If I was President I would take a similar position on Afghanistan

[NJmaverick]

The surge worked in Iraq. I will admit I didn't believe that was possible, based on my understanding of military history and the nature of insurgency type warfare. It worked and I have to accept the possibility that it can work in Afghanistan (note I said can not will)

So now we have Afghanistan to deal with. The options were retreat and leave a power vacuum that would be filled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, muddle along the same path that we are currently on or have a similar surge to Iraq and hope that it stabilized the nation.

Option one would save the lives of our troops but it does put the Country at great risk of another terror attack as well as boost the morale of the terrorist forces.

Option two seems to offer no up side and only down side

Option three risks a long term quagmire if success isn't achieved. So like Obama I would have set a hard deadline. Just like school kids you can't have an open ended commitment to the Afghan government. You have to set a hard deadline so they know when they have to get their act together. It's very possible that at the end of 18 months the US will still end up losing the war. However at that point we will at least know we gave victory every possible chance.

So option 3 may lead us back to option one but there is a solid chance that it could lead to victory. Our national security interests and our counter terrorism efforts are just too important for me to say walk away with out taking that chance.

[Oregone]

1. Paying off insurgents worked in Iraq. Not adding manpower

Do you want to start cutting checks to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

[NJmaverick]

6. Oh the paychecks were certainly the new factor in the equation

that broke the rules and allowed success. If we can pull off similar victories in Afghanistan with some bribes of food and cash I say hell yes do it.

[Neecy]

19. Who pays for these bribes?

And at what cost? And in the end, when bribes are so freely handed out, what's to stop other countries from stirring up shit to get a piece of this bribery action?

As soon as the money stops, people change sides. So we have to bribe them for hundreds of years? I'm just curious how you think this is a viable strategy.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. Your argument would be correct if

nothing changed on the ground between the time when the payoffs started and the time when they end. However, that's unlikely to be the case.

What this does is buys time for the government and the military to establish themselves, starts some insurgent factions down the path to accepting the government, and demonstrates to tribal leaders that peace with the government can have beneficial results for their people (through public works projects and other means). Don't get me wrong, it's still a gamble, but not nearly as futile a one and you're portraying.

[Neecy]

39. You have no idea how likely or unlikely the case will be

We're still paying bribes in Iraq and there's no conclusive evidence that they won't flip after we stop cutting checks.

Afghanistan, in particular, is notorious for changing sides. Warlords who came together to oppose the Russians turned on each other after the Russians pulled out, and their fighting decimated Kabul. Then they united again and became the Northern Alliance against the Taliban (and were routed again and again). These aren't "insurgents" - these are tribal animosities with changing dynamics and alliances that no amount of bribes will permanently alter. The country is united in their hatred of the Karzai government and the bribery period isn't going to change that fact. Afghanistan has never been ruled by a central government. Bribery is just pouring our money down a rathole when there are so many needs in this country that are going unmet, and as a strategy it's pretty pathetic.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

42. Sigh.

If the military and government are sufficiently strong by the time such payments cease, the likelihood that they'll flip is greatly decreased. That's just common sense.

[Neecy]

46. And it's common sense (and history)

To believe that the Karzai government will never be strong enough to survive once the bribery ends. *Sigh* right back atcha.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. And, again, that all depends on what actions are taken between now and when such payoffs end.

There are solutions. The hard part is determining what they are and how to best implement them.

[NJmaverick]

31. We will pay the bribes.

it's not as simple as paying brides though. The bribes serve to weaken and isolate the enemy which is then wiped out. That is what prevents the people from changing sides after the bribes end

[Neecy]

45. The Taliban will never be "wiped out"

It's not a group of people, it's a movement built on fundamentalist ideology.

When the Taliban ran short of fighters when they were in battle with the Northern Alliance for control of the country, they called up reserves from the religious schools and they came in droves. You'd have to make Afghanistan a completely secular country for your scenario to work, and that will never happen.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

49. We don't have to wipe them out

We just have to fracture the movement.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

18. I'm not sure how you can pick and choose what worked and what didn't

when a combination of things were being tried on a large scale, all at once. Did establishing ties with some insurgent groups help? Absolutely. Would that have been possible without an increase in U.S. troops, thus ensuring that we had their back when al-Qaeda came calling? Absolutely not.

[Oregone]

22. "when al-Qaeda came calling"

We were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? Wow. Bush must be a master strategist

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. You're unaware of the fact that al-Qaeda established a presence in Iraq?

[NJmaverick]

26. Al Qaeda tried and failed to establish Iraq as a base of operations

I'm sure they are still meddling though

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

27. Just to clarify, I was replying to Oregone

[NJmaverick]

28. Sorry you're right and I fixed my post accordingly

[Oregone]

29. What, like a little book club?

Did they read Oprah's recommended novels in their free time?

