US to deploy hundreds of troops in Afghanistan to thwart Taliban

[bobthedrummer]

Source: Spencer Ackerman & Sune Engel Rasmussen/Guardian

By month's end, a force described as battalion-strength, consisting of mostly army soldiers, will arrive in Helmand province to bolster the local military.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/08/hundreds-us-troops-deployed-afghanistan-taliban-helmand

---

[bobthedrummer]

1. By now it should merely be up to an army of one, shouldn't it DefSec Carter, inasmuchas "bolstering"

the locals in that opium-rich province, and "thwarting" the Taliban? Why don't you go personally SecDef Carter with all of your personal FORCE ENHANCERS and finish the never-ending job of defeating the Taliban?

Meanwhile how about someone putting an end to the VA killer-elite mental health professionals that are experimenting on and killing our veterans and their families with prescription meds and other "therapies" caused by deployment after deployment after deployment...

[maxsolomon]

2. Either we do this, I suppose

Or prepare for the Taliban to re-gain control of the Country.

It's starting to feel inevitable, regardless. The Pashtun are like Sunni Arabs; they have to be in control of those they consider lesser: Shiites, Hazara, or they will never be pacified.

[bobthedrummer]

3. With respect maxsoloman-I'm with those that reject "either/or" dogmas about national security.

I'm not ignorant about geopolitics.

I also recall the Taliban's official US public relations person, Laili Helms, the niece of former CIA Director then Ambassador to Iran Richard McGarrah Helms (noted for his continual support of Agency mind control "research&quot .

The Accidental Operative (Camelia Entekhabi-Fard James Ridgeway 2001)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/18/the-accidental-operative

SecDef Carter is lying about a lot of things-isn't he?

[uhnope]

6. another CT?

seems every int'l news item quickly gets CTed on DU

[maxsolomon]

10. in this case, i don't see a scenario where the Afghan Govt can stand up to the Taliban

i don't see the middle ground between either and or. perhaps a coalition of the Taliban and the current government against ISIL?

I didn't say you were ignorant; I was ruminating.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. We should pack up and leave

We have no business there, and lost the day we invaded.

[maxsolomon]

9. somedays i feel that way

and then I think of the medieval oppression that the Pashtun fundamentalists imposed on the women, ethnic minorities, and culture of that country.

there's no way to leave without that happening again - unless the country breaks into fiefdoms or there's a peace process.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Here's the problem

We just make the problem worse.

Going all the way back to the crusades we make things worse. We are interlopers and meddlers, carpetbaggers and war profiteers.

All we do is act as a common enemy for all the various groups to rally against. We become the excuse for atrocities and oppression.

We need to get out of THEIR countries.
STOP selling weapons to anyone in the area.
STOP undermining their governments.

Yes, terrible things can happen in religious dictatorships, but we CANNOT impose our "morality" on people. Especially when we commit atrocities of our own in the process.

Also, who the hell are we to tell anyone else how to be "civilized". Our police routinely murder citizens without penalty, our government allows us to be exploited, takes taxes from the poor and middle class and funnels into the pockets of wealthy multi-nationals. Our government has allowed people's air, water and soil to be poisoned. Our roads, bridges, dams, schools, fire departments, health services are in disrepair and deteriorating. We can always find trillions for new toys to kill people, but feeding and educating people is beyond us. We have a de facto system of racial and sexual apartheid which hardly puts us in a position to tell other governments how to treat their women and minorities.

It is like the Prime Directive in Star Trek. These people have to solve their own social/political/religious problems. We can't solve their problems for them and they will despise of for trying. Also, we have too many problems of our own in need of solving before we should even think of sticking our nose into someone else's business.

That is the harsh, naked reality. We ignore it at our peril.

[maxsolomon]

13. Cultural Relativism aside, I think we agree

But saying "cast these innocents into the pit" is not something the US, NATO, or the UN will relish. I don't relish it. it will be a betrayal of promises many people have made to Afghanis who aren't the Taliban. promises that shouldn't have been made.

if we'd gone in, assaulted Tora Bora with our own troops (instead of employing proxies), and killed or captured Bin Laden, then GTFO, the world would be a much different place today.

