Why we are in Afghanistan

[berni_mccoy]

It's primarily because Bush was incompetent. But after he put troops there and then allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to escape, the country destabilized and the situation degraded until President Obama took office.

If anyone knows why the Taliban and Al Qaeda should not be allowed to regain power there, it's Greg Mortenson, author of "Three Cups Of Tea" (see http://www.threecupsoftea.com ). If you haven't read this book, you should. But one glance of his twitter feed tells you all you need to know why were are not going to make a hasty retreat from Afghanistan. From Mortenson's recent tweets:

Over three dozen Afghan H.S. girls poisoned by Taliban in Ghazni, on Saturday, June 12, now recovering in hospital: http://bit.ly/dADrNP
4:23 AM Jun 13th via web
...
http://bit.ly/b2rPy2 Taliban poison students - Kunduz area. Never forget these brave girls in the fight of their lives for education & hope
11:03 AM Apr 27th via web

If you dig into each of these, you'll find the following:

Afghan schoolgirls rest at a hospital in Ghazni, eastern Afghanistan, Saturday, June 12, 2010. More than three dozen school girls were hospitalized after becoming ill from suspected poisoning at their high school in Ghazni. There have been similar cases of illnesses at schools around Afghanistan. Some suspect militants are spraying schools with poison gas because they oppose education for girls. (AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad)

And here is a video of the 2nd story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36790098#36790098

The Taliban and Al Qaeda know that education, especially of girls, is going to destroy them far faster than any guns or predator drones. They can't allow it and they have been waging war on education for some time now. And if you think Obama isn't listening to someone like Mortenson, you'd be wrong. Mortenson is required reading by all troops stationed in Afghanistan. From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34238313

Mortenson is someone the military's top brass listens to — and has often consulted with. "Three Cups of Tea" has become required reading for U.S. commanders and troops deploying to Afghanistan, making Mortenson a valued but unofficial adviser to the Pentagon. Mortenson's follow-up book, "Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs," was released Monday.

'I now think the military gets it'
In an interview, Mortenson, a former U.S. Army medic and mountain climber from Bozeman, Mont., retracted earlier remarks that the U.S. Army were all “laptop warriors … who don’t have a clue what was going on locally, on the ground.” Now, he says, “despite a steep learning curve on the part of the U.S. military, I now think the military gets it.”

If you're wondering why Obama is only changing personnel and not policy with the recent events regarding McChrystal, well, it's because, I believe he feels it's the best way to defeat the Taliban and AQ. If we leave, the people there have little chance of achieving peace with books. They won't be allowed to read them.

[Chulanowa]

1. I've been trying to get this through to people for a while now

we are there because we cannot allow these fundamentalist, murdering assholes to resume power in the country. if we "Get.The. Fuck. Out. Now." as some posters demand, that's what happens; and it'll be a bloodbath as not just girls like this are killed, but the families who allowed them to seek schooling. Any Afghan who "collaborated" with the US or Karzai government. And just anyone the Taliban feels like blowing away or dropping a wall on.

[vaberella]

3. Exactly.

That post struck me as immature and someone who is not grasping the problems behind this "war." We're in a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.

[vaberella]

2. berni where you been?! Missed your posts. This is actually why I am on the fence with this war.

I heard about this sort of stuff. We let these clowns take over and we're going to help slaughter an entire nation. It will be a witch hunt for people like in Somalia. A person says, "They helped the Americans not me..." And they'll be slaughtered by these people. I think there will be blood on our hands no matter what and makes chills go up and down my spine. An then the spread of their regime across neighboring land doesn't help us at all. If we allow them to get control of Afghanistan---I feel as though we might cause more damage to our national security. Because it would eventually lead us to come back into this war again. It would never end. And then on the flipside I want us to leave...I want my soldiers home and I don't think we might be successful. Ugh..it's a problem. I don't know where to stand when it comes to this.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Been taking shelter in the Barrack Obama Group, staying away from the hate

that is unjustly aimed at the President. Now that many disruptors have been banned and an official statement has been made about enforcement of the rules, I'm seeing if it's safe to come out again.

Many people who say they want peace and that it can be obtained by simply leaving really don't understand what happens when we abandon a fight that we started. There certainly won't be peace if we leave. Not that there ever was in that region, but far more innocents will die if we leave than if we finish the job. People also forget that this is a multinational effort. We are not the only country engaged. The U.S. has about 50% of the troops there. It's not as simple as people think.