Attributing attacks to Al Qaeda in Iraq, instead of insurgents, was a political tool the influence public opinion. Their presense was negligable. We spent years fighting Iraqis who just didn't want us there--something that was tough for the typical American to face.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

33. I realize you're coming at this from a particular political perspective but...

ignoring something that's been clearly established from everyone from our own military leaders to the leaders of the Sunni resistance is unfathomable.

[Oregone]

35. And ignoring that a few assholes in Iraq calling themselves Al Qaeda was negligable to the conflict

is absurd.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

43. Really? al-Zarqawi wasn't "real" al-Qaeda or what? What is it you're arguing here?

[Oregone]

47. That the boogieman was a negligible part of the war. The conflict was against home-grown Iraqis

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. The people you eagerly dismiss as mere boogeymen were the ones who instigated the bloodletting

between the Sunni and Shia factions. This idea that they played no major role is ridiculous.

[Oregone]

52. The idea that instigators were needed to incite bloodletting against those factions is ridiculous

You forgot, "Terror, Terror, 9/11, Terror"!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. There was tension beforehand, but it was nothing remotely like the bloodbath it became

as a result of al-Qaeda's instigations.

[tekisui]

2. The surge didn't work in Iraq.

What worked was us leaving the cities and staying on our bases.

"So option 3 may lead us back to option one but there is a solid chance that it could lead to victory."
That is so cute.

[NJmaverick]

7. I can't agree. Before the surge Iraq was in chaos

now the US will be able to pull out as a with drawing force instead of a retreating army. Between military action and bribery the US forces were able to eliminate the opposition.

[tekisui]

8. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7124178

[NJmaverick]

13. I don't agree with that interpretation of the facts

the case made doesn't make any sense to me.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

20. That U.S. didn't begin to do that until the number of attacks plummeted.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

[arcadian]

3. Paying off our enemies. Isn't that giving them aid?

And I thought we didn't negotiate with terrists.

[NJmaverick]

9. Achieving victory would not meet my definition of "giving them aid"

in fact I think it would mean the exact opposite.

"we don't negotiate with terrorists" is a simplistic slogan. It would be foolish to limit our options to achieving victory over a stupid catch phrase.

[arcadian]

15. If we give them monetary aid, we are aiding and abetting our enemies.

It's how this whole thing started, by funding the Mujahideen. Some people really have no grasp of history.

[NJmaverick]

17. Actually aiding the Mujahideen brought down the American's number one enemy the USSR

so it would follow finding others that will fight the radical elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have a similar result.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

25. If, as a result, they're putting down their arms, that ceases to make them our enemy, no?

[arcadian]

34. "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"

[StarfarerBill]

4. Separating the combatants lowered the death toll in Iraq...

...which will rise again as we withdraw, and they come together again.

Civil wars are not decided by outsiders.

[NJmaverick]

11. I don't see evidence to support your predictions of the future

I am not saying it can't happen, but there is no reason to believe it will.

[StarfarerBill]

21. If one doesn't believe that not learning from history dooms one to repeat it,

then there's no reason to believe that previous counterinsurgencies didn't work.

Maybe Iraq and Afghanistan will be different...but given history's lessons, I personally doubt it.

[NJmaverick]

30. What history lesson says that Iraq will fall into chaos after our troops leave?

the catch phrase is meaningless without the historical examples.

[StarfarerBill]

36. Eastern Europe during WWII, Viet Nam, Algeria, Somalia, Nicaragua, East Timor, Gaza,

Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Turkish Kurdistan, Chiapas, Afghanistan repeatedly...and others, but these were all I could come with at the moment.

Admittedly, not all these areas and nations fell or are falling into chaos with their continued/victorious insurgencies; but these historical lessons do demonstrate that far more often than not, the insurgents are prepared to out-wait and out-fight their opponents. After all, it's their land, not the invaders'.

[NJmaverick]

37. Pick one and lets talk about the specifics

[StarfarerBill]

40. Afghanistan: Soviet invasion and prior.

[NJmaverick]

44. OK Soviet Invasion, there was never a stable situation

So how would we use that one to draw that lesson that Iraq will fail when we leave?

[StarfarerBill]

51. There is no "stable" situation in Iraq now.

It's an artificial semi-state caused by large numbers of occupying troops. Iraqis and occupiers alike are still dying from insurgent bomb attacks; only the relatively-low level of violence compared to a couple of years ago, combined with a lack of media attention, gives the illusion of stability.

The insurgents are still there, and will be there after we leave (if we do leave); in the post-withdrawal environment (if there ever actually is one), it's a safe bet that sectarian and political violence will increase. As I said before, civil wars are never decided by outsiders.

[NJmaverick]

53. I don't see it that way. The conflicts and deaths are both way down

the Iraqi government is becoming stronger by the day.

There are still terrorist style bomb attacks, but those sort of attacks can be carried out by a handful of people.

[StarfarerBill]

54. Then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Sectarian and political grievances have by no means been extensively addressed, much less solved; if and when the wall of foreign occupation has been torn down, I believe they will come to the fore again. When that happens, it'll remain to be seen if and how much violence ensues.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. If a dramatic decrease in the level of attacks is not evidence

of the problems being dealt with, what would be? I'm sincerely asking.

[StarfarerBill]

59. And I'm sincerely answering that until the centuries-old animosities...

... between Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkmen, etc. are dealt with by them without foreign occupiers on their soil, the violence is almost inevitably going to erupt again...perhaps even before we leave.

At this point, it's simply keeping warring factions apart by main force; what Iraq ultimately becomes will be thrashed out by Iraqis after we exit.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. While that's true, one has to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made

between what exists today and the bloodbath that existed a mere three years ago.

[StarfarerBill]

61. Take the 800-pound gorilla of the occupation away,

then we'll get a true measure of the progress made.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

62. It's already receding. For the most part, our military is withdrawn from the cities

and the British left the cities a long time ago.

[StarfarerBill]

63. But the occupation is still there; every Iraqi knows that,

and I'm sure the occupiers remind them of it frequently. And still the bombs go off.

Look, I hope you're right and there is no sharp increase in violence if and when we leave; but the acid test is still the absence of the occupation, and I have serious doubts about the glass house we've built there not shattering.

We as Americans still have to answer to ourselves and the world for a war without justification, one that took at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of occupier lives and may well ultimately shatter Iraq as a nation.

I'll let you have the last word on this, if you want it; I'm done, as I think we both know where the other stands and neither mind is likely to be changed. Thanks for an interesting exchange of views that never descended into personal attacks; very refreshing. :)

[MilesColtrane]

67. I concur.

Bush opened up hell when he toppled Saddam Hussein.

We can only watch it play out after we pull out now.

Hopefully the civil wars won't go on as long as the Yugoslav wars, and there won't be attempts at genocide, but there's no reason to be optimistic in my opinion.

Splitting Iraq up was probably would have been the least bloody way to go.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

10. You would have to

Nobody gets to be president unless they have a cheerful willingness to shed copious quantities of blood for empire and capitalism.

[NJmaverick]

16. Where are you getting this "cheerful" from

that is certainly an adjective that reeks of hyperbole if not outright deception.

"blood for empire and capitalism"

So the plan is to build an 18 month empire and then leave? Again more baseless hyperbole

[blindpig]

32. 18 months......

before the withdrawal starts, if things go according to plan...sounds like the so-called withdrawal from Iraq. No doubt if a sufficiently loyal and effective puppet could be found we would leave, as long as the assets are secure.

[Johonny]

12. I heard no evidence last night that we aren't muddling

just with slightly more troops. It's not like the 20 K surge worked last year. It's not like all these years of building the Afghani troops has worked. What training? These people need educations, not more guns. It's not like the country is a full of terrorists. It's not even as if the Taliban is evil. Part of Obama's plan is to work the Taliban back into main stream society. So there goes that part of your message right there. Frankly without serious amount of help from China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Muslim communities, I see no reason why this will work. I see this as three more years of muddle then declaring victory and leaving. We should have declared victory last night and left, just like Nixon should have.

[NJmaverick]

14. The Taliban hosted OBL and Al Qaeda. 9/11 was planned there

the idea that the Taliban is monolithic though, would be a wrong one. Some of the Taliban is lacking in religious extermism but simply are part of them for protection and other benefits. You pull them away and you leave a small radical force that is capble of being defeated.

[closeupready]

38. Unrec.

n/t

[ItNerd4life]

41. Nice to hear some critical thinking! I wish people would pull their heads out of the sand.

Or take off their tin foil hats. You described the situation nicely and it's why I support the additional troops as well.

Bush left Afganistan a mess, Obama is going to try and clean up his mess.

[NJmaverick]

55. Looking at the unrecs, it seems critical thinking is not very popular here at DU

[Tigermoose]

56. K & R

Thanks for eloquently stating your thoughts.

[NJmaverick]

66. Thanks, but as you can see thoughts are not popular

[Javaman]

64. Read up on the Sunni Awakining. it happened long before "the surge" in Iraq.

man, I love people who don't read.

:banghead:

[NJmaverick]

65. right.... anyone that thinks for themselves and doesn't agree with you

must not be reading.:eyes:

[Javaman]

68. It's not a matter if thinking for ones self...

it's the facts.

read up on it. The Sunni Awaking started before the surge.

Damn.

:banghead:

[NJmaverick]

69. The "Sunni Awakening" was a myth concocted by those that didn't want to

admit they were wrong about the surge. I live in the world of facts, when they prove me wrong I admit it and try to see where I went wrong. I don't try and distort reality or make up odd theories to try and prove myself right.

[Javaman]

70. What? this isn't a theory. It happened before the surge...

are you that thick?

Holy cow.

you know what, believe what ever imaginary bullshit you want, but if you want to insist that morons* "surge" won the day, knock yourself out and go over to free republic, there are plenty over that that believe the same bizarre things that you do.

Tootles.