-capt. hindsight

[Kelvin Mace]

14. I have no desire to "cast innocents into the pit"

but how many men women and children will die as a result of our intervention?

What is moral about killing millions of innocent people to save (fill in any fraction of those killed)?

The dead are still dead, and their families hate us just the same.

To address the question of Tora Bora, had the US not funded the Mujahideen back in the late 80s to screw with the Soviets, we would not have armed and trained bin Laden and his followers. Had we just let history take its course, the Soviets would have learned the hard way why no one has ever successfully occupied Afghanistan.

But instead, we interferred, we passed out weapons, money and training. We even let them start up the opium fields, which is kind of stupid considering the money we were (and are) spending on futile drug interdiction policies.

We made promises to bin Laden (and Hussein, The Shah, Marcos, the Duvaliers, and dozens of other monsters, then betrayed them when it suited our purpose or our coffers.

We keep propping up tyrants, then we can't understand why no one is grateful. All we bring to these countries is misery and death. Lots of death. It is our main export.

How different would our history be if instead of pouring trillions into weapons and the machinery of war, we had spent a generous fraction of that money on SOLVING the problems peacefully, with food, medicine, shelter, and resettlement?

We have now been at war longer than any time in our VERY short history. All we have accomplished is to sow the seeds of future terrorism and war.

[maxsolomon]

16. we didn't kill "millions" in Afghanistan

it was a comparatively low-intensity conflict.

yes, we should have stayed out of if way back when in the 80s. but we didn't.

like I said, we agree, mostly. after 9/11, I advocated dropping the "love bomb" in any muslim country that would have us: clean water, sewage systems, etc.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Iraq (Part 1 & 2), Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Beruit...

We have been interfering in that region since the 50s, arguably longer.

Plus how many people died due to the economic sanctions to "punish" Saddam Hussein, a guy we put in power?

Absolutely we need a "love bomb".

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. or is it the few world's billionaires will never be satisfied until they have it all?

"Before its failed occupation of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union discovered that the country was rich in natural resources. In the 1980s, Soviet mining experts drafted maps and collected data that would lay dormant in the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul until the rise of the Taliban. These charts documented a vast amount of iron, copper, gold, cobalt, rare earth metals, and lithium.

Fearing what the Taliban might do with this wealth, a tiny group of Afghan geologists hid the maps in their homes until the arrival of American forces in 2001. By 2007, the US Geological Survey had undertaken the most comprehensive study of the mineral deposits below the country’s surface. An internal Pentagon memo claimed that Afghanistan could develop into the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” referring to the mineral that is an integral component of laptop and smartphone batteries.

Washington was ecstatic about the findings and in 2010 claimed that at least $1 trillion in resources was up for grabs. “There is stunning potential here,” said Gen. David Petraeus, then the head of US Central Command, speaking to The New York Times."

http://www.thenation.com/article/resources-were-supposed-to-make-afghanistan-rich/

[maxsolomon]

20. Yes, that has to be it

we don't let a Pashtun Sunni Theocracy re-take the country because we want the Lithium. otherwise Obama would completely disengage.

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. Minimize minimize minimize.

[maxsolomon]

22. Maximize maximize maximize

man, DU is a hyperbole machine.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Is this a restart of a combat role in Afghanistan?

I hope not.

[Skittles]

7. Mission Accomplished

[bobthedrummer]

11. Ever wonder what play will take the place of Miss Saigon now, Skittles?

[rug]

8. Ass a zero to thatn number by the ebd of the year.

Legacy.

[Odin2005]

15. *FACEPALM*

[bobthedrummer]

18. ENOUGH! 1, 2, 3, 4 -We don't want your fucking WARS!

[bobthedrummer]

23. If you did a deployment(s) in Afghanistan contribute your experiences to this thread. Kick. n/t