[kjackson227]

27. I am really glad to see you back. Your knowledge of political...

issues is very much needed.

[depakid]

4. Mineral resources...

That's why the "recent discoveries" were tossed out into the press again.

[JTFrog]

8. Those were given to Japan.

So are you saying we're there to secure those resources for Japan.

Interesting...

:eyes:

[depakid]

9. LOL- no, they weren't

You might want to read further than headlines... and more than the American MSM.

[JTFrog]

10. It's certainly what Karzai and Japan have been saying...

From sources around the world....

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100619b1.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/20/japan-has-priority-on-rig_n_618545.html

http://www.english.rfi.fr/asia-pacific/20100618-afghan-president-offers-mineral-resources-japan

http://www.heralddeparis.com/afghanistan-japan-afghan-president-offers-mineral-resources-to-japan/94193

They've already made a three billion dollar deal with the Chinese. Maybe we're there to secure the minerals for China. :eyes:

[depakid]

11. Without delving further into the deals, who makes money and geopolitical spheres of influence

Who do you think receives the products?

:think:

[JTFrog]

12. I'll admit to not knowing much about Japan or China being a proxy for the US.

If that's what you're saying, I'll see what more I can find out about that.

[depakid]

14. That's part of it

The overriding word is trade.

The lithium deposits for example go the makers of lithium batteries- which in turn come into the US market as parts for American companies' products- some of which are assembled in the states. Mining gear i.e. caterpillar goes the other way.

And that's just one resource. Fact is that we're entering an era that will be defined by resource scarcity- and influencing, controlling or having a military presence in regions that produce the resources is something that governments think a lot about- perhaps even more today than in similar conflicts of the past.

[donheld]

50. + Oil & Gas

[VMI Dem]

5. Bush Doctrine. Whoo hoo!

[Warren Stupidity]

6. 'tis the white man's burden to protect the lowly savages by

murdering them in vast numbers, a process which as we all know, leads to civilization.

[cali]

7. Almost ten years. Ten long years.

So how long are we supposed to stay? And I've read Mortenson's book. We should still get the fuck out and get the fuck out now.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Almost 9 years under Bush. Only a year and a half under Obama.

Almost 9 years of fucking it up. I'm willing to give Obama more time to turn it around.

[Chulanowa]

28. Bush? Who is this "Bush"?

Never heard that name before!

[kjackson227]

13. Thanks, Berni for the information. Some think it is so easy...

to get out of these wars just by saying "get out...", "end the war now", etc. etc. Not that simple at all. I just read those posts and shake my head at the naivete. So, so much is involved in withdrawing. The safety of troops, safety of that country's citizens, their government, infrastructure, and the safety of our country as well must be very carefully planned, and it takes a very long time to get that stability in place. Obama hates these wars also- he's said this over, and over, and over again. He will not put our men and women's lives in harms way if it is not absolutely necessary. But, for some reason (even though people claim to have voted for him), they don't trust him to make the right decisions regarding this one major issue.

[Enrique]

22. LBJ hated the war from the beginning

yeah, it's not easy to get out. LBJ couldn't get out. I hope Obama can.

[kjackson227]

26. I hope so, too. But, I trust Obama to get us out earlier, if possible...

I firmly believe he will.

[goclark]

73. It amazes me how many Monday Morning Quarterbacks

we have everywhere.

Unless they sat in the briefing, they don't have a clue.

One thing I do know, Obama does not want to stay there to support Halliburton and make Cheney rich.

Why in hell would he want us to stay?

Bush didn't care one bit about the Troops ~ Obama does.

Anyone that thinks they can just " Stop The War - NOW" needs to
stop wasting precious time and go Stop it!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Don't forget the nuclear weapons in destabilizing Pakistan.

Unlike Iraq, that WMD threat is very, very real.

[golfguru]

74. You are absolutely correct on that...when a dirty nuke hits US

it's origins will be traced back to Pakistan, not Iran nor Iraq nor N. Korea.

[Enrique]

18. yes, that's the reason for all our wars

we're always there for the benefit of the native people.

[berni_mccoy]

19. I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion. That's not what got us there.

But it is what is keeping us there. I believe Obama feels the U.S. has an obligation to fix the disaster created by Bush in the region.

