Well, despite achieving our stated goal of getting rid of bin Laden, we're not leaving Afghanistan

[MadHound]

"Democratic Sen. John Kerry said the response to the killing of bin Laden is likely to be "why don't we pack up and leave Afghanistan?" He said the U.S. cannot do that. He said the critical question is how will peace be achieved"
<http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Bin-Laden-s-death-affects-US-role-in-Afghanistan-1363234.php>

And yet the reason why peace cannot be achieved in Afghanistan is because we're still in there waging war. Hmmm, and I thought Kerry was smarter than that.

Or perhaps he, like so many politicians on both sides of the aisle, simply wants to continue feeding the MIC here at home, no matter the cost in lives, no matter how badly these illegal, immoral wars continue to damage our country, our people.

[Honeycombe8]

1. How do we ensure the Taliban won't take control of Afghanistan, again?

If you remember, that was the point. To take away the Taliban's seat of control of the country, which gave it the power & money to train terrorists, harbor terrorists, and even have Al Qaeda in its rank and file. That's where the plans and training for 9/11 came from.

The Taliban are out of control there, now. So Al Qaeda has dispersed to other countries, losing its main source of power. But they'll just go right back, if the Taliban regain control of the country.

So how do we prevent that?

I don't have the answer. Just askin'. Can we leave & hope Karzai can keep the Taliban out of power? Or at least AQ out? Or do we have to stay there for decades? I don't know the answer. I hope someone does, though.

[Hardrada]

3. I don't think we should be the police of the world. We can't afford it.

[Honeycombe8]

29. It's not policing Afghanistan for the world. It's preventing the same thing from happening again.

Many Taliban belong to AQ. AQ was headquartered at that time in Afghanistan, and ran the govt. AQ paid the Taliban big bucks for the privilege of "owning" Afghanistan. Ideologically, many Taliban wanted to join, and did join, AQ.

So we got the AQ CONTROL out of Afghanistan. AQ is no longer headquartered in Afghanistan. But AQ Taliban members are still in Afghanistan and operate from there. The Taliban are members of Karzai's govt (how did THAT happen?).

One of the things preventing AQ from owning the Afghanistan government again is that America and other forces are there. I thought the plan was for Karzai's govt to take over that role, to prevent AQ from being headquartered there again, owning the government, and running its terrorist camps there. America wanted/needed that for obvious reasons (so there wouldn't be another 9/11 attack planned, paid for, and trained there for that).

That's my understanding, anyway.

But it turns out Karzai is corrupt. I don't know how much authority he has in Afghanistan, anyway, since its such a tribal society, and I've read that some (many?) Afghans don't even know who the President of their country is. The Taliban and others who live in the boondocks don't have electronics, live in the middle ages, are uneducated, and don't even feel a sense of nationality...it's all tribal for them.

It's complicated. Maybe it helps that OBL is gone.

[MadHound]

7. Well, first of all, it doesn't matter when we leave,

The fact of the matter is that whenever that is, some group such as the Taliban is going to come back and come into power. Besides, it's not like we're not already playing footsy with the Taliban over there anyway<http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/04-May-2011/US-to-grill-Pakistan-talk-to-Taliban>

Also, the longer we're over there, killing innocents, laying waste, the more we turn people against us. This is the same situation we faced in Vietnam, and we're repeating the same mistakes over and over.

At this point, it would simply be best if we pulled out of Afghanistan and let the chips fall where they may. The only other option is to lay waste to the land, kill and the people, and call it peace:shrug:

[akbacchus_BC]

16. That is not your problem! Who voted the US to police the world? Leave people

to sort out their problems. Too bad the fucking US did not intervene in Rwanda after 80 fucking days of killing people, guess not, Rwanda does not have oil.

Excuse me, the US does not need to police the world, we did not vote for you to police us!

[Hannah Bell]

26. wait, i thought the original point was that al qaeda was in afghanistan. so confused.

ordinary people have no idea why we're there and will never know.

[Honeycombe8]

28. AQ was part of the Taliban, joined at the hip. You couldn't tell one from the other...

at that time.

AQ members were Taliban, but not all Taliban belonged to AQ. AQ kind of like a club? Lots of AQ members are/were Taliban, but not all Taliban belonged to AQ.

They were headquartered in Afghanistan.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Getting OBL was not the only goal of going into Afghanistan. nt

[MadHound]

11. I don't think it was even the major goal of going into Afghanistan.

Remember "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs". Well, we opted for the carpet of bombs.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Well, had they only agreed to the Unocal deal, they would have

opted for the carpet of gold. Silly them.

[patrice]

4. Damn!

[ProSense]

5. Ah media spin. Here is what Kerry said

Pressure builds to end Afghan war

<...>

“With the death of bin Laden, some people will ask why we don’t pack up and leave Afghanistan. We can’t do that,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. “But it is no longer enough to simply lay out our goals. We need to determine what type of Afghanistan we plan to leave in our wake so that we may actually achieve these objectives. And how will peace be achieved?”

<...>

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said his sense is that most lawmakers will give senior Pentagon officials a few more months to try and make further operational gains during the traditional spring “fighting season.”

Still, even Kerry acknowledged the costs of the war carry a toll.

“As we debate the end-state, we must factor in what we can afford in light of our budget constraints,” the chairman said. “We will spend $120 billion in Afghanistan this fiscal year and our decisions on resource allocations there affect our global posture elsewhere, as we see today in the Middle East. We have to ask at every turn if our strategy in Afghanistan is sustainable.”

<...>

He was asking questions at a hearing. The full statement.

[MadHound]

8. Thank you for reinforcing my point

Though I doubt that was your intention.

[ProSense]

10. Kerry's point was a series of questions

and how to bring the war to an end.

<...>

Now, with the death of Bin Laden, some people will ask why we don’t pack up and leave Afghanistan. We can’t do that. But it is no longer enough to simply lay out our goals. We need to determine what type of Afghanistan we plan to leave in our wake so that we may actually achieve these objectives.

And how will peace be achieved? Our reintegration efforts have had limited impact so far. Reconciliation is more promising in the long run, but it will not be fast and it won’t be a silver bullet – there may be no grand bargain to be had with Mullah Omar or groups like the Haqqani network.

Still, some Taliban appear willing to negotiate, so the United States must send a strong and consistent message that we support a political solution led by the Afghans. It will be difficult, as it was in Iraq, but Afghans themselves must make the hard choices to bring stability to their country.

As we debate the end-state, we must factor in what we can afford in light of our budget constraints. We will spend $120 billion in Afghanistan this fiscal year and our decisions on resource allocations there affect our global posture elsewhere, as we see today in the Middle East.

We have to ask at every turn if our strategy in Afghanistan is sustainable. Our military and civilian strategies must support an Afghanistan that is viable as we transition and draw down our forces.

Was that your point?

[MadHound]

12. No, but you knew that,

My point is that we have no definitive time for leaving Afghanistan, despite all this talk of drawdowns and such. Nor do we have a definitive plan. Just a bunch of polit-speak designed to keep the public either confused and/or pacified.

[Hannah Bell]

27. sorry, i don't see any real difference.

[Bragi]

6. Maybe this will extend the war another 2 years

I have no justification for saying the OBL hit justifies extend the war for two years, but I've noticed that whenever anything happens in a war, it's usually acceptable to use this as an excuse for extending the war another couple of years.

[MadHound]

9. The minimum timeline is that we'll be out by 2014

Though Gates has said we'll be there upwards of around 2017. Frankly, I think that they're going to milk this for all it is worth, and for however long the American public can bear it. After all, we were in Vietnam, in one form or another, for thirty years.

[Turborama]

22. Was. As I said below, the newly acquired multiple hard drives & flash disks are going to help speed

..things along.

[MadHound]

25. What makes you think that?

After all, with Obama dead and al Qaeda spread to the four winds, what is left to do?

[dkf]

13. We have a schedule.

Maybe we can give Obama a break and see if he executes it.

[MadHound]

14. What's the schedule?

2014 is still up in the air, Gates has speculated on 2017, and frankly there is no real definitive date.

And frankly, the people in Afghanistan can't afford to see if Obama executes. They are dying right now, in their hundreds and thousands.

[akbacchus_BC]

15. Wake up, the US will never leave Afghanistan nor Iraq but the US

will continue to wage wars in Pakistan and Libya. Meanwhile, back at home families are starving. Is that the American Dream?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Admitting we lost another war takes courage. Something sadly lacking in politicians.

It's much easier to wave the flag and weep crocodile tears over the cannon fodder giving the "ultimate sacrifice".

[progressoid]

19. Well, we killed Sadam in 2006 and we still have troops in Iraq.

It's naive to think that this makes any difference.

[The Doctor.]

20. As much as I'd love to disagree, you're right on the money MadHound.

The bottom line is exactly that... the bottom line.

I'd love this guy we put in the White House to do this right, but we know there are powers he can't confront.

We're in a very shitty place as a nation.

[Turborama]

21. President Obama to Al Qaeda: We Will Disrupt, Dismantle, Defeat You

March 27 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWp4FqRwb_0

We haven't finished dismantling them yet, but I'm sure the multiple hard drives and flash disks that used to belong to Bin Laden and we're now in possession of are going to help speed that along.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. According to MSN, Presidents ratings on how he's handling Afghanistan likely to skyrocket

BECAUSE we killed Bin Laden. Face it, the people who didn't want to see a tribunal for the 9/11 masterminds don't want to see an end for the Afghan war...

[Art_from_Ark]

24. In 1991, bu$h Sr. was riding the waves

because of the Gulf War, and then the war ended and Sr.'s ratings plummeted.