List of empires who failed to conquer Afghanistan. It's a long one.

[trof]

Michael Rivero summarizes Obama's Afghanistan war surge in the context of the 2,000-plus-year history of empires trying to conquer that country:

"Just one more surge!" -- The Indus

"Just one more surge!" -- The Kushan

"Just one more surge!" -- The Scythians

"Just one more surge!" -- The Parthians

"Just one more surge!" -- The Saffarid

"Just one more surge!" -- The Ghaznavid

"Just one more surge!" -- The Ghorid

"Just one more surge!" -- The Timurid

"Just one more surge!" -- The Hotaki

"Just one more surge!" -- The Durrani

"Just one more surge!" -- The Aryan

"Just one more surge!" -- The Persians

"Just one more surge!" -- The Sassanids

"Just one more surge!" -- The Hephthalites

"Just one more surge!" -- The Huns

"Just one more surge!" -- The Mughals

"Just one more surge!" -- The Arabs

"Just one more surge!" -- The Turkic

"Just one more surge!" -- The Hazaras

"Just one more surge!" -- The Khwarezmids

"Just one more surge!" -- The Mongols

"Just one more surge!" -- The British

"Just one more surge!" -- The British (again)

"Just one more surge!" -- The British (Yet again)

"Just one more surge!" -- The USSR

"Just one more surge!" -- The United States
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/what-empires-have-said-throughout.html
:eyes:

[dmallind]

1. Which of course is only relevant if you WANT to conquer it.

Not really the plan now is it?

[ShortnFiery]

3. What EXACTLY is the Plan? ... and how can it accomplish squat when the Taliban

will merely "hunker down" and wait 18 months?

IF "the plan" is to GIFT the private contractors of the MIC another Trillion of our tax dollars, then that makes perfect sense.

However, since Obama says that this "surge" will deny the Taliban re-establishment into the government along with preventing al Qaeda to visit and camp out ... EPIC FAIL from the onset.

[dmallind]

6. Well the way I heard it (since I was listening)

Was that we need to provide interim security and training until there is a strong enough Afghan army and police force to prevent the Taliban from taking over again when we leave.

Will it work? Buggered if I know.

Is it a good plan? Certainly - do you want a radical Islamist regime in a volatile area unchecked? Do you see any other likely evebtuality if we leave now?

Does it involve conquering Afghanistan? Absolutely not.

[Fumesucker]

8. A cartoon which speaks to your point more eloquently than can I..

[dmallind]

9. But irt is wrong

There are only 100 Al-Qaeda (according to sketchy intel). That does not mean there are only 100 people looking to establish a radical Islamist state, and ready to do so as soon as a power vacuum exists.

[Fumesucker]

15. A power vacuum will exist as soon as we leave..

So we can never leave.

It takes a *minimum* of decades to drag a region out of the seventh century and into the twenty first, it's not going to happen by 2012.

[dmallind]

16. ....unless we train and support the Afghan army and police.

Non-combatants can do that after combat troops leave. The idea is not to completely abandon Afghanistan in 18 most, but to start transitioning to civilian support.

[Fumesucker]

22. There is no "Afghanistan", it's not a nation..

It's a region inhabited by myriad tribes and cultures, a great many of whom mutually hate each other.

Indigenous troops are often worse than useless since their loyalties are to their own ethnic group/tribe/whatever.

That's what is so difficult for Americans to understand since we haven't seen that mentality here from around the time of the Civil War.

[dmallind]

24. I am familiar with Afghainstan's tribal nature

I would have no problem with an Afghainstan made up of tribal self-goevrening areas - but it's not my call - it's theirs. In fact I thought that was a good idea in Iraq too - which is even less of a single nation and has been one for less time than Afghanistan.

[Fumesucker]

29. If it's their call then some of them may choose the Taliban..

And we are right back where we started from.

[dmallind]

37. Yes - and rightly so unless the Taliban evolve.

I have no problem with using military force to topple givernments that promote radical and violent religious fundamentalism that tyrannizes their population, forces wiomen into being less than chattel, and actively promotes suicide bombing and other acts of war against those who disagree with them. I'm not so much shocked as resigned to the fact that people see that as OK apparently, or are unprepared to do anything about it.

[Fumesucker]

39. These things happen all over the world..

Should we topple every tyrannical government in the world?

Look at what's happening in North Korea, no one makes a fucking peep about toppling their government by force.

[dmallind]

44. Different situation

Our food donations to NK are immense. We contain them and protect South Korea.

Neither hwoever is NK actively encouraging and planning attacks against us and others who do not agree with their way of thinking. The Taliban does.