[Enrique]

21. the name of the war was Operation Enduring Freedom

we went to war originally to defeat our enemies there, so we don't have to fight them here, and also to free the Afghan people, which is the mission that God gave our nation, not just in Afghanistan but everywhere that people are oppressed.

[berni_mccoy]

24. That's pretty flawed logic basing the reason for the invasion on the name of the operation

We did not go to "free" anyone. We went there to annihilate the Taliban and AQ. Bush fucked it up and allowed the Taliban and AQ to regroup for 7 long years. Obama inherited a disaster of epic proportions in Afghanistan. He's inherited a lot of disasters from Bush.

[mkultra]

44. actually, we only went there gto kill Bin laden. You remember him right

he wants to kill us all and is still trying.

[rug]

20. We're there for the children.

[Tutankhamun]

47. LOL

[TheKentuckian]

23. Heart string tugging distraction

We cannot impose our morality at gunpoint and ever leave.

The more we try to the more it will be resisted.

The logic is bullshit, there are many countries that have similar practices and worse.

Are we going to set straight the abuses in Saudi Arabia and our other "allies" as well or are we using the issues here as some disgusting excuse to keep up a war that is ten years long against an enemy without tanks, planes, helicopters, or even many soldiers?

We are already cutting deals with elements of the Taliban, they will continue to do as have for centuries.

We aren't there on any mercy mission, we are there to extract resources and for the benefit of the military industrial complex and political calculation.

I think it's shitty to use these women and children as props to guilt folks into accepting an idiotic notion that we can or even are trying to spread peace, liberty, and equality through the might of our arms. Fucking disgusting for you to pitch an emotional appeal to a bogus and senseless position to borrow stacks of billions while our own country is falling down on our heads and we've got a fucking austerity commission working out best how to gut and kill the New Deal and the Great Society.

We have millions of people homeless, sick, and hungry right here.

We are shitcanning teachers and razing neighborhoods and people are worried about tribal people living as they will as a hypocritical cover for making a few fucks wealthy???

We can't afford to help millions of unemployed people that stand to lose everything but you think we have hundreds of billions to throw into holes over there?

What about our people? What about our people huddling into tent cities? What about our kid's education falling apart?

[berni_mccoy]

25. You missed the point. It's not a heart-string argument. Read "Three Cups of Tea"...

and you'll know that.

The idea is that we should strive to achieve peace by educating the population of Afghanistan. I can't agree more. That is the best way to destroy the Taliban and AQ and they know it. That is why they don't hesitate to gas schools full of children. And that is why, I believe, it is difficult for Obama, and the other nations who are engaged there, to leave. The goal is to stabilize the region by suppressing AQ and the Taliban to the point where they cannot disrupt a path to peace.

[pscot]

48. I'm surprised you waste your time posting here

when the great humanitarian work is going on 6000 miles away. I'm sure the Afghan people would welcome you with flowers. And if they didn't, you could always shoot them.

[TheKentuckian]

58. At the expense of Social Security? In a trade off at the expense of our own infrastructure?

The point remains the same, a bunch of care bear bullshit used as a distraction from a resource war.

Pure fantasy Berni and your weak BushCo talking point was already addressed in detail.

Team America can't save the muthafucking day. Those people can't be made to have a massive social evolution by our soldiers and EVER leave. No power is imposing their social system on them, that's internal and they'll have to grow out of it. At some point if a portion wants to move forward then we can talk about aid to assist them in bringing their people forward but there is no indication that we can simply enforce morality and effect some rebirth of a people's belief system with out it being forced by the sword or at gunpoint over many decades and even hundreds of years, often still not fully taking root.

The fucking Bush doctrine, Berni??? Really???

[jeanpalmer]

70. +1000 n/t

[tekisui]

29. You souldn't use the plight of Afghanistan women as an excuse for

endless war. War compounds their suffering.

[berni_mccoy]

30. You didn't read it, did you? See my response #25 above.

[tekisui]

31. I read it.

You don't educate women or build schools with guns and bombs. We are killing civilians regularly in Afghanistan. Read that as women and girls. We compound the problem with our military presence.

[berni_mccoy]

33. You can't educate them when the Taliban and AQ are gassing the schools

[tekisui]

34. And how do we know when it is safe for us to leave?

How will we know when the Taliban and AQ are no longer capable of attacks?

How will we prevent them from returning when we leave?

How many women will we kill until we leave?

How many people we will radicalize in our efforts?

How much blowback will we take because of our endless wars?

[berni_mccoy]

35. The same questions were asked about Iraq.

And yet, troop presence in Iraq is decreasing and an exit is planned and ongoing.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq and I did not support the occupation. However, there is a point in time approaching where it will be "safe" to leave Iraq.

[tekisui]

36. I wouldn't point to a thing about Iraq as helping your argument.

It has been and still is a disaster and a failure. Somewhere around a million dead. 4 million displaced, internally or externally.

There has been ethnic cleansing before and since their civil war. That is one of the reasons violence went down in Iraq. The neighborhoods and regions became segregated.

Yet, there is still not a functioning government, FOUR MONTHS after the election. Nation building with the military does not work. Humanitarianism through the military does not work.

It isn't any 'safer' for us to leave Iraq now than it was 5 years ago. A date was chosen for us to leave. All parties signed on and are (so far) seeming to hold to it. Our departure from Iraq has been much more dependent on fixing a date than any other measure.

We need a fixed date in Afghanistan for a firm exit. No other 'condition' or 'measure' or 'goal' has any real bearing on our withdrawal.

[Robeson]

45. That's pretty much it.

[bluethruandthru]

67. +1000 and while we continue to allocate huge sums of this nations

resources to this unwinnable situation...our politicians - Obama included - seem to have no problem talking about cutting social security and decreasing services and benefits to the people of this country who are already in dire straits.

I realize Obama inherited a horrible situation and I know he'd like to make sure everyone comes out of this in a better place...but when we're in the throes of a huge recession with millions unemployed and underemployed, no money for anything and a deficit that is seemingly endless....he needs to figure out how to get us out fast and focus the country's resources on Americans first.

[sad sally]

71. It will be safe for us to leave when we're knee-deep in some other

war in some other place where we (USofA) must bring our fair and balanced democracy to some other country along with our weapons of mass destruction.

[sabrina 1]

39. It's hard to educate dead women and children also.

Dropping bombs on them surely isn't the way to help, is it? At least that's what they say, if anyone in this country is interested in them, rather than just using them as an excuse for our evil wars.

[noamnety]

49. Maybe you just need to look at it from a different perspective.

The more wedding parties we kill, the more brides we save from patriarchal marriages.

(I am also sick of hearing how wars help women prosper.)

[Robb]

62. And I'm sick of hearing the "NATO loves bombing wedding parties" nonsense.

November 2008, going on two years ago, NATO bombs a wedding party. Admits mistake. 33 dead anyhow, but a mistake... unless you think NATO bombed a wedding on purpose?

However. Only within the past year:

Wedding party bombed by Taliban, http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/09/afghanistan.wedding.bomb/index.html">quite intentionally, leaves 39 dead.

Wedding party bombed by Taliban, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4001014&mesg_id=4003864">quite intentionally, leaves 21 dead.

Wedding party bombed by Taliban, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4397120&mesg_id=4397120">quite intentionally, leaves 2 dead.

Wedding party bombed by Taliban, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4305347">quite intentionally, leaves 30 dead.

Maybe you could use a little perspective. :hi:

[noamnety]

68. selective memory

The charred meat sticking to rubble in black lumps could have been Osama bin Laden's henchmen but survivors said it was the remains of farmers, their wives and children, and wedding guests." 7 January 2002

"US bomb blunder kills 30 at Afghan wedding" 2 July 2002

"Survivors describe wedding massacre as generals refuse to apologise" 21 May 2004

"Afghan strike 'hit wedding party'" 6 July 2008

"US warplanes 'bomb Afghan wedding party'" 6 November 2008 <-- this is the one I guess you want us to remember.

[Robb]

69. Fortunately for you, I'm quite familiar with these events.

...Despite your lack of attribution -- at least the ones that took place in Afghanistan.

The first reference, the B-52 bombing of Qalaye Niazi, hit huge ammunition stockpiles. This is not debated, and compounded the number of deaths, which are arguably still being debated. Holding a wedding in an ammunition bunker may be a Pashtun tradition I'm not familiar with, but I strongly doubt it. In Paktia province, BTW, which is still Taliban-controlled.

The second, also in 2002, and also including a B-52 strike, came after Oruzgan residents fired on helicopters -- fired on them. They were not, as had been previously reported, firing into the air to celebrate a wedding.

