Afghanistan?

[SHRED]

---

Something I haven't heard from either Dems or Repubs is WTF is the endgame for Afghanistan?

Barack and McSame both want to build our involvement there but again...WTF is the goal?
When will we be finished?
What is "victory"?

Until I hear some rational plan I say do not get mired there, or anywhere for that matter.


----

[mmonk]

1. The tragedy also is Pakistan where the North West Province

has been falling increasingly into Taliban hands. Of course, Pakistan is home to nuclear weaponry.

[shadowknows69]

2. the endgame?

A pipeline, more CIA heroin money, general imperialism etc. etc.

[madokie]

3. it is all totally insane that our country, bushco, is doing any of this

Iraq or Afghanistan. As a country they neither attacked us. It would be like russia attacking us because of the white supremacist or some such shit.

[SHRED]

4. What about Obama?

Is he or is he not for escalation in Afghanistan? (we know McSame is)

I need to check out his website but is there any mention there of the goal and/or endgame of an escalation of force?


---

[madokie]

5. I think the safe bet for Obama is to keep on keeping on as he is

anything he says concerning either will be used against him. With the mindset of the re:puke: as it is right now he is better off keeping his mouth shut as much as he can. I believe he will stop both occupations and the killing of the Iraqi's and Afghani's as he works to implement the programs he's lain out. This time next year we won't be killing any of them as is happening today, is what I think.

[mmonk]

6. Previous mistakes or misdeeds now determine the steps

in Afghanistan. It's a situation whereby it has to be straightened out to stabilize the region. How we go about it will determine if we learned anything, but Obama now can't ignore it to considate conquest in other areas.

[scarletwoman]

10. Obama has outright called for more troops in Afghanistan. You may remember he also made a statement

some months ago that he would definitely consider military action in PAKISTAN, even if Pakistan's government objected.

I don't think there's any ambiguity about Obama's stance on Afghanistan, he clearly intends to escalate our military involvement.

sw

[mmonk]

11. With the death of Bhutto, the death of options such as being

allowed into the North West Province died as well. That leaves destabilizing air strikes and ignoring sovereignty as the only options if one deals with the Taliban and al quada and the other groups.

[FarCenter]

7. A military win is possible with a effective campaign of genocide

The Soviets could have won in Afghanistan if the US hadn't poured in billions of dollars worth of military supplies, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft guns.

What is required to win militarily is to:

a. isolate the Afghan insurgents from supplies of anti-aircraft guns and missiles, and

b. strafe and bomb the Pashtun ethnic group out of existance.

This is fairly hard to do, considering that half of the Pashtun's live on the Pakistani side of the border. Thus, there is a significant minority in Pakistan that supports the largely Pashtun Taliban, which was assisted by the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA. The Taliban owe some of their philosophy to the Deobandist school of Islam, which was influential in both India's revolt against Great Britian and in the subsequent war of partition between Pakistan and India.

A more reasonable program is to not go for a military win, but to limit the Pashtun Taliban to the southeast strip of Afghanistan, and ensure that the Pashtun minority in other sectors of Afghanistan does not get power over the Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, and Darii ethnic groups there. Many of these figured in the "Northern Alliance" which defeated the Taliban.

I'm not sure why the Pashtun Karzai was installed as the puppet leader in Kabul. Probably we owed the Pakistani's a favor for something. Karzai should go, and he should be replaced by a non-Pashtun. If Pakistan is upset, we should semi-formally recognize their sphere of interest in the southeast Afgan area.

Unfortunately, a "troop surge" in Afghanistan will most likely accomplish nothing, unless accompanied by either a program of genocide or political settlement along ethnic lines.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Who says the Russians aren't pouring weapons into Afghanistan right now?

Someone is arming the Afghans.

Don

[FarCenter]

12. The Taliban aren't armed very well

Mostly AKs, RPGs, IEDs, etc. so far as I've heard from the news stories.

These are likely either left over from the CIA-supplied stockpiles, or they are new kit coming in via Pakistan. There isn't convenient access to the Taliban areas from Russia other than through Pakistan.

If fire and forget anti-armor missiles and recent vintage anti-aircraft missiles start showing up, the Russians or the Chinese would be the most likely source.

Of course, we would blame the Iranians!

[Bandit]

13. I hear they are selling more heroin now than at any other time ever.

Republicans are very good for the drug trade it appears.

[NNN0LHI]

8. The goal is to have the same thing happen to us there as happened to the Soviets

We have some stupids running this country.

Don

[mulsh]

14. end game? Kill a bunch of people over a few years then leave.

Western powers have a very poor track record in Afghanistan. Even more local powers have not faired well.

Of course I hope I'm very wrong and that the folk in the executive branch eradicate Taliban, assist locals in rebuilding the area and gradually but completely pull out. History is very much against that scenario. I suspect what ever happens we'll be bogged down until we declare victory then leave. Read stuff on the Great Game through current history and you'll see what I mean.