Frankly I wish we DID use our military might to topple the very worst governments. Do you think we should interfere in Darfur? How would we do that without the military?

The point is not to get rid of all bad governments, but I think it's a valid strategy to look for the worst ones in situations where they are bnoth terrorizing their own people and attacking others, and where we see any hope at all for a more enlightened regime.

[Flaneur]

74. Next stop Saudi Arabia?

[Arctic Dave]

82. Ummm, you live under a gov't like that.

[Fumesucker]

32. And some of them may well end up with the Taliban in charge..

Which brings us right back to square one.

[dmallind]

40. see above. The Taliban are a valid enemy and a fundamentalist tyranny

Unless they stop the violence, I support using violencea gainst them. If they wish to become a political party and use peaceful means both to get and to exercise power, then fine. But as lomg as they want to institute their crazy misunderstanding of Islamic law and support acts of violence against others, then what is wrong with using violence to stop them?

[TornadoTN]

55. I am in agreement with most of your statement

However, the issue here is that we have barely even attempted to bring them to the table to get them agree to certain terms if they want to regain their ability to participate in the government of the nation. Of course, some of them are violent ideologues that have no business anywhere near government, so I have no problem acting against them.

Mainly, the people of Afghanistan need to control their own destiny. We can't choose for them and we can't try to interfere by giving them the government that they have now. It has been said that we could control all of Afghanistan for about a billion dollars - by buying off the warlords.

The problem with all of the options is that the only way that we prevent more warring is to maintain our presence there. The moment we leave, the fighting between the factions will happen again. That's just the way it works there and we can't change that no matter how hard we try. That's why we need to deal with the violent Taliban sects and what's left of Al-Queda and get out - and that doesn't take another 30,000 troops or a vague commitment that we "might" start drawing down troops in 2011.

[dmallind]

62. I agree - but think it does take at least that

Overwhelming force is necessary to discourage attacks. We also need people to train and support. Not all -or even most - of the troops there are trigger-pullers. We are doing some good work in Afghanistan buiklding infrastructure and establishing ties to the less radical leaders. I hope we can get to the point where we can keep doing that without the trigger pullers, but now? Not a chance. This should have been the mission they had from the start, and we should have staffed for that. It was the idiocy of Iraq that caused the fatal delay.

[Duende azul]

80. Then go, enlist.

[27inCali]

70. you weaken the central government

and give more power and autonomy to the states and their local tribal elders. The country becomes a loose confederation of states who will fight to keep their autonomy from anyone including the Taliban.

[Fumesucker]

79. Karzai is already mayor Kabul in all but name..

There basically is no "central government" already in most of Afghanistan, it would be hard to make it much weaker than it already is.

[Techn0Girl]

86. Indigenous troops ......

"Indigenous troops are often worse than useless since their loyalties are to their own ethnic group/tribe/whatever.
That's what is so difficult for Americans to understand since we haven't seen that mentality here from around the time of the Civil War."

Ummm....have you been actually reading DU lately ? :banghead:

[27inCali]

69. I say, give those people electricity and TVs w/Cable Satellites

and the Taliban is doomed.

they don't want our American style Democracy, but give them a taste of some American style hedonism -er, I mean culture- and they'll be ready to fight whoever says they want to take it away from them.

[Fumesucker]

19. Dupe, self delete..

[baldguy]

14. So - Surge until it gets better, then pull out?

What if it never gets better?

Nothing in our experience there, or in the experience of the two dozen conquering armies listed above, indicate that "better" is even within the realm of possibility in Afghanistan.

All of our original strategic goals have been accomplished: al Qaeda has been broken, and the Taliban is out of power. And remember, the only reason we targeted the Taliban was because they provided a safe haven for al Qaeda. As long as they understand that we won't allow them to do that again in the future, we should we care if they creep back into power?

We shouldn't be adding troops, we should be pulling them out.

[dmallind]

21. Why this silly insistence on comparing conquest to nationbuilding

The Taliban is out of power - but would be back in power in 5 minutes if we left now. Do you think that's a good idea? We should very much care if they come into power. Do you know how they treat women? Do you remember the outrage over the destruction of the Buddhist statues? Do you want an entire nation put under not just Shari'a law but a wacked out neurotic misunderstanding of it? What happened to sympathy for the people under tyrannic regimes? The Taliban were, and would love to be again, one of the very worst.

[baldguy]

33. There's a lot of evil in the world. There will ALWAYS be a lot of evil in the world.

Do you really want America to take dedicate it's time, reputation, treasure & blood, on the job of eradicating it? Do you remember the myth of Sisyphus?

