I'm a little confused on something. Who are we fighting in Afghanistan, and why?

[ThomWV]

The question is not facetious, I honestly don't understand why we are in Afghanistan. I would understand if we needed a base there to do whatever it is we do with Pakistan, but that doesn't appear to be why we're there. So why? Do we want it just so someone else can't have it?

[spanone]

1. who knows? taliban? osama bin laden? another bu$h* war hangover.

[elleng]

2. Taliban

continuing to mess up the country (except for poppies) and provide fodder for extremists.

[acmavm]

3. Don't forget the warlords. They intend to keep control of their

territory and they will continue to support any and everyone who fights against NATA and the US.

[lunatica]

4. Tarrists

I don't agree with President Obama on this. But I do love that he's our President and wouldn't ever want someone else.

[Dhalgren]

8. Yeah, I think Obama is dead wrong on this issue, too.

Afghanistan is not the "good war", it is a bloody, pointless Imperial murder spree. We need to get out of the Empire business, now...

[lunatica]

15. I agree

I was against it from the beginning. War isn't the answer. Killing civilians isn't the answer.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. So was I. nt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

5. After 9/11

there was intelligence that indicated Osama was hiding in the mountains along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan and so Bush decided to go to war there instead of using a more surgical assault. Now the Russians want to "help" us there .... :eyes: The Soviet-Afghanistan war lasted 10 years - all it managed to do was fuck up that country even more than ever - Oh, yes, please.. we need the Russians to help us.

(edit to fix typo.)

[laststeamtrain]

6. It hardly matters. We're just burning up weaponry so we can order more.

It's a corporate welfare program for the MIMC (military-industrial-MEDIA-complex).

If we weren't there'd be a lot of people looking for real jobs.

[KharmaTrain]

7. What's An Even More Confusing Question...

What have we been doing there for the past 7 years? Seems like it's been playing whack-a-mole. IRC, the original mission was to support the popular Afghan insurgency...the Northern Alliance and then to help them form a national government around Karzai. It was a long shot at the start as there has never been a true national government in that country and we ended up becoming Karzai's private army and security service. A lot of promises were made, few were delivered...and one wonders why the Taliban was able to make a comeback?

I recently read that there were 41 nations part of the UN mission in Afghanistan. One would think with those many nations involved there'd be some progress to note...if not militarily, at least in the everyday lives of those people that would help raise support for a national government. Doesn't seem to be the case.

One more question is what is our endgame here? Is it capturing bin Laden? Or will it be the destruction of the Taliban? If President Obama choses the later, we will see Afghanistan turn into yet another meat grinder.

Cheers...

[ThomWV]

9. And that pretty much sums it up - doesn't it?

That is the question. What on earth is our endgame? With all the brutal regimes this country has tolerated around the world over the decades its very difficult to think we really care how repressive the Taliban is, was, or might be again. If its bin Laden we want then why in hell don't we just go get him. I'm dead serious about that - why in hell don't we, in effect, take every god damned soldier we have and march them straight from Kabul toward Cashmere until we find the son of a bitch and be done with it? What I mean by that of course is that if he is the target why don't we really focus our full military potential on that one target?* How long could it take?


* cynical answer: because that would signal the end of the war and nobody wants this war to end.

[FarCenter]

10. The Northern Alliance was screwed, and Karzai was installed to keep Pakistan happy

the original mission was to support the popular Afghan insurgency...the Northern Alliance and then to help them form a national government around Karzai.

The Northern Alliance was mostly non-Pashtun ethnics, and they did indeed defeat the Taliban with US, Russian, and Iranian help.

However, the Pakistani's regard the Pashtun's as their allies (about half the Pashtun's live in Pakistan). In fact, the Pakistani intelligence service played a key role in establishing the Taliban after the Soviets left, in order to put down the various warlords and reestablish central authority under Pashtun rule.

In order to keep the Pakistani's happy, the US engineered the installation of Karzai, who is a Pashtun.

[pinqy]

11. There are a few groups

Who? the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezb-e-Islami-Guluddin (HIG), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM), and other groups of Mujhaddin (Afghanis, Uzbeks, Arabs) and a couple of other organized groups.

Why? Because the ruling Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden after 9/11, the US and others invaded. Immediately after the invasion, the UN established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Participating countries are: NATO (Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, UK, US), the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Macedonia, Ireland, Serbia, Sweden, Ukraine), Australia, Jordan, Mongolia, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates. Numbers range from 1-20,000

Singapore, Switzerland, and South Korea had troops there, but no longer, and Colombia and India will possibly deploy troops.

ISAF has the responsibility of maintaining the duly elected current government of Afghanistan against the terrorists and insurgents trying to gain control themselves.

[Odin2005]

12. Who: The Taliban. Why: They support AQ and are religious fanatics that violate human rights.

[karynnj]

13. This is a question that the government is asking too

They are re-examining what our strategy and our goals should be. There is a concern that it is dangerous for it to be a failed state. There is also now push back to the idea that it can become a shining example of democracy. At her confirmation hearings, HRC agreed with Kerry that this had to be examined. In addition, Holbroke, who led on Bosnia, is the special envoy who has been assigned to this area.

Yesterday, there was a hearing in the SFRC on Afghanistan. Senator Kerry chose an innovative format for the hearing - instead of the normal formality with the chair and ranking member reading prepared statements, then witnesses reading prepared statements, followed by rounds of questioning where each Senator gets X minutes, it was more a moderated conversation - where issues were discussed to the degree wanted and everyone - Senators and witnesses could comment or question. The conversation covered broad areas, challenged some preconceived ideas and really provided some insight into the challenges faced.

At HRC's hearing, Kerry expressed the concern that they really really needed to examine their strategy and goal in Afghanistan - speaking of similarities to what we did in Vietnam. At this hearing, a counterinsurgency expert commented that he saw parallels in our current situation with Vietnam under Diem.

Here's a link for those interested - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090205a.html

[leftchick]

14. because it feeds the ever hungry defense industry

I also imagine oil has a lot to do with it. Something about a pipeline.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Judging by the casualties, a lot of civilians disgused as terrorists.

Seeing as how the Pentagon assures us that all the dead people are terrorists.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Oy Vey.

:eyes: