Is the "war" in Afghanistan winable? What is the goal?

[panader0]

If the goal is to contain the Taliban, there are other ways. The recent killing of the Taliban leader proves that the Predator drone is a highly effective weapon, and one without a pilot.
Why must we have "boots on the ground" to be effective against the Taliban? The war in Afghanistan cannot be won in the traditional war sense, just as the wars in Vietnam or Iraq, or probably any future wars.
The US can "police" the Middle East from a aircraft carrier and some decent intelligence with virtually zero casualties and a gigantic decrease in costs.
Now I hear this morning that the generals are asking for more troops.

[jody]

1. No and the goal is unknown when one ignores the Pashtun struggle. Pashtun comprise 95% of Taliban.

[timeforpeace]

2. Unmanned drones dropping bombs on the populace? Sounds likeTheTerminator. Goal? Get out now. We

opposed this during Bush's reign, no matter what anyone says. Just because Obama is president doesn't mean we should support it now, that would be hypocritical.

[panader0]

3. I agree. I do not support this war, or war of any kind.

I'm just saying that if the goal is to maintain the Taliban, it can be accomplished with much less loss of life, both US and Afghani.
Personally I believe that the Taliban and similar groups exist because of US presence.

[BobRossi]

4. Hell no.

And the current goal is to avoid having the repukes say "see, I told you they were soft on terrorism" if we pull out now.

It is nothing but a killing-field and tax dollar land-fill.

This is going to make 'Nam look like a friggin' picnic.

[jwirr]

5. The only goal I can see is staying in the ME as long as we can and

getting as much of their oil as we can. Not worth it. We should be using that money to build a sustainable society at home.

[Individualist]

7. Correct answer

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

6. Just another symptom of how crazy/stupid we've become. The original "reason" for

invading has been thrown into the memory hole.

We've lost more people than the original excuse for the invasions in the first place.

There is no goal or exit strategy and there is no end to the requests for ever more troops and resources to be poured into the corporate security mission.

But it's OK now, because it's Democrats doing it...:eyes:

[sharesunited]

8. I don't like their treatment of women or their bans against music and art.

I don't like their cutting people's eyes and tongues out.

Stay and kill until conditions improve, but ONLY with volunteers for this theater.

[newspeak]

9. well, that may be true

but you're also killing those that you seem to want to protect. Whole families have been killed, and there are those in Afghanistan who are not Taliban-who hate the Taliban, but are also "collateral damage." Remember * didn't much care if OBL was captured after he got his little war hard on. He stated that publicly. I believe we went into Iraq and Afghanistan for monied interests more than helping out any of those people. And, after listening about some of the obscene actions Blackwater allegedly took, I believe that the previous administration wasn't into improving anyone's lives as much as killing as many "ragheads" for Jeebus and profit. All we are doing is destroying infrastructures and apparently, making more terrorists.

Maybe we should take a look and view how the Soviet Union was actually dismantled. Because I have a feeling that the ongoing war in Afghanistan was a significant part of it's dismantling. Now our economy is suffering, our infrastructure is being weakened, while more and more money is being funneled to these war profiting corporate interests. We are being drained, our money and our military.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. No. But it's good PR so the politicians can show how "tough" they are.

Until the money runs out and too many bodies come home.

[NightWatcher]

11. as the Soviet Union about winning a war in Afghanistan