[dmallind]

46. Eradicate? No. Why is "lessen" a bad thing though?

What better use is there for the world's leading military force?

Are you against helping in Darfur? Would that be possible without troops?

[napoleon_in_rags]

84. The challenge with that I heard...

was that there really isn't a central government there, and there never was. Its a bunch of disconnected areas. So the idea of somebody "taking over" may itself be an entirely new idea requiring a cultural change: It could be we make a mistake when we see the Taliban as running things, when in fact they are sort of an emergent cultural phenomenon, like certain brands of Christianity in the US, which are all over the place, but have no pope. The problem with having somebody else "take over", something like that - well its like coming from the outside and appointing a pope over baptists, its not how they work. And history shows how hard it is to stamp out ANY decentralized cultural trend like that. Look at mighty Rome, it was Christian for a long time and this was enforced. Through this they did try to stamp out the pagan rites, such the fertility rites of spring, as celebrated by ancient symbols of the egg and rabbit, and good old Ēostre. And look how well that went. The pink bunny is still hopping around laying eggs, it just resonates with people. My fear is that Taliban, as a phenomenon not an organization, might be the same way for the people of Afghanistan: You can call it what you want but it will be there for a long, long time.

[27inCali]

67. what if when they pop back up

they find themselves facing a much more organized and formidable Afghan Army and a general public that is enjoy new utilities and services like electricity that they don't want to lose?

hell, it's the Taliban trying to conquer Afghanistan, which means that Afghanistan may serve as a graveyard for their army too if we can snooker them just right.

[Orsino]

11. Installing a stable government favorable to our interests?

Sounds like it's been the plan all along.

[dmallind]

31. meh - I'd settle for a government that doesn't burn women alive for going to school. Bad Idea? NT

[Fumesucker]

35. You and I both know that the US wants a puppet government in Afghanistan..

One that will act favorably to US corporate interests.

What you or I personally want doesn't matter at all.

[dmallind]

42. No I do not know that

There ARE no "puppet" governments of the US. Do we have a puppet government in Korea? Germany? Japan? Our troops are there too. We don't even have a puppet government in Iraq - there have been plenty of disagreements between the nations since our "conquest" there. Wabnting a government that isn't plotting attacks against you (and against anyone who does not agree with thier insane religious nuttery) is not the same as wanting a controlled figurehead.

[tekisui]

58. Sure it is.

We are an empire. We are in the country to met our Imperial needs.

[grahamhgreen]

73. Or you want to bankrupt an imperial power!

[NightWatcher]

2. BullShit, The Hotaki failed because of their love of raw shellfish

kidding by the way. I dont know any of those prior to the Mongols except the Huns.

...something about not knowing history and repeating it comes to mind

[ShortnFiery]

4. What angers me is the EASE with which Obama, Clinton and Gates can LIE to the American

People and distort the facts, i.e., glibly morph LOCAL Taliban into INTERNATIONAL al Qaeda. I honestly thought that PARTICULAR talent was confined to members within the GOP. The foregoing is a sad realization for a democrat. :(

[trof]

51. AND Johnson, McNamara, Westmoreland, Nixon, Kissinger...

The list is endless.
:-(

[trof]

5. Busted

;-)

[bdamomma]

7. there it is written in black and white.

what makes them think we are going to conquer this region, it is written in history no one ever did.

[dmallind]

10. Why do you think they are trying to?

Are we asking for tribute from them? Does Afghanistan have an American ruler? Are we forcing Afghanis to fight in our army? How exactly is it then conquest? Have we conquered Korea? Japan? Germany?

[bdamomma]

12. maybe conquer was the wrong choice.

but what makes us think we are going instill our way on others. Afghanis have been living under tribal leaders for centuries.

[tekisui]

52. Yes to all of your questions.

Except conquering Korea, Japan and Germany. Although, to a degree we have conquered them with our economic Imperialism.

[dmallind]

63. How so?

Where are the tax diollars coming from Afghanistan? Where are the Afghan contingents fighting in Iraq?

[tekisui]

64. We are asking them to contribute resources and bodies

for our national interests. We aren't sending Afghans to fight in Iraq, but we are training an army to fight along side us and eventually continue to work for our interests. We have puppet leaders there. When we found one puppet to be too corrupt, we are installing a new puppet to do our bidding. It is conquering by a different name. It is Imperialism.

[lunatica]

13. Didn't Alexander the Great try to conquer it?

(snip)
"It was Alexander's toughest challenge, and he never subdued its citizens completely. The British in the 1800s and the Soviets in the 1900s met similar fates. Will the United States' experience in the 21st century be different?"

(snip)
"You do have to think about how things will play out in a place like Afghanistan," says Holt. "No superpower has been able to it. Afghanistan is not a 'nation' in the sense we're used to, with its four major regions centered around cities that are closer to other countries than they are to each other."

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Alexander_in_Afghanistan.html

*********

Thom Hartman likens Afghanistan to the Native American tribes when the colonists first came over. To think that they all belonged to one big tribe or that they could be forced into being one big tribe through warfare is as idiotic as thinking that all the tribes in Afghanistan can be herded the same way.

[dmallind]

18. He conquered the entirety of modern Afghanistan

and actually his toughest campaigns were in India, No occupying power - ever - subdues every citizen completely, any more than any government has the support of ALL its own people. That's a dishonest standard. All of the territory of Afghanistan was ruled by Alexander's satraps.

[raccoon]

17. "Graveyard of empires" Afghanistan has been called. nt

[NJmaverick]

20. Unrec for the dishonest use fo the term conquer. NO ONE HAS PROPOSED CONQUERING AFGHANISTAN

and it's the height of intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise. BOOOO!!!!:thumbsdown:

[Fumesucker]

23. Right, all we want is to install a government that will do our bidding..

In no way could that be considered "conquering". :eyes:

[dmallind]

26. Really? Who says?

We just don't want a government that will burn women alive for going to school. Kinda strange that the peaceniks are OK with that.

[TornadoTN]

30. I'm sorry that warmongerers don't grasp the reality of the situation

No one is saying "BRING BACK THE TALIBAN", we are merely saying that the Afghan people have been given a puppet government that in reality doesn't represent their interests either.

Bring in the UN and give them a real chance at electing their own government without the U.S. and people like Karzai & his corporate cronies interfering or rigging the elections.

[dmallind]

47. But if we leave now the TAliban WILL be back in power. I'm sorry peaceniks don't grasp that. NT

[TornadoTN]

49. Oh come on, what do you think will happen whenever we hypothetically do leave?

The Afghan people - or some other group - will move in to seize control. Our presence there is guaranteed as long as there is some interest in the resources of the region and guaranteeing a friendly government to our interests.

Why aren't we playing worlds policeman in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, or any other place that Al-Quada currently operates? The CIA estimate states that there could be around 100 terrorists in Afghanistan right now. So where are the rest of them? Go get them there, if the whole argument about this being about terrorism is true.

[dmallind]

54. Depends on how well we train and support the army and police

If we do a good job, it's very possible Afghanistan could at least be a somewhat deradicalized military junta. Nobody's expecting them to have county elections for dog catchers anytime soon - but I think NOT being an insane fundamentalist regime is a good idea. Do peolpe not remember what it was like when the Taliban ruled?

[TornadoTN]

56. Of course we do. The problem is that our presence isn't exactly helping things

It merely postpones the inevitable.

However, I will say this - I appreciate your thoughts on this and I respect your opinion. For all of our sakes, I hope that things turn out the way that you hope. I'll be the first to acknowledge that the plan worked. But for now, I don't have much confidence in it.

[dmallind]

59. I don't have total confidence either - but I support TRYING.

If it doesn't work though - then what? I think we are in a we broke it we fix it situation. Abandoning a population to Taliban rule AGAIN - with the added burden of some of them having to answer for their support or cooperation - is not something that sits well with me.

[TornadoTN]

61. Nor does it with me

I'm merely opposed to an escalation in the terms that we are doing them now. I believe that we can take care of the Taliban elements with special forces operations and other lower-key operations. To that end, I wouldn't oppose an influx of Rangers, Airborne, and Special Forces troops. I just don't think sending our National Guard troops on a police action (some of them on their sixth rotations) is the answer to the problem.

[Fumesucker]

38. Horrendous things happen all around the world..

Why the concern over only Afghanistan and what happens there?

[dmallind]

48. Why not? Should we not try to lessen horrendous things when we can?

My concern is not only over Afghanistan. Were you and are you against helping Darfur? Is it OK when things like that happen? Is it OK not to help if we can?

[TornadoTN]

50. Then why aren't we in Darfur, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. etc. etc.?

Why Afghanistan specifically? Especially considering that Afghanistan is no longer the main safe harbor for Al-Queda.

[dmallind]

53. From your mouth to God;'s ears

We should be in at least Darfur - training and assisting an African force to maintain the peace and leaving when it can. Of course you have to prioritize - these engagements need to be sequential.

[Fumesucker]

66. So, are you in favor of drastically raising taxes and cutting expenses domestically?

In order to pay for policing the world?

Should we forget about healthcare and jobs here in our own country?

What should we sacrifice in order to bring about your agenda of change for the entire world?

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. Yeah, it's not like we want to make it the 51st state or anything.

[harun]

68. It would be 53, Israel is 51, Iraq is 52 and Afghanistan is 53.

[Ghost Dog]

71. 54. Air Strip One (UK) is 51.

:(

[Mithreal]

78. Tell that to the Afghan people. Hearty laughs for everyone.

[Duende azul]

81. Calm down.

So, how the fuck will you succeed over there without conquering the place?
Or at least make it a satellite of the empire?

And if not, what will you do if they are disobedient again if you have left? Return?
Sounds like a never ending story to me.

[AngryAmish]

25. The Timurid? Are you sure?

'Cause Timur had his way with them. Pyramids of skulls and whatnot. If the latter Timurids, maybe. But they did not care about the area. Just a series of punitive raids.

Mongols? They did not and would not want the area. Just just wanted to pacify it. And boy did they ever. Hashshashins? Hulegu wiped them out.

It is a graveyard of empires since the land is worthless. Nobody wants to stay. In fact Babur lived in modern day Afghanistan for years until he could invade India and get proper land.

[TornadoTN]

36. The land most certainly isn't worthless

At least in todays terms, given the wealth of natural gas, copper, and iron deposits in the country. Not to mention its proximity to other key nations for a proposed pipeline that will cross the country.

[cbdo2007]

27. This seems to be part of your problem - you don't understand that Obama isn't trying to "conquer"

Afghanistan.

MAYBE George Bush was trying to conquer Afghanistan, I'll buy into that argument somewhat though I still don't think that is all necessarily correct, but Obama is now simply trying to finish up the war as it was originally sold to the public and pull troops out responsibly.

[TornadoTN]

34. Will he still insist on having a puppet regime in place in Afghanistan?

When we get out, which we won't, will we actually allow the Afghan people to have fair elections to represent their country? Karzai and his corporate controlled government doesn't speak for the Afghan people any more than the Taliban does.

[cbdo2007]

43. Probably but still that isn't the point of Obama's surge.

Like many people have said here, Afghanistan cannot be controlled or fixed as a country. It's mostly tribes with a group of corrupt politicians stealing all the countries money who are running things. Bush put those politicians in there and from Obama's chair there's no reason to change that at this point. It can't BE fixed, so he has no option but to keep that part the same.

Obama's mission here is to finish the original goals of the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, which is to eliminate threats from terrorists who want to do harm to the United States and eliminate the groups who are supporting and harboring those terrorists. Once they feel like this has been done sufficiently, Obama will go along with the puppet government and endorse them and say they're doing a great job so that he can pull the majority of our troops out.

[TornadoTN]

45. Respectfully, you contradict your own statement

When you say that Afghanistan cannot be controlled - you are correct. The only means of control right now is our presence in perpetuity. As soon as we pull out, other elements will move in to seize control of the government.

That really doesn't sound like we are ever going to get out of Afghanistan, as long as U.S. interests there hinge on our keeping the status quo of the puppet regime intact.

For that reason, we shouldn't keep throwing lives to the wind just to fight a battle that we can never win.

[cbdo2007]

57. I don't think I'm contridicting myself...though I may not be explaining myself clearly.

I agree with all of your response statements, except that we are never going to get out of Afghanistan.

We are trying to eliminate Al Queda and the Taliban, to complete the original goal of our mission. Obama doesn't seem as concerned with what happens there after we leave as he is with then bringing our troops home. If new elements move in and seize control of the government after we leave, then that's fine and hopefully we'll have a better defense plan in place next time they attack us, but controlling the Afghan govt. over the long term, again does not appear to be part of Obama's strategy, as it was with Bush.

In regards to the troops, you are also correct but the "battle we can never win" which is long term stabilization in Afghantistan is really the battle we're fighting. We're finishing off the last remaining throes of our CURRENT threat over there, and then we're bringing the troops home. If that means we need to send more troops for additional security and reinforcements for our troops currently there, then it is possible they could preserve the lives of our current troops over there while we complete the mission. All I can do from my chair is assume that Obama thinks this is the best scenario and I have to hope and pray that it works.

[TornadoTN]

60. I respect your viewpoint. My problem is with the plan itself

It seems that the stated goal is the deal with terrorism, which I could accept if it was a massive hotbed for terrorism in the first place. It was at one time, but it isn't anymore. They've moved to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries throughout the