Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan

[tekisui]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — Can President Obama succeed in that long-lamented “graveyard of empires” — a place that has crushed foreign occupiers for more than 2,000 years?

Ever since the Bush administration diverted its attention — and resources — to the war in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan, military planners and foreign policy experts have bemoaned the dearth of troops to keep that country from sliding back into Taliban control. And in that time, the insurgency blossomed, as Taliban militants took advantage of huge swaths of territory, particularly in the south, that NATO troops weren’t able to fill.

Enter Mr. Obama. During the campaign he promised to send two additional brigades — 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. During the transition, military planners started talking about adding as many as 30,000 troops. And within days of taking office, Mr. Obama announced the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Balkan peace accords, to execute a new Afghanistan policy.

But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.

Afghanistan has, after all, stymied would-be conquerors since Alexander the Great. It’s always the same story; the invaders — British, Soviets — control the cities, but not the countryside. And eventually, the invaders don’t even control the cities, and are sent packing.

Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”

“Iraq had a middle class,” Mr. Powell pointed out on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a couple of hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in last Tuesday. “It was a fairly advanced country before Saddam Hussein drove it in the ground.” Afghanistan, on the other hand, “is still basically a tribal society, a lot of corruption; drugs are going to destroy that country if something isn’t done about it.”

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/weekinreview/25cooper.html

[jwirr]

1. The one reason I have hopes here is that he believes in diplomacy.

There is always the chance that he can talk us out of this mess in the ME.

[avaistheone1]

4. We don't need to escalate and send another 20,000 to 30,000 troops there if we are going to handle

this through diplomatic means.

Diplomacy is the way to go in this country, otherwise, we will be the loser as history has proven with every aggressor in Afghanistan.

[jwirr]

7. I read somewhere that we are just barely holding onto the capital

city and the escalation is to keep that in our hands while we negotiate. I do not like the escalation either but we will have no one to talk to if they push us out of the capital before we can even begin. At that point they will have won. As far as I am concerned I do not see what we are fighting for there so I would come home.

[avaistheone1]

9. It was on one of the PBS news shows early this weekend that we are having a difficult time hanging

on to Kabul right now.

[Aloha Spirit]

2. Obama's speech to the State Department this week is relevant...

You'll notice he mentions the opium trade specifically, and I am very curious to see what Holbrooke comes up with.
Holbrooke, in my opinion, is very tolerable when given a specific task, as opposed to simply providing his opinion in this article or that book.

http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=436895

Another urgent threat to global security is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problem in isolation. There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the al Qaeda and Taliban bases along the border. And there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is truly an international challenge of the highest order. And that's why Secretary Clinton and I are naming Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke is one of the most talented diplomats of his generation. Over several decades, he's served on different continents and as an outstanding ambassador to the United Nations. He has strengthened ties with our allies, tackled the toughest negotiations and helped deliver a hard-earned peace as an architect of the Dayton Accords. He will help lead our effort to forge and implement a strategic and a sustainable approach to this critical region.

The American people and the international community must understand that the situation is perilous and progress will take time. Violence is up dramatically in Afghanistan. A deadly insurgency has taken deep root. The opium trade is far and away the largest in the world. The Afghan government has been unable to deliver basic services. Al Qaeda and the Taliban strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border. And while we have yet to see another attack on our soil since 9/11, al Qaeda terrorists remain at large and remain plotting.

Going forward, we must set clear priorities in pursuit of achievable goals that contribute to our collective security. My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely. And that's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy. We will seek stronger partnerships with the governments of the region, sustained cooperation with our NATO allies, deeper engagement with the Afghan and Pakistani people and a comprehensive strategy to combat terror and extremism.

We will provide the strategic guidance to meet our objectives. And we pledge to support the extraordinary Americans serving in Afghanistan, both military and civilian, with the resources that they need.

[Aloha Spirit]

3. And I want to thank tekisui for following this issue. Now that we won, it will be a challenge to

formulate opinions and think critically beyond what worked for so long, which is that Obama will be a better leader than the other guy.
I found myself reading your posts and realizing how uncritical I've been, sort of out of relief that we won and exhaustion from having Post Traumatic President Disorder

[tekisui]

8. Thanks. This is really the only serious issue

I am in disagreement with the President. I know his policies, even in a war that I deplore, will be better and more productive than the previous administration. We need to keep on it, though, and make sure that we pay attention.

[IndianaGreen]

5. War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chief

Those DUers that read the foreign press have long known that the war in Afghanistan was lost a long time ago. Here is an article from last October:

October 5, 2008

War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chief

Christina Lamb Helmand, Afghanistan

Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the war against the Taliban cannot be won. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.

His assessment followed the leaking of a memo from a French diplomat who claimed that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador in Kabul, had told him the current strategy was “doomed to fail”.

Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, said it was necessary to “lower our expectations”. He said: “We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.”

The brigadier added: “We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency . . . I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world. That would be unrealistic and probably incredible.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882597.ece

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Some depiction of objectives would be nice...

Just what is "winning" this mess? If it's pacifying the countryside and driving the Taliban back under its rocks and securing some kind of stable government, we've got a problem.

There's a deep and unaddressed problem here: this is essentially a war against a religious mindset, and it cannot be seen as anything but an attack on this version of Islam. Are we ready for that? Now that Mr. Obama has slathered record amounts of religion all over our politics, can we avoid being seen as a Christian Crusade? Do we want that? Would it even work?

Somewhere amid all of the rhetoric, there doesn't seem to be a clear image of what the new and improved Afghanistan would look like, at least not expressed in the clear light of day.

Frankly, I don't see the upside. I'd like to come to the aid of women under a cruel and primitive tyranny, but if we're going to launch a cultural war, we need to commit like we've never done before. Can we? Should we?

It seems that we're all enthusiastic with vague and misty visions of abstract romanticism, and this place is a blood- and money-sucking dry gulch of a hellhole if there ever was one.

[izquierdista]

6. Not hard at all

Dipshit Colin only understands overwhelming military force -- which in this case fails. The additional troops will be there as a protection force while:
1) Schools are built for boys AND girls
2) Clean water is provided to villages
3) Roads are improved
4) Food crops are offered to farmers growing poppies
5) Electrical infrastructure is improved
6) Sewage treatment and biogas plants are demonstrated to villages
This is where the outstretched helping hand will make them want to unclench their fist and the Taliban will be routed.

And I would point out that it was Colin's buddy Dubya who drove Iraq into the ground.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

10. Bingo.

Once these people have their quality of life raised and have educational opportunities, the religious extremism that the Taliban feeds itself on will no longer be sustainable.

This is how we defeat terrorism there, by holding off the extremists long enough to help the people see that the West hasn't stolen their opportunities and robbed them of any hope. It will be too difficult for the Taliban to keep pushing their message on a people who find their ideas laughable, and they will go out with a whimper.

Obama seems to understand this:

"There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the al Qaeda and Taliban bases along the border. And there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

If we pack up and go home we will be abandoning these people to religious extremism and violence. Afghanistan will become a breeding ground for an extremist mindset and the terrorists that come right along with it. We have a lot of work to do to get these people into a good situation, but it will be worth it in the end.

It will require more troops, not less. It must be stabilized in order for us to do the job and do it right.

It was a tragic mistake that George W. Bush took his eye off the ball. We could have been 7 years closer to the goal, and the world would likely still be on our side, helping us with the situation.

If we abandon Afghanistan now, knowing that the Taliban is sitting just outside Kabul, we will own the result.

There are a lot of people here understandibly upset by the two drone attacks since Obama took office. Are they equally upset about the Taliban burning down schools and throwing acid on young girls who want an education? I bet they are. I know they want the former to stop, but what exactly do they think the solution to the latter is? Pack up and pull out?

[LittleBlue]

11. We will never succeed in Afghanistan

Many empires have found this out the hard way. We are only the latest empire to try. \

It's time to negotiate with the Taliban and gtfo.

[Still Sensible]

12. Theres nothing to negotiate with the Taliban

Those assholes make our religious right fundies look tolerant.

[LittleBlue]

13. They happen to have power in that country

They will have that country one way or another. Unlike Iraq's Baathists, they are not a minority party.

Frankly, that opinion sounds like the British one before they were driven out, or perhaps even the Soviets.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Point of fact: the Taliban offered

to turn bin Laden over to US custody . . . if the US would show them its evidence.

Instead, the US threw in with the thugs of the Northern Alliance like Dostum. And now there is no bin Laden and we have been defeated in Afghanistan.

USA, USA, USA!

:sarcasm:

[JeffreyWilliamson]

14. You would negotiate with human rights violators?

What would be the goal? "Okay, we'll leave the country peacefully, as long as you promise to be on your best behavior, and please try to cut down on the beheadings/stonings/acid throwing at young women."

How can people here be so naive? These threads keep popping up and I keep wondering, has all the lying and ruin that's come out of the Iraq debacle destroyed everyone's capability to separate Iraq and Afghanistan and what the goal is in the latter?

The people who attacked us on September 11th were directed by people in Afghanistan, and were given support and refuge by the Taliban. These same people keep bombing shit and blowing stuff up all over the world. Add to that the fact that the Taliban is absolutely BRUTAL to the people of Afghanistan. They make waterboarding look like a walk though a park, picking up daisies.

They're sitting right outside Kabul ready to take the place back over. That's not happening because they know how to defeat empires. It's happening because when we had them at the end of their rope WE PULLED OUT AND WENT TO IRAQ.

Have we become so nauseated by Bush's war in Iraq and other crimes that we have diluted ourselves into thinking that leaving Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to take control would be a "good thing"? Does anyone understand at all that if something isn't done to secure Afghanistan and rebuild its infrastructure while raising the peoples' quality of life, that they will keep fomenting anger against the West and killing the shit out of us?

:shrug:

[Still Sensible]

15. Well said

I just didn't have the energy

[jeanpalmer]

18. You're never going to defeat them

Never. That's the first thing you need to grasp. Any more than the Vietnamese could be defeated or the Palestinians. This is Vietnam all over again -- a bunch of do gooders trying to impose their system on the natives. Leave those people alone. Let them sort out their own problems. And quit wasting our money fighting windmills. No one appointed you to subdue these people. You're not god.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

21. You need to read this before you advocate letting them "sort out their own problems"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8139761#8139780

[jeanpalmer]

27. The way to change people's thinking

is through example, not guns. It's not that the Taliban isn't bad, it is. But why does it have popular support to the point where it controls 75% of the country. Because the alternative of occupation by a corrupt imperialist power through warlords is worse. Corruption is the way of western occupations. No one wants to be occupied.

I thought I had voted out the imperialists, but it looks like a new set has taken over. What a disappointment. Well I'm just gonna have to vote them out again in 2010 and 2012 it looks like. I thought I voted for change. Looks like we're getting the same ol same ol. So be it. We can deal with that again.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

30. The Taliban has popular support in the country...

Because they terrorize the citizens into giving it to them. If someone lives in constant fear of a violent death for any little mis-step you won't get much dissent. Do you really think the people there enjoy living under the Taliban? And it controls 75% of the country because instead of finishing them off, we pulled out and went to Iraq, allowing them to brutally and violently take it back over.

Look, they aren't going to look at our example and change. The Taliban uses our freedom and quality of life to preach hatred of the West, and the people are forced at knifepoint to lap it up. But some do more than lap it up--they believe it. Some of them are willing to die for their hatred of us. They'll do anything to kill us for our "evil" lifestyle.

We can stop that. We actually can stop terrorism. It's easily defeated, as it turns out. We must improve the quality of life of the people in these regions, give them a chance at an education, let them see that we are human beings, and not what the Taliban has forced them to accept. Their prejudices and hatred will fall away in the face of running water, lights, full stomachs, and the knowledge that their children will have bright futures.

But we can't do that by leaving and letting the Taliban take over again. It's not a perfect decision. It does involve warring it up some over there to turn the Taliban back. People will die. It will be ugly, it always is. But in this case, the alternative will be much more brutal, and much more deadly to the Afghanistan population.

[jeanpalmer]

41. I don't where to begin with you

You've really drunk the interventionist koolaid. Just get out of there, leave those people alone, quit trying to impose your colonialist value on those people by the gun. You have no right to do that. No one gave you the right to kill those people to enforce your will on them. You're advocating the worst immorality under giuse of do-goodism.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

46. But it isn't that simple.

Just getting out of there automatically means that we are abandoning those people to a brutal existence, women tortured, the worst possible lives anyone could ever imagine. And leaving means that we have abandoned them knowing full well in advance what's going to happen to them. I can't accept that. In this situation that would be immorality.

Think of it like this, and I don't like to make holocaust parallels because they're usually stupid. In this case, the Afghani people are pretty much in a holocaust of their own under the Taliban, so I'm just going to go for it.

Was it wrong to invade Europe and save the Jews? And I know that wasn't the direct purpose for invading, but it was one of the results.

Is there, in your mind, anything that can ever justify standing up to brutality? If not the Taliban, then what?

[LittleBlue]

62. Offer anyone who wants assylum in the U.S.

We fucked up, now we should pay the price. Let all who want it come to the U.S. Shouldn't be more than a million people.

Oh wait, I imagine many "human rights" advocates may not want these people living next door.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

70. Why didn't we just offer any Europeans the chance to come live here during WWII...

And then close our borders and be done with it, anyone who remained for whatever reason be damned?

And it's typically Republicans who hate immigrants, not human rights activists.

[jeanpalmer]

19. You're never going to defeat them

Never. That's the first thing you need to grasp. Any more than the Vietnamese could be defeated or the Palestinians. This is Vietnam all over again -- a bunch of do gooders trying to impose their system on the natives. Leave those people alone. Let them sort out their own problems. And quit wasting our money fighting windmills. No one appointed you to subdue these people. You're not god.

[LittleBlue]

20. Are we supposed to use our military to combat human rights violators?

I thought the military was used for our defense. Let's invade every country and make sure nobody's rights are being violated.

Letting the Taliban take control is not a "good thing"; but your failure is presuming that since we have the power to keep them out of control, we should exercise that power. The fact is that we have that power in most places in the world, and it would do us only harm to exercise it.

We've had 8 years to defeat the Taliban, and like every other imperial power who tried to "reform" this part of the world, it has not succeeded. How long before we simply admit we cannot control people in every corner of the world? How long until we realize that domestic terrorism prevention measures are far more efficient than occupation?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

23. In this case it is defense...

And nice strawman, by the way. I won't argue "invading every country and make sure nobody's rights are being violated" because that's not the debate here.

Read the link I just posted upthread. The fact that we have the power to stop THESE monsters is exactly why we should do it. If we don't no one else will, and their torture will be allowed to continue.

The reason we didn't defeat the Taliban is, once again, because when we had them on the run WE PULLED OUT AND WENT TO IRAQ. It's not because they're just excellent at defeating imperial powers. It's because George W. Bush was incompetent. Period.

And back to that case of defense. These people had a hand in September 11th, as well as a good number of other attacks.

Now, stopping the Taliban and shoring up the situation in Afghanistan does not equal an occupation. And focusing solely on domestic terrorism prevention will only hopefully eliminate domestic terrorist attacks, if we're lucky. It will never remove the source of those attacks.

[jeanpalmer]

28. You're seriously mistaken

You never "had them on the run." You maybe thought you had them on the run because you believed the press clippings. But on the ground the Taliban has never given up. Any more than the Vietnamese were on the run. These are movements that will never quit. Your chances of "winning" against them are zero.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

32. The radical religious fundamentalism that breeds terrorists can definitely be beaten.

But we will have to change some of our actions. The Bush mindset was to just bomb them away.

Luckily Obama seems a little more nuanced. Education, a raised quality of life, and better diplomatic interation will show these people that the hatred of the West because of what we have and how we live is unfounded. A lot of them feel that the reason they have nothing is because we have everything. We can remedy that by helping them build a brighter future.

But we'll never get that far unless we can remove one part of the current equation--the Taliban.

Education and hope are the magic bullets for movements like these. But we're going to have to make an opening for them to take root.

[LittleBlue]

64. A radical religion can be beaten?

Christ, that is nuts. You can't be serious. You want our military involved in combating religious fanaticism?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

77. I missed this one, sorry.

What I was trying to say was that radical religious extremists feed upon fear and ignorance. A lot of the reasons that groups like the Taliban can get supporters to join up is because they find some big evil enemy and convince them that it's that enemy's fault that they have no hope in life. I know that's over simplifying it but I'm about to have to leave for a while.

Education can remove ignorance. And raising the quality of life for people in these regions in addition to education, giving them a lift up and showing them that the West is not some Satan but really their friend, will remove a major recruiting capability of these types of groups. What would be the benefit for someone who has all the options available to move themselves and their family up in the world decide to join a pathetic, rag-tag band of nomad fighters carrying outdated weapons and making sure no one is allowed to listen to casette tapes?

How does the military fit in? Not by combating some religion, but by pushing the Taliban as an armed organization back long enough for the people's lives to improve.

[MadBadger]

35. Where are you from?

[LittleBlue]

29. We have the military power to stop most monsters in the world

sans China and Russia.

That "pulled out of Afghanistan" argument is something Obama used to get elected. It is not a serious argument because it doesn't explain how the southern part of Afghanistan still supports the Taliban, and how we are going to "win hearts and minds."

And so what if they had a hand in September 11? Is killing them going to bring back those people, or the ones killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to sate our barbaric urges since then? Israel has found out the hard way in 30 years of dealing with Hamas: killing terrorists does not make a country any safer. And Hamas is confined to a few square miles; they have nowhere near the area to cover compared to Afghanistan.

Stopping domestic terrorism with preventative measures is far more efficient. For the price of just one month of this war, we could hire train track inspectors, more port inspectors, and toxic/food factory monitors. The preventative measures we've taken with airlines has all but eliminated the threat posed by domestic airline hijackers.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

37. Obama was right, we didn't do our job.

And we win hearts and minds when Afghani's can do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3NEeMT0rKo

It's a video of a wedding party at a hotel in Kabul. It's about 2 minutes long, and the video is crappy, but it's basically several women, without head coverings, dancing to music at a wedding. It's hard to tell because it's a grainy YouTube video, but I wager the people are having a good time. I'd also wager that video was filmed after we kicked the Taliban out, since doing such evils prior would probably have gotten a lot of people tortured and killed.

I am aware of the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. security costs here. I'm not willing to help the Afghani's lose their freedom to save some money. Unlike the situation in Iraq, where we blew the holy hell out of them and destroyed their lives, the people danced in the streets when we took Kabul.

I remember a video of a cab driver who was overjoyed. For the first time in years he could listen to music while he worked. You can't put a price on that kind of joy.

[LittleBlue]

61. So we should immediately cut diplomatic ties with China?

We don't negotiate with human rights violators.

[jeanpalmer]

16. Exactly

GTH out of there. Quit acting like a colonial occupation force. True democracy, if it happens at all, has to come from the people. If they really believed in the Karzai government, they'd be at his door begging to serve in the military to defend their country. The truth is they don't care, because it's not their government.

This is Vietnam all over again. Looks like the liberal mentality is at about 1964 levels, green berets and all. I voted for Obama to get out of all these conflict. My son too. If he doesn't, if we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan with even one soldier, we're looking elsewhere in 2012. I want an end to the empire.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

25. If you voted for Obama to get out of all these conflicts...

Then you weren't listening. Every time he said he would pull the troops out of Iraq, he followed it by saying that he was going to send a good number of them into Afghanistan. He was very, very clear that he was going to escalate Afghanistan and finish the job.

[jeanpalmer]

31. I voted for him for one reason

To get rid of the other guys. Because I knew what they would do. Obama acted like he might change things, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. On Afghanistan, I was hoping that was just campaign rhetoric, realizing that he might foolishly really believe what he was saying. On Iraq, I trusted he would get us out completely, as he originally positioned himself. But I allow for the fact that he might not get the job done. That he might be just another Bush. And in that case, I will be voting for someone else in 2012. And 2010 also. I believe in change, real change. If the guy in there now is not getting the job done, kick his ass out and get someone new in there. Repeat the process until results are achieved.

If we're not out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 16 months, lock stock and barrel, my son, my daughter and I will vote for more change in 2010 and 2012. We're tired of double-talking politicians.

[cali]

33. lol. good for y;ou.

first you say you were hoping he was lying and then you say it was double talk. Basic logic isn't your strong point, I see.

And only the terminally ignorant or dense could possibly think that Obama is another bush.

[jeanpalmer]

36. Go read it again

The Republicans were not going to change policy. I was hoping Obama might get us out of the ME, in spite of what he said about Afghanistan. So I voted for him on a hope. But if he doesn't get the job done, then I won't vote for him again. That's pretty basic, not too hard to understand. If you keep voting for people who can't get the job done, the job will never get done. If Obama can't get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I'll vote for someone else. And if that person can't get us out, I'll vote for someone else again. That's real change.

Obama has a window of opportunity to impress people like me, and a lot of others I know, by getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing the empire, bringing our troops home, shutting down the foreign bases, drastically reducing defense spending, and stationing our troops on our borders facing outward to defend the country. If he chooses to be stupid and not do those things, then he suffers the consequences. I don't need Bush 2. I voted for him as the tool to get these things done, but if he refuses to do them he's replaceable.

[cali]

43. fine. don't vote for him.

look, you want to be a single issue voter, that's up to you. I think it's a remarkably short sighted way of looking at things, but each to his own. And sorry, like most single issue voters, you're in a small minority.

He's not going to do many of the things you list. He's never said he would. He's been clear about what he'll do. That's not hard to understand. It's about as basic as it gets. Hold him to his promises. Making up your own promises and insisting he has to hold to those? Laughable.

But conflating him with bush? Stupid. Just stupid. Acting on shutting Gitmo, making sure the U.S. will not longer torture, shutting down black sites, overturning the Mexico City ban, halting sham trials, stopping executive orders from bush, etc. And that's just in the first couple of days. So saying he'll be bush 2 is simply moronic.

