POLL: Is the Afghanistan War Winnable?

[ShamelessHussy]

Win means: no Taliban or any other groups fighting gov or foreign troops. Pro western democratic gov in place with equal rights for men and women supported by the people.

1. Yes
   
2. No
   
3. I Don't Know
   

Please post the number or the answer in the subjec of your reply.

I was just wondering what DU's take on the subject is. Here is what folks in the UK said recently.

UK poll: Afghan war is ‘unwinnable’

Most Britons believe the war in Afghanistan is “unwinnable” and want troops pulled out, according to a newspaper opinion poll.

Fifty-eight per cent see the offensive against the Taliban as a lost cause, while 52 per cent want the troops withdrawn from Afghanistan, the poll commissioned by the Independent indicated.

The ComRes telephone poll of 1,008 Britons, which was conducted between July 24 and 26, came as the bodies of four British soldiers were flown home to a UK airbase on Tuesday.

The troops were among 22 UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan this month, bringing the total number of service personnel to have died in the conflict since 2001 to 191.

source...
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/07/2009728181223572146.html

Thank you :hi:

[mdmc]

1. why would they think that it is winnable?

Not even Super-Obama can win this one for us. But we ain't gonna admit defeat. We will stay the course for 8 more years and let the next POTUS cut and run

[ShamelessHussy]

24. Considering their own previous experience there?

Yeah, I guess that would put a damper on their optimism.

If we stay for 8 more years, that would mean we would have been there from 2001 to 2017, at least. Yikes, that is a very sobering thought.

I can't think of anything else that so clearly illustrates our (and all other industrialized countries) desperate dependence on fossil fuels however a wish I could see their spreadsheets that justify the expenditure, or better where they think it would become cost prohibitive.


on edit:
Looks like their is some opinion out there that agrees with you in the sense that we will be there for years to come...

Long U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan Expected (VIDEO)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x352814
Source: http://TheGlobalReport.org

[tekisui]

27. The Brits are already admitting that troops will be there up to 40 years.

We are still in the escalation phase. Dumping more troops and more money into it.

[Kaleva]

28. You misread the article

[tekisui]

33. Sure, they use the word 'may', but I know what that means.

It is common for information of build-ups and long occupations to slowly drip into the public discourse. I don't think I am wrong.

[Kaleva]

37. You may be correct but....

the article doesn't say that the British military itself may be there for 40 years.

[ShamelessHussy]

32. BBC: UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'

The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8191018.stm

Are you referring to that article?

Yes, that is the kind of long term commitment I am wondering if the American people would support. And if not, why should we stay there even 1 day longer?

[Kaleva]

40. This is what he said:

"I believe that the UK will be committed to Afghanistan in some manner - development, governance, security sector reform - for the next 30 to 40 years," he said.

"It is not just reconstruction; jobs and simple governance that works are key, and there has to be a strong reconciliation element to the latter."

[DrDan]

2. maybe we should ask the Soviets - I believe they have a bit of exerience with this

[ThomWV]

3. I could not begin to guess what it would mean to "win" in Afghanistan

I just don't have any idea at all what would constitute a win for us in that country.

[Warpy]

5. Check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

This is what is needed to win a war of occupation.

[YOY]

4. Define "win"

n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. Has the Obama administration defined it?

n/t

[ShamelessHussy]

10. Good point. I updated my OP with my defination of winning.

The current definition of win by the admin sounds like nation building in order to win the hearts and minds of the people.

[tekisui]

35. Ambiguously.

Just enough to drag it on for decades.

[SoCalDem]

6. Of course not. "Modern" wars are ALL "un-winnable"

WWII was the last (and ONLY 20th century) war that could even be remotely referred to as, "won".

The ONLY reason it was "won" was because we had the Marshall Plan AFTERWARD.

remove that from the mix, and we'd have Europe, Balkan Style.

Our world is too small to ever have winnable wars. Whether we like it or not, we are all connected, and we all have a stake in the future.

People will kill each other..they always have, but current & future wars will be insurgencies and those are un-winnable.

One side eventually just "goes home" and does other things, and it "ends" until it starts up again.

[billyoc]

7. Of course it's winnable, all the OTHER Afghanistan wars were won.

It's just that the foreign armies are never the winners, that's all.

[timeforpeace]

11. Well said.

[ShamelessHussy]

18. Obviously, I meant winnable by us.

Though, as you noted, the history does not look good for any foreign army in Afghanistan.

[Truth2Tell]

9. 2

[ShamelessHussy]

19. Thanks Truth2Tell

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

54. no prob, it's an obvious no win. And...

welcome to DU! :)

[MellowDem]

12. It's not a "war"...

in the traditional sense, and therefore is not winnable, or loseable, or whatever. The big question is, is Afghanistan salvageable? Could we leave today and be sure that the Afghan government can stand on its own? Would we have made sure that acts like 9/11 would never be able to occur due to planning in that region again? Probably not, especially considering Pakistan is just as much a part of that whole question and one in which we have little to no control. We just have to accept that there will be places overseas where terrorists will be able to gather and train and perhaps even pull off terrorist attacks every now and again on US soil.

The question is whether it is worth it in the blood and treasure to even try and make these regions of the world unsupportable to terrorist groups. In hard numbers, probably not at all. There could have been hundreds of terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 that would equal nowhere near the amount of money and blood we have spilled overseas. And of course what are the chances any terrorist act would even be comparable to 9/11 ever again? The only big fear is the acquisition of nuclear arms, and it's a fairly logical fair considering where Pakistan is. Beyond that, a lot of the "fear" of terrorism is simply scare mongering.

Better that we focus on preventing terrorist attacks here at home, far more efficient and effective in my opinion, with an exception for cases of nuclear terrorism I suppose.

[ShamelessHussy]

16. OK. How about struggle?

Or use whatever term you feel most appropriate. Though the question stands, and I will take your answer as a 'no'.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, it is greatly appreciated. :toast:

[LynneSin]

13. Is any war truly winnable?

I mean when you look at what wars cost us in the terms of not just money but lives - no war is truly a winable war.

[biermeister]

14. by win do you mean get all the opium profits?

because that's really what it's all about

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Trying to "win" a war is like trying to "win" an earthquake.

There are survivors of the catastrophe and the dead.

And, of course the politicians to start the next catastrophe.

[EC]

17. From what I understand, we are not trying to win

but to try and make it less threatening and more stable.

[tekisui]

21. Translation: We'll be there for decades. Anywhere can always get

'less' threatening and 'more' stable.

Of course, in the meantime, we will spend trillions of dollars and kill thousands of civilians and lose thousands of troops.

[tekisui]

20. Hell no. But, we can leave.

[Echo In Light]

25. *

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. NOW!

:thumbsup:

[Vidar]

22. No.

[elocs]

23. Afghanistan & Britons: been there, done that, failed.

I just glad that my 20 year old godson got back safely from Afghanistan last month. He had been stationed in the Korengal Valley in the mountains of NE Afghanistan by the border with Pakistan. A nasty place to be.

[ShamelessHussy]

41. I am very glad to hear that.

I have young members of my family serving and is why this issue is very dear to me as well.

I think it is completely unfair and morally wrong that our country has engaged in these foreign campaigns and haven't instituted a draft to support them but instead have put ALL of the burden on these few soldiers we have and repeatedly sent them into these terrible and inhospitable war zones. They may think they can carry on this way indefinitely but our society will feel the pain of these men and women as they come back home and share their stories and a few of them act out violently.

This needs to end, immediately.

[elocs]

42. My godson re-enlisted for another 6 years which would make 9 for him.

If you do 9, you may as well do 20 and he would be out at age 37 with a pension. He is leaving to go back to Fort Hood tomorrow and it is clear now that his home is now there and no longer his "home" in Chicago. He likes the Army and I think he will stay there. I think there is also a good chance that he would end up in Afghanistan again, but maybe it will be better by then.

[ShamelessHussy]

49. In todays economy I have found myself wondering if I should have stayed in

as I would have been out with my 20, 5 years ago.

Well, I salute your godson for his service, hard work, and sacrifice and I wish him all the best in whatever he decides to do.

:hi:

[SpartanDem]

26. By that standard no

but not even Obama I believe that using that standard. My sense of their definition of victory is the country has a stable, functioning government and a military able to fight the Taliban and AQ.

[ShamelessHussy]

30. The admin seems to be talking about nation building, which goes well beyond my narrow definition.

So you think that even if insurgents remain fighting the Afghan gov, we will be able to pull out our troops and call that victory?

However that sounds like what they have now. They have a gov, and will even have elections next week, and they also have an afghanistan military fighting the insurgents.

[abumbyanyothername]

29. What exactly would a win look like?

If we are trying to win hearts and minds, then pull out the troops and fund schools, water plants and hospitals using 33% of the money.

[ShamelessHussy]

31. I added a narrow definition in my OP but I am very interested in hearing DU's opinion on that, too

If we pull out now, what would stop the insurgents taking over again, and any investments in infrastructure we put in there?

[uppityperson]

34. Using that narrow definition, of course not.

"Win means: no Taliban or any other groups fighting gov or foreign troops. Pro western democratic gov in place with equal rights for men and women supported by the people."

