks at everything as theories and thinks like a college professor. Nothing wrong with professors but reality is quite different than theories. Decisions have to be made with the best info you have. Indecisiveness is often perceived by those that hate us as weakness. Among the worst things you can do with terrorists is to show weakness and a lack of resolve.

When you make decisions you are going to make mistakes. You learn from them and make better decisions the next time. This problem will escalate more from a lack of decisions than from having to adjust strategies as you move forward. Most of the libs in congress and on this board said the surge would work and the war was lost and could not be turned around. I remember the General betrayus quotes very well. You guys that said that were wrong then and are probably wrong now.

 

[JB3]

I'm curious why Generals Patraeus and McChristal still have jobs...

I thought that the military was SUPPOSED to FOLLOW ORDERS from a CIVILIAN Commander in Chief...

NOT LEAK THEIR THEORIES to the press and HOPE that it boxes the Commander in Chief in a corner...

The leaks are coming from the executive branch. It is in all likelihood a strategy to gauge public reaction.

 

[JB3]

Have you actually been listening to the news? Obama and his advisors have been meeting almost daily to discuss strategy and look at various scenarios to end this 8 year long war. What the United States does next is not a decision to be made lightly. We saw what happened in Vietnam when the military insisted more troops were necessary. As a result we lost 50,000 U.S. lives and we STILL lost that war.

As part of his planning process Obama made a trip to see the caskets of dead soldiers coming back to the U.S. and meet with the families retrieving the bodies. He knows that whatever he decides, he will be responsible for the outcome. I'm glad he's taking his time. If I were a soldier, I'd expect nothing less.

I'm sorry that you've come to expect Presidents like George W. Bush to rush into war with no strategy whatsoever. Thank God we have a President who actually THINKS about the consequences of his decisions.

There's a difference between thinking about it and sitting on your hands because you're so unprepared to make the decision that you have no idea what to do. Obama is not listening to what his advisors on the ground are telling him. He's listening to what his political advisors are telling him, because they know this will have a huge impact in 2010.

And funny you speak of soldiers; Obama's extended decision making process is starting to wear on morale. The soldiers are starting to call into question his ability to provide the support they need, and they're starting to question whether the politicians actually care about them.

Its one thing to make a responsible decision; its another to be dragging your feet because you don't want to suffer the political consequences for making the RIGHT decision.

 

[bynm27]

i think we should cut and run and take care of THIS country only. we got 10.2% unemployment (probably more); homelessness and poverty creeping up in dismal numbers; our economy is fucking up more and more on the daily; and we gotta give bookoo amounts of tax-payer money to some government in afghanistan that could care less about our supposed war on terror? it's bullshit, and i'm sick and tired of the president keep saying this war is necessary. and this 'we need to fight them over there, so we wouldn't fight them over here' argument is some straight bullshit. our soldiers need to come home. they're tired, bored, and mentally worn-down. you just don't treat our soldiers like this (sending them on back-to-back tours of duty, and expect them to like it).

 

[Ambrocious]

What to do about Afghanistan? Get the hell out of there and bring all the troops home. Already too many of them are war torn and suffer from so much PTSD that they will probably never be the same.

We have been at war for far too long. It's time to bring our troops home...all of them.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

...come clean about why the US is there in the first place.