And you won't be able to replace him so easily. sorry. he'll nead to screw up to lose. And not following your petulant demands based on thin air and not what he promised won't defeat him.

So vote for Nader next time. Or whoever. It really doesn't matter.

[MadBadger]

45. Not to mention, if he is replaced, it wont be with Nader, it will be with a Republican.

[jeanpalmer]

56. We'll see about that

A lot of people think like me. If he desn't get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he won't be around in 2012. He can be replaced by the pull of a lever. He has time to effect real change. But if it's sham change, he'll be gone. Wasting $150 billion a year in Iraq and putting the bill on our kids is totally irresponsible. If he can't change that, he deserves to go.

[MadBadger]

57. The only person whod replace him would be a Republican

Not who ever you want.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

34. Rest assured, Obama's not a promise breaker.

We have a weeks worth of evidence for that. He will get out of Iraq in 16 months, and if he can't get it all done by then you can bet he'll have a damn good reason for why not.

The thing you need to keep in mind though, is that he never promised to get out of Afghanistan in 16 months. He's not really double-talking there.

And don't worry about Obama, he's got us covered and he is bringing us that change. He's just about earned my vote in 2012 with what he's done in the last few days. And I was getting pretty skeptical during the transition with some of the appointments and the whole Warren flap. I learned my lesson as soon as he was sworn in and got to work.

We're in good hands with Obama, and we can trust his judgement.

[jeanpalmer]

39. I'm not interested in excuses

for not getting out of Iraq. He can have all the excuses he wants, but there is no excuse for me. If he doesn't have us out of Iraq, totally, in 16 months, then I'm done with him. He could get us out tomorrow. Just give the order to start getting out. This isn't complicated. Just like they did in Vietnam -- give the order to get out. I'm not going to put up with phony excuses.

If he doesn't get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he's not bringing change. He's bringing more of the same. And I refuse to rationalize it, like some people here seem to be doing. Change is more than a word -- it's action. Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan is not change.

[MadBadger]

40. What about 16 months and a day?

still done?

[jeanpalmer]

47. 16 months is too long.

He could have us on the way out tomorrow. Just give the order -- get out! It's that simple, it's not complicated. It's complicated only because of Obama's political calculations. We got out of Viet Nam when Nixon gave the order to get out. Once he gave the order, the troops got out. That's all it took, an order. That's all it would take from Obama -- an order to get out. He could do it tomorrow. Why isn't he giving the order? Instead, it looks like he's back pedaling on it. That doesn't cut it.

[MadBadger]

48. So your plan would be to withdraw every single soldier tomorrow...

leaving 0 soldiers in Iraq on Tuesday...right?

[jeanpalmer]

52. Start today

Obviously, it will take a few months for them to gather up their crap and get their asses out. But start -- today. Obama is dilly dallying. And I'm starting to think he's gonna pull a Bush on us and keep most of them there. No?

[MadBadger]

53. Hes sticking to his 16 month plan of 1-2 brigades per month and hasnt waivered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8139604

[polmaven]

78. You apparently know

exactly how simple foreign policy really is! Why aren't YOU our president? ...Oh wait...because it is so much easier to SAY how simple something is than to really DO it.

Foreign policy is a complicated matter. Frankly, I want someone who understands that to be leading it, not someone who sees everything simplistically. It is that kind of thinking that will get us all killed. Grow up and look at the world.

We do have some obligation to lead in this world. Call it morality, call it self defense, call it both...but as the shining light in the free world,it is there.

We did not defeat the Taliban years ago because the incompetent and egotistical policies of our (p)resident prevented it. President Obama will not allow that to happen. We CANNOT allow the Taliban to take power again. That will be disastrous not only for the people of Afghanistan, but for our own people, and for the world.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

42. Certainly you must see that just pulling up and heading out tomorrow is irresponsible...

He made a very big deal about leaving Iraq responsibly.

If he just ordered everyone out like in Vietnam, the whole country would likely collapse and Iran would come in and annex it, or some bloody civil war would break out and the slaughter would begin. Can we really afford another crazy fundamentalist Islamic "republic" out there wanting to kill everyone?

Look, it was a disaster that we went in there to be sure, but it would be an even bigger disaster to just up and leave. The future blowback for what Bush did is already going to be bad enough.

[jeanpalmer]

50. If they're not ready now

after 6 years of being propped up and trained, they'll never be ready.