If "Win" means no one every fighting again, then no. It isn't winnable. If we pulled out now, the Taliban would take over again, along with varied warlords.

I see the Afghanistan problem being a lot of poverty, and that needs to be addressed on a multi-country front, not just "bombs and bullets". The problems behind why the Taliban were a alternative to fighting War Lords need to be looked at and dealt with. Extreme poverty encouraged Fundamentalismness.

[ShamelessHussy]

36. What definition would you use?

Afghanistan is a tribal nation that has never been governed by a central government, so how would we institute a new way of thinking for the people to respond positively from central gov programs?

I am trying to understand if you (and others on DU) believe there is a US (or UN) program that you think would be successful and if so what that would look like.

[uppityperson]

46. It would have to be at least a UN program.

Including areas of economics, jobs, health care, education. Sustainability is another thing to work towards. I'm not involved enough in the UN to know how to do it though so cannot give you specifics. Have been involved with other organizations who work on such things though.

If I were queen of the universe, but I am not.

Realize you are talking to a person who is a cynic, who expects humankind to go extinct (via their own actions), who sees the best in people and the worst at the same time.

[ShamelessHussy]

52. The UN is officially involved right now via UNAMA

http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx?/

see also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_in_Afghanistan

And I do understand you being a reality based person as I believe I am cursed/blessed with that condition as well.

My personal opinion on this matter is that our military efforts will fail in the end and simply doom our people and theirs to years of suffering and hardship, though we certainly have more to lose in both the long and short run as they have been here before many times and folks are not as dependent on a central government as we are in the U.S.

If I were queen of the universe, I'd bring our troops home, NOW.

Thank you for your thoughts uppityperson :hi:

[PufPuf23]

38. 3. One must define "winnable"

The presumed outcome to me is a stable pro-western/USA/NATO corporate culture.

This will take time and dollars and depends on how much longer the USA can be sustained as a civil society and member of the world community with military overreach in any dimension that can be conceived.

I believe most of the citizens and illegals too of the USA are good in heart but the military-industrial-corporate-old money-media-government complex has near erased and comnfused and even made stupid by design the citizens and residents within the USA.

I believe the USA a force for good taken astray by Authoritarians. "Winnable" is murkey and fast "winnable" is extreme violence and ephemeral. We the USA needs to be good and not demonize as a standard practice. The rush to violence and demonization is adolescent and dangerous.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. Though I usually don't endorse Sting's solo albums, he had a great line in the song "Russians"

There's no such thing as a winnable war. It's a lie we don't believe anymore

[laststeamtrain]

43. 1a: Yes, but only on Bizarro World. n/t.

[bvar22]

44. ?

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

Put me down for a "No".

Way past time to bring ALL our troops home from the Middle East.
No Billion Dollar Embassies.
No "residual forces" to "fight terrorism" (with terrorism).

[liam_laddie]

47. Two!

Just another method for the financial elites to maintain a constant source of funds for their
idotic, anti-human dreams. Fuckers...

[FarCenter]

48. Yes, if we kill 2 to 4 million Pashtun tribesmen

There are about 20 million Pashtun's in Afghanistan and about the same number in Pakistan.

History has shown that you can pacify a people if you kill 5 to 10% of them.

[XemaSab]

50. It's possible that the culture there will change so freedom and democracy will prevail

but if so, it will be a generational change and western forces will hinder progress.

[PSzymeczek]

51. 2. Absofreakinglutely not.

These are tribal people, not really a state.

[ShamelessHussy]

53. Excellent point PSzymeczek

And something I think most Americans don't understand.

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

55. What's the objective?

Conquering? No, we aren't any good at that shit.

Destroying specific targets and general damage dealing? Fuck yeah, we are built for that and excel.

So, yes we can do untold damage to the ability of much organization of training camps and make hits across the border but we cannot "hold" Afghanistan.

We have true military superiority. If we had the will and desire we could turn the entire country to glass and statistically wipe out each and every living soul using conventional armaments.

You cannot truly answer the question without knowing the goals. If this was about fucking up a stone age country then the answer is clear, if it is trying to hold that mountainous region against the will of the people without inflicting grievous damage to the population then no. Objectives in between have varying degrees of likelihood of success and validity. We're probably best off using bombardment and drones to make them miserable and then some special forces strikes. I'd think we could handle that with about 40k (10-12 active and the rest for support), so I'm unclear of the purpose of the build up for what should be by definition a hit and run type scenario. I'm all onboard for decimating Al Queda and Taliban ability but the number of troops alone indicates very different goals or a much larger and more entrenched forces than I imagine.

Our forces are designed for modern nation-state battles focused on damage dealing not occupation.

[ShamelessHussy]

56. does that mean, "no"?

according to my definition of 'win'?