Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

Actually, we did invade Afghanistan, unless I'm completely imagining my deployment and occupation duty there for ten months between 2003 and 2004.

Your semantic dibbling ultimately means nothing; the Northern Alliance was losing, and badly, until we arrived in force. The allied forces killed approximately thirty thousand Taliban and AQ fighters in 2001-2002, and toppled the Taliban from power in less than three months. It was allied forces that made all the difference in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan; that the Northern Alliance acted as proxies-with US Special Forces and CIA officers fighting alongside them, no less, is completely pointless.

 

Actually, I guess I see your point Ghost, I'm just not sure how much the difference matters. I mean, I suppose you can call it whatever you want, but there's no magic number to determine when it is or isn't an "invasion." Deploying the equivalent of 2-3 divisions worth of material isn't a mundane undertaking, and it doesn't become any less important if the total number is comprised of Special Forces, Marines, Light Infantry, and Air Force personnel, just because they're less visible than armored vehicles.

Air Force counts even less when you're talking about "invasion."

Under the modern concept of warfighting, each piece is important. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the Air Force counts even less," because the Air Force along with the Navy's carrier-borne forces make up the giant fist of any invasion.

Afghanistan's terrain dictates that you rely on lighter divisions instead of heavy ones anyway. You have to take the overall picture into consideration. Even from the beginning, I'm not sure the local fighters were capable of sustaining operations, and in fact, they weren't. But given that the local fighting forces already had a presence against the Taliban, it would make sense to get an understanding of the land before you simply send armored vehicles trapsing around the mountains.

I'd agree that for about 3-4 months, the US relied on the various Northern Alliances forces to prep the way for the US, but this makes sense, doesn't it? But also right from the beginning, from about Jan 2002, onward, the US did have a major presence, no matter if it's called an invasion or whatever.

 

Yeah, the US presence swiftly grew after serious fighting had ended. It went from 2,000-4,000 soldiers on the ground by the end of December 2001, to about ten to fifteen thousand in 2003-2004 when I was there in 2003.

Afghanistan, as anyone with a copy of Google Earth can find out, is not suitable country for heavy units-IE tanks. It's exceptionally mountainous and offers very few places that mechanized forces can put their inherent speed to use in. It's decidedly not Iraq, which was an easy country to garrison because it's both largely flat and very well-developed, with practically every major city-of which there are at least four or five-having both a major airport, and easily-travelled highways to move on; it's easy to get to even the most middle-of-nowhere village in Iraq. Afghanistan has one major highway and something like three major airports, and virtually no major linkages between villages. When I was there in 2003, the only place we were even able to use vehicles was to drive up the one highway to our combat outpost about 120 miles away and patrol in it's immediate vicinity. For everything else, and I'm talking literally over a hundred missions of varying lengths of time, we used helicopters to insert forces and then walk the rest of the way.

 

I know it's almost semantics, but using the word "invasion" makes it sounds like the US and our allies burst our way into Afghanistan and had to fight an entire enemy nation. That's just not true, we empowered and supported the existing opposition (the Northern Alliance) so they could retake the country from the terrorist-harboring regime (the Taliban), as our CIA and Special Forces worked on bombing and hunting down Al-Qaeda. When people use the word "Invasion," they picture a very different concept than what we actually did in Afghanistan for the first few years. What we are planning to do now, with the request for so many more troops, would be called a late-stage invasion/occupation, to reinforce the government the Northern Alliance formed (which is very corrupt, not that powerful or popular, and Karzai is even lacking legitmacy after the election). It's a matter of perception, subtly rewriting history. I just don't like rewriting history (especially when it's rewriting what was our overarching strategy), saying we invaded Afghanistan, when I remember being surprised at how we weren't invading but instead helping the Northern Alliance take back their country from the Pakistani Taliban, as it was being framed then.

 

Of course it was an invasion... it's not like they got an invitation.

 

These non-military guys talking about how "we" did or didn't do this or that, but still holding on to the idea of innocence of the American armed forces & how "we" would never do any dirty fighting or actually invade somebody. You're so lost, little guy, you just do not know enough...be sad that you're so uninformed, not righteous like you're trying to be with the media party line you wave around like the all new AmeriKKKan flag.

Our government lies to us, the soldiers, but we have an "in" to find/guess the truths. You don't & so remain clueless. No good can come of this...

 

In my opinion, Obama's speech to the UN today made it very clear Obama's policy approach.

1. Obama is not going to escalate the war by sending more troops.

2. The focus has shifted away from ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban toward an overtly anti-Al Quaeda approach.

What he said:

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we and many nations here are helping these governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.

What I call this is an open admission of significantly downsized goals for ultimate political and military outcomes in Afghanistan.

1. We give up our expectations of imposing democracy
2. We give up our expectations for preventing the Taliban from permanently retaking much of the Afghan countryside.
3. We focus on a limited goal of policing Afghanistan as a terrorist haven and trying to contain the cross border effect on Pakistan.

 

Now this I completely agree with. Nationalism still keeps Europe from having a broad consensus on many of these matters.

Yeah the Soviets found that out.

 

Actually, I probably could have termed that abit better-the Dutch and Canadian forces have deployed tanks recently, in the southern part of the country; from my time there, I suppose it's flat enough that tanks and other heavy vehicles could be useful.

Most of the country is not, though.

 

Petraeus and Mullen endorsed the McChrystal report. So the combined military advice is very different.

During 2006 and 2008, Democrats campaigned on Afghanistan being "the good war" - the war of necessity instead of Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. It's now looking like a big lie that would have done past practitioners proud.

It does make questioning the left's patriotism - particularly their willingness to fight this country's enemies - look very reasonable to me. It seems they are only willing to fight Humana or those who don't agree with Obama's "solutions" to problems.

 

It's not about "questioning the left's patriotism". That's a sweeping indictment that really doesn't matter. But that's probably why the GOP hacks will run with it.

What matters is Obama's policy and decisions. He made a big deal about Afghanistan last year. Well, here you go boss. It's your war now. Win it.

 

You're judging a political position's patriotism by its willingness to fight a war? What a sad little worldview that is.

 

Attitudes like yours are exactly why I question the patriotism of the left.

 

The issue is not so much whether to quit fighting in Afghanistan, rather, its a matter of whether to fight a counter-terrorism war against Al Qaeda or a counter-insurgency war in support of the Karzai government.

 

Why? Would you rather everyone were 'rah rah America!"? That we can do no wrong? Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. If your country effs up then you acknowledge, apologize if necessary, and then get on with your life. This jingoistic hero worship of the military is also rather sickening too. And stifling of free speech. While supporting the troops is a good thing, supporting all troops is rather sad and pathetic. You certainly can't support those who abused prisoners in their care. Or when one goes on a rampage. That's not to say don't support the military, just that you should acknowledge its flaws and realize that, yes, it can do wrong. And if you acknowledge it it makes your society stronger.

If any of these are reasons to question anybody's patriotism then...well, that is sad and pathetic as well. But not unexpected. Extremist rightists usually do try to wrap themselves in a flag, usually with a bible.

 

It's your war now. Win it.

Agreed, but the question is: what does winning the war look like?

What are the political goals that McChrystal's military recommendations are designed to achieve?

Is achieving those political goals worth the military cost, and what are the odds of success given a higher level of investment in money and lives?

And finally, what are alternative political goals for Afghanistan and what would be the military strategy to support those goals?

To me, it looks like Obama has declared a different political goal for Afghanistan that does not include guaranteeing a Taliban-free state. He's going to split the difference between abandoning the venture and escalating the war.

Of course, he may have to cave to political pressure to escalate the war.

 

President Obama's Cuba Moment

I think this lays out perfectly why the president is hesitating on making any decision whether to send more troops.

 

Well, "winning" doesn't look like the Soviet's plan: take all the cities and let the insurgents rule the countryside. That's almost where we are now. But that is a great and difficult question that i've never heard anyone adequately describe(what victory looks like).

See, and I think that would be a huge mistake because AQ will simply retrench itself back in-country on a larger scale if the Taliban take over again.

Actually, i would be surprised if that happens. His base would go nuts if he escalated the war. And by 240,000 troops?! I highly doubt that. But we will see.

 

What is sad and pathetic is that the party that had the guts to stand up to Krushchev when he put missiles in Cuba as well as Hitler an Tojo now doesn't even have the GUTS to finish the job in Afhganistan, but can attack Humana for daring to criticize BaucasCare.

Is it cowardice, or is it just a pathological hatred of America?

 

No, cowardice is what got us into Iraq. We were so fearful of our own shadows we believed anything that George told us, including that proof of Saddam´s intentions toward us would come in the form of a mushroom cloud, etc.

Getting us out of Afghanistan will take a tremendous amount of political courage. Also of course we will be abandoning the Afghans to the misery, poverty and internecine tribal conflict that was always going to be their fate anyway.

And I like America enough to be genuinely curious about what our strategic goals and interest in Afghanistan really are and really should be. I admire your confidence JS.

 

I'm with Jabba. Cowardice is what got us into this mess to begin with.


WWII actually had a defined purpose. So did Cuba. What's the purpose here? Spreading human misery? Well, I'd say we've accomplished that splendidly. Mission Accomplished. No, wait, it doesn't have the impact it should...hmm...


[image=http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7214/missionaccomplished.jpg]

There we go. I think that works much better.

 

I think you have the examples mixed up. Bush had the guts to do something about a situation that was unacceptable. The reason Qaddafi is still around to give rambling 90-minute speeches is that he knew not to **** with America, and he opened up and gave up his WMD programs. Instead of doing that, Saddam did the geopolitical equivalent to making a furtive movement - and just like a person on the street who made a furtive movement, he got capped for it. Not Bush's fault he did that.

No, it's easy for a politician to go along with his political base. It takes political courage to stand up to them - as McCain and Bush did on immigration, and as Bush did on Medicare Part D. Whether you agree with them or not, that was political courage.

General McChrystal, who is in the field and on the scene, has said what he needs to turn the situation around. He is backed by General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen. The only question is whether Obama will support our troops, or stab them in the back.

And if you will forgive me, I don't believe you like America. Nor do I believe you're supporting the troops. The left didn't support them at Gitmo or Iraq. I suppose we can add Afghanistan to the list now.

 

Hmm...I think you're missing the point, JS. Which isn't very surprising. Just putting that out there.

I don't know about Jabba, but I can answer that: I don't like the people here. Or I should say most of the people. Usually from the south who call themselves 'patriots' while trying to stifle free speech. Or invade everyone's bedrooms. Oh and they also support the military industrial complex. Yeah, those people could go away and I'd never miss them. As for the military. Well...that's a nuanced opinion. Do I admire the evangelical attempt to take over the military? No. But overall they're nice people. Minus the killing. And sometimes the blind loyalty of some of our soldiers.


This would all be very funny if it weren't so sad, by the way.

 

Your way of debating once you are backed into a corner is to simply insult someone's patriotism?

That's sad. I guess in the Senate I expected better.

 

Don't you know? You either unquestioningly submit to everything the far right says...or you're an enemy of freedom.