It's time to get out. Spending $150 billion a year there and putting the bill on our kids is totally irresponsible. What kind of person would put that burden on their kids, for delusions of grandeur. I have absolutely no respect for such a person. They're living in some kind of dream world of irresponsibility.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

54. I can think of one person who'd do that to people's kids...

...George W. Bush.

And he's the reason that the Iraqi's are not ready to take over for themselves. We can't blame Obama for that.

And to put one point to bed, he did call in his people and order them to start ending the Iraq debacle just the other day. He's already set the ball in motion. But once again, the key word is "responsibly".

We are going to have enough problems on our hands in the future because of the mistake that was Iraq. Just leaving and letting it fall apart will only make it 10 times worse. Who knows what could happen in the world 10 or 20 years from now if we just up and pull out tomorrow and the Iraqi government collapses. Can you imagine what the world will be like in just a decade or two if we leave their government in such a weakend state that Iran comes in and just takes over? It's got to be done carefully.

[jeanpalmer]

67. A couple of points

That government will collapse no matter when we leave. Because it's a puppet government, not from the people. Right now, it's being propped up through the use of brute force. It's a police state. Hardly something we should be proud of. Corruption is rampant.

If we left, they would have it out and ultimately would form their own political system. One that originated from the people. It might be painful, but that is the only solution. We're bankrupting ourselves by staying there, and not letting them form their own system. We gave them a shell of a system. If they don't want that system, it's up to them. The sooner it happens, the better.

Ultimately, an islamist system will probably develop. That's their choice. It's their country. You have no right to tell them how to run their country. Your dire predictions are mere speculation. It actually could turn out for the better.

[cali]

44. please try logic. you should be done with him now.

he is not getting us out of Afghanistan. He's said he's not. He won't. Better start working on ralph's campaign- or Dennis'. He's not giving any excuses,dear. He's said quite plainly he's going to increase troops in Afghanistan.

And change is more than one issue. duh.

[jeanpalmer]

58. Well that will be his problem then

I don't care what he promised. If he turns Afhhanistan into Iraq, people will vote him out. I'm not interested in his promises to stay in Afghanistan. I can't figure out why you are. But that's what elections are for. If he's in Afghanistan to the extent that Bush is in Iraq, people will vote him out. And he will deserve to be gone. Because getting more involved in Afghanistan would be a monumental act of stupidity. But you can't put anything beyond a politician, they do crazy things.

[jeanpalmer]

63. You don't have a clue

We're spending between $700 - $900 billion a year on defense, about $200 billion of it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about $400 billion a year in interest expense on the national debt. Obama apparently wants to shift Iraq's expenditures to Afghanistan. We pay $1.18 trillion a year in personal income taxes. What that means is all of the personal income taxes we pay go to support defense spending and these wars and interest on the debt. What a waste. I want to end that. There's no way to end that so long as we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, wasting billions of dollars on your social experiments in occupation. And the sad thing is, a lot of that spending is just being added onto the debt -- $465 billion last year. Apparently you don't care. It money you won't have to pay, but our kids will. Why not try to be responsible instead of being a misinformed slacker?

The people who just blithely give Obama a free pass on Afghanistand and Iraq are hurting this country badly.

[cali]

22. fuck the taliban. fuck negotiating with the despicable women torturing freaks

I suggest you read about what women went through living- if you can call it that- under the Taliban.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

24. "living"

I certainly wouldn't call it that.

[LittleBlue]

59. People suffer worldwide! Why not aleviate all suffering?

Why should we discriminate against men in our wars? Let's not stop just at women, let's liberate every person in the world!

This kind of thinking is what got us into Iraq.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

60. No, our corrupt President, Vice President, and their neo-con friends

got us into Iraq. By lying and betraying us and the world.

[LittleBlue]

65. And he fooled enough of the people who think like you

to get enough popular support to do it.

This mindset does no more than keep us entangled in quagmires, and enable more conflicts on these absurd premises.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

66. I protested the Iraq invasion and got egged for it...

It took all of five minutes to hit the web and expose the likelihood of WMD's in Iraq.

It likewise took about five minutes to find out all I ever needed to know about the Taliban.

Under what conditions would you agree that it becomes necessary to fight against brutality?

[LittleBlue]

68. Under no condition, save that it threaten the United States

If we want to crusade against brutality, then the Department of DEFENSE is no place for that. Set up a separate funding project for this stuff with a stated goal and parameters for victory; be honest with the intentions behind the intervention.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

72. The problem is, there are really bad people out there

with lots of guns that well-funded projects will not necessarily fix.

What well-funded program will stop an Osama bin Laden, a Pol Pot, or a Hitler?

Sometimes people who are so beaten down and hopeless need help, and sometimes someone has to stand up for them. Standing up can be a form of defense as well. An argument could be made that taking out the Taliban is in our best interests in the long run, and that's kind of why we went there. Iraq on the other hand was not really a threat.

Additionally I guess I'll have to be un-American then, because I feel that the defense of those who can't in some cases defend themselves is a cause I approve of. I would say that I only agree with it when it's absolutely necessary, but I'd also say that in the case of the Taliban, it is.

[Life Long Dem]

17. I think diplomacy to curb civilians pursuing terrorism groups is needed.

What do they want? I don't think taking away crop products is the answer. That would just piss them off even more. Instead this should be used as a tool to achieving the goal of peace.

[leftstreet]

26. K&R

[anonymous171]

49. Two things that might help:

1. Diplomacy. Get more cooperation from other countries to spread the cost.
2. Partitioning the state. This one makes sense considering the tribal nature of that country.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

55. You number one is going to be the hard part...

And we can thank George W. Bush for that. His "go it alone" attitude alienated everyone we could have asked for help. I don't envy Obama having to go in behind him and trying to mend those relationships. Bush's incompetence in managing the whole disaster won't leave a lot of confidence in our ability to finish the job either.

Biden's influence may see your second point surface again depending on how the drawdown plays out. If we decided to go that route, we would have to be very careful to make sure the smaller states were strong enough to fend off their neighbors, but not so full of themselves that they take their tribal identities to be superior to the other partitioned states.

[anonymous171]

69. Yeah, Bush really played into Al-Qaeda's hands.

Just like the Soviet Union did.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

73. Bush was a buffoon and we're all going to be paying for it for a long time.

On a lot of levels.

[Runcible Spoon]

71. I wonder how many people gunning for more was with Afghanistan can find the DR Congo on a map.

Rwanda? Sudan?

Imperial powers rarely have any luck fighting wars with tribalistic cultures. The Taliban are not afraid to die or kill their own; this is a fact that is nearly impossible for most of us to comprehend. The Taliban are disgusting, but the Mujahideen were, in the eyes of many Afghanis, actually worse.

The brutal truth is any sort of fundamental change in Afghanistan is going to cost a lot of lives. Is that worse than the crimes committed by the Taliban against the Afghani people?

It's noble that people want to call out human rights atrocities, but remember that is NOT why we went to Afghanistan and it's NOT why Obama wants to commit more troops. He has framed it as a war against terrorism, which is really not very different from Bush's justification. Screaming at people who don't wish to see more US troops die in a bloody guerrila war is wrong; we DO know about the atrocities, we just look at history and see that escalation has caused more deaths for every side involved and has done little to improve the quality of life of the survivors. The Taliban are still killing little girls who try to go to school.

Don't ask me what would work better; I don't know. I only know what HASN'T worked, and unfortunately escalating against the Taliban is what Obama is pushing for.

[jeanpalmer]

74. Farce, the tradeoff you describe is real

The Taliban is not what we would like to see. They don't value what we value. But the alternative of occupation and war is even less desirable.

I would rather see a negotiation with the Taliban to see if we can reach some accommodation regarding their tolerance of Al Qaeda. As you say, our reason for going into Afghanistan was not the Taliban, which the US had tried to negotiate a gas pipeline with. It was Al Qaeda. So I think we should negotitae, withdraw and focus on Al Qaeda instead. And then use political pressure, but not war, to try to effect political change internally.

The model there again is Viet Nam. Once we left there, the radicals took over, but gradually accommodated to a much more moderate approach to governing. Now we trade with them. Another model is China. They had their gang of four and cultural revolution where they killed millions of people. But ultimately they also moderated and adapted to our way of thinking and living. Not through war, but through social contacts and by the example we set. The same applies to the Taliban. Over time they and the people would adjust. It might take a while, but it is the only workable approach. Brute force and occupation will not bring it about.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

75. The problem with negotiating with the Taliban is this.

If we make some deal with them regarding al Qaeda, and they effectively get control of the country in return, which would really be the only option if we're doing this so that we can withdrawl, then we have endorsed what we know they will do next--brutally and systematically torture their entire population.

Political pressure was used against the Taliban after they originally came to power. They of course just blew it off and raped, beat, stoned, murdered, hacked of fingers and hands, etc. The difference between the situation in Viet Nam is that after the Taliban took over, they didn't gradually become more moderate, they became several degrees more brutal.

[anonymous171]

76. What about partitioning the country by tribe affiliation?