The Mukaradeeb incident is also close, but no cigar. Notably, it's in Iraq. It also mostly involved ground troops. I am not familiar with Iraq.

Finally, the Nangarhar province "wedding party" is my personal favorite. Karzai stepped in on that one, and sent Assadullah fucking Wafa to launch a "huge" investigation which, years later, has turned up zero evidence of any civilians being killed.

So your "selective memory" isn't very good. Or, more likely, you stop reading after the first day's story. Not all of us are so perfunctory, and take more than a passing interest. :hi:

[treestar]

32. Rec'd.

Bush got us into this mess and let it get worse and worse for 7 years. It's not going to be simple. We can get out, but should do so responsibly.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

38. Maybe we should let the people of Afghanistan speak for

themselves. Eg, what difference has the presence of the U.S. in that country made to any of this?

US should leave, Afghan woman says

"AMESBURY — "Withdraw troops and empower disarmament and democratic groups. We are not free; we are not liberated." This was the message of Afghanistan native Zoya, who spoke to a crowd of more than 50 people at the Friends Meetinghouse in Amesbury yesterday.

Zoya, whose name has not been revealed in order to protect her identity, has been touring the United States in an effort to spread the message of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a women's rights group. Women have traditionally been treated as a subclass in Afghanistan, and under Taliban rule, were denied access to many basic rights, such as education.

She grew up in an activist family and said that when she was 14, her parents were murdered by fundamentalist extremists, and she continues their work today even though her own life has been threatened.

So why has nothing changed, in fact, according to these women, and to many, many others who have actually been there and talked to the people themselves, the presence of the NATO forces have made life worse for the people there.

"After eight years, what has been accomplished? The U.S. is working with the Northern Alliance to combat the Taliban. But the Northern Alliance is a terrorist group just as dangerous, and the Taliban controls 85 percent of the country," Zoya said. "Ninety-three percent of the world's opium is coming out of Afghanistan. Women are still suppressed by domestic and fundamentalist violence."

As for what will happen when we leave:

Anne Dodge wondered what Zoya thought would happen if the troops from the U.S. and the other 42 countries occupying Afghanistan left.

"Wouldn't there just be a bloodbath between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban?" she asked.

Zoya said that there is a civil war coming whenever the troops leave.

"It will happen tomorrow or in 35 years," she said. "I'd rather it happen sooner, than having our people die slowly under occupation. We must face our own problems and create our own democracy. You cannot make a democracy under gunpoint."

Maybe if the U.S. had not supported violent groups like the Northern Alliance and sometimes, the Taliban when it is expedient, but instead supported the democratic groups there, their presence might have made a difference. But since the well-being of the people there are not the reason for the occupation, obviously that was never the plan.

And is having your family attacked by the Taliban any different than having them slaughtered by U.S. drones? Ask the people of Afghanistan. There is plenty of information on the internet about the actual people there, what they want and how they view our occupation of their country. They do not need anyone speaking for them.

It won't get support for this war to raise the horrors of Taliban rule as long as the horrors of occupation are causing even worse conditions there.

So, the question is, when DO we leave and how does an occupying army, killing civilians almost daily, build a whole country, change the culture, and install a democratic government exactly? We can't take care of our own country let alone someone else's.

And if the brutality of the Taliban is why we are there, why are we not in Uzbekistan where people are literally boiled in oil? Why are we supporting THAT brutal dictatorship?

Let's stop trying to excuse the brutality of our own actions against the people of Afghanistan. We have kidnapped their citizens, tortured them, sometimes to death, drones are killing their children and we are supporting the most brutal elements in the country AND facilitating the drug trade.

There was a time when the Taliban could have been reigned in. That was when they wanted to be accepted into the world community. Diplomacy and demands for changes in their treatment of the people there, would have worked far better. The money spent on war, COULD have been spent on other things such as supporting the Democratic groups that it seems, most Americans don't even know exist there.

But that time passed and either we are there forever, because no matter when we leave, there will be bloodshed, or we leave before WE shed any more blood.

[maxsolomon]

40. Col. Kurtz on why we will leave Afghanistan without 'winning'

I pull this quote from Apocalypse Now quite often, because it clearly illustrates what we would have to do to win in Afghanistan. We would have to be more brutal than the Taliban are willing to be, and we simply aren't. To whit:

" I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terrorare your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

[sabrina 1]

42. That man sounds like he needs some serious

psychological help. And that is what happens when we fight unnecessary wars. People go crazy and then we put them in charge because, as he said, you can't win once the shooting starts, unless you become evil.

[maxsolomon]

46. Well, he was fictional, but the point was that Evil is relative

The Taliban do not see their actions are 'Evil', they think they are righteous. That when they throw acid in the face of a woman, when they suicide bomb a bus full of police recruits, they truly believe that Allah will reward them. In fact, Allah requires then to resist the Infidel in any way they can. If they can't get to us because we're attacking with drones, then they will attack our surrogates or those we care about. Even if it's their sister.

Kurtz' fictional realization was that War requires humans to set aside notions of Good and Evil and embrace our most brutal nature. For millenia, that's what war was - you killed all the men, cut off their genitals as trophies, looted and burned the cities to the ground, raped all the women to your heart's content, and enslaved the children if you felt like it, and paraded the lot through your capital to the cheers of your citizens.

And you can see in our COIN policy, in Marjeh, that we're not willing to do that. The Taliban extort and kill collaborators so the populace will refuse to work with us out of fear of their lives. If we destroyed Marjeh, killed every living being in it, wiped it off the map, then we wouldn't have Marjeh to worry about. And we have the technology to make it easy.

But we won't do that because we judge that action as Evil. And that is why we need to get the fuck out. We CAN'T save the Afghanis from themselves.

[sabrina 1]

54. Thanks.

Kurtz was right. But I wonder if war attracts the most pathological people who don't really have a conscience about killing human beings? Maybe that's why the Founding Fathers insisted on civilian control of the military. I wonder eg, what many of these career military people would be doing if they didn't have the military as an option?

When there is a war, these lunatics suddenly become 'normal' because they serve a purpose that normal people cannot serve.

I am not sure that we are not wiping out that entire country because of a consensus that it would be evil. I think it's more because we are not fighting a legitimate war. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked this country and to get the rest of the world, and this country to go along, a lot of War PR was necessary. They actually hired a PR firm to help sell the war. So, if they were to commit outright genocide, I think they know this country would become a pariah. They don't seem to have any problem killing civilians when they think it is necessary.

Otoh, if you mean that the U.S. the people, rather than those in power, would view it as evil, I agree. And I agree that we need to get out of there as there as soon as possible and we never should have gone there to begin with.

When I hear Obama say 'things are going to get worse before they get better in Afghanistan' what I hear is 'a lot of people are going to die, including our troops'. So they are willing to kill, just not on a scale that would make us a pariah for a long time to come.

[IndianaGreen]

41. We are in Afghanistan because Obama chose to escalate a losing war

The war in Afghanistan was lost way back in 2008. The British people hate this war and they want their troops back home now. We must demand no less from our government!

BTW, Al Qaeda leadership is in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan! General Petraeus himself said that there were less than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.

Lyndon Johnson could have cut bait in Vietnam, and tens of thousands GIs and hundred of thousands Vietnamese and Cambodians would have led long productive lives. Johnson chose to escalate the war, and we ended up with a war memorial in Washington, DC.

For those that hate the Taliban, blame Saudi Arabia. It is the Saudis that finance a global network of religious schools where the radical Wahhabi religion is taught. The Taliban are Wahhabis.

If you are so concerned about the Taliban, perhaps you shouldn't have supported the Carter and Reagan Administrations when they supported the radical religious wackos against the Marxist government in Kabul, the only government to ever guarantee equality to women.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

51. The Subject Line Was Promising

Goalposts, moved!

[LittleBlue]

52. We have to accept the fact that the world operates differently than it ought

Not all areas of the world get their Taliban chased out and a democratic government imposed.

We have to accept the fact that the world does not operate on our notions of values. Marrying girls is acceptable to many peoples. Executions for religious purposes are acceptable to many peoples. That does not mean we can invade and police every nation practicing these values.

The world is too big, and we don't have the ability. Afghan tribes will not be swayed by our American beliefs.

[Odin2005]

53. The Taliban is our own Frankenstein's Monster inflicted on the Afghans. We need to kill it.

We created these religious lunatic assholes and left them to screw over the Afghan people after the Russians left, we need to get rid of them.

[bhikkhu]

55. 30 years of war have done nothing good for afghanistan

at some point you have to look and see how many people will be left after we're done killing the ones we don't like, and whether the ones who are left are not going to "turn bad" themselves, amongst the ruins and mass graves we leave them. You can't promote education at gun point, and you can't evolve a society with bombs.

[smalll]

56. Well-placed campaign-based TRIANGULATION ---

Obama was totally anti-Iraq War (which helped shore up his lefty anit-war support) but at the same time stepped up to Win In Afghanistan -- after all, Afghanistan was fewer troops, fewer deaths, the war that was properly tied to 9/11 -- it was not what pissed most people off.

He was anti-Iraq War to shore up the left, and pro-Afghanistan so that he wouldn't look like such a total wimpy, pacifist anti-American dupe amongst the middle-of-the-road voters.

[Moochy]

60. Here is the post in favor of DLC Triangulation

Yay Team DLC!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

57. Hey I have seen this argument for the war before

many times actually. It was usually the Bush admin. making it.

[Moochy]

59. The poster loves to recycle

old talking points from Bush.

[Catherina]

61. What pretzel logic for continuing Bush's policies n/t

[zulchzulu]

63. It's like saying we need to make shit not smell bad

The Taliban have been there for centuries in one form or another. They may not have been called the Taliban for centuries, but just ask the British about them.

Their view of society and their particular brand of superstitions is nothing new. We can't change the Taliban and staying there as an occupying force only allows them to get stronger and gives Al Qaeda and newer groups more marketing material for their cause.

We need to get the fuck out. Perhaps help fund the TAPI Pipeline for the region... maybe.

Thinking we can stop the Taliban from suddenly not being an integral part of that part of the World is ignorance.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. we are there for the time being cause like in Viet Nam in the mid sixties it is considered way too

domestically politically risky to get out of this un-winnable situation. Just as if LBJ had withdrawn from Viet Nam in the mid sixties and the insurgency had taken power, LBJ would have been accused of having surrendered Viet Nam to the Communist and LBJ would have been held responsible for every atrocity associated with the regime. - It was simply less domestically politically risky to continue our own carnage for a some more years years and let someone else at a later time withdraw when the domestic political risk were significantly less.

Pretty much the same arguments were made to continue and at times escalate the conflict in Indo-China; surrender to the Communist or surrender to the terrorist, atrocities by the Communist or atrocities by the Taliban. It's not like there is no truth to these arguments. After all, a Communist government did take power following the U.S. withdraw and no doubt real atrocities did occur. It is quite likely that following a withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban will take power in at least most of the country and no doubt there will be reprisals and atrocities. But none of this changes the simple reality that the war in Afghanistan like the war in Viet Nam is simply NOT winnable and never will be. Building some sort of progressive/liberal society is simply not going to happen at the point of our guns. And none of this changes the reality that continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan will almost certainly further destabilize neighboring countries and territories. The continued U.S. presence in Viet Nam eventually dragged Laos and Cambodia into the carnage just as we see continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan already dragging large parts of Pakistan into the conflict. In the case of Viet Nam once neutral Laos and Cambodia eventually fell to hostile forces. I suspect continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan will produce similar results.

Eventually the U.S. political class grew so weary and tired of the Viet Nam War and the realization that the war was never going to be won was finally grasped by all by the deaf, dumb and blind. Thus it finally ceased to be significantly domestically politically risky to withdraw albeit with much more harm done than if they had withdrawn much earlier. I suspect more or less the same scenario will happen in Afghanistan after some more years and much more U.S. supported carnage and further destabilization of the region and ever more territory lost to hostile and reactionary forces.

[Autumn]

65. Get.The. Fuck. Out. Now.

I will not change my mind.

[alsame]

66. Education may have been

a noble effort in the 80s, after the Soviet Union left. We had poured so much money and resources into Afghanistan, but then we just abandoned the people after we got our kicks from winning the proxy war.

IMO, there was a missed opportunity to help the Afghan people rebuild their country once the occupation ended. If we had made any humanitarian efforts at that time, Afghanistan might have been a different country today - several generations of educated citizens and a functioning state would perhaps have prevented the Taliban from gaining power.

But we didn't, we just disappeared and left a vacuum there. As Charlie Wilson said, "We fucked up the endgame."

Right now I doubt an education program would have much impact at all - it's kind of hard to win the hearts and minds of women and girls while we're killing their husbands, fathers and brothers.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. If we are actually fighting the Taliban then it should be easy

bribe 'em and then leave?

Don't forget thw GOP were friends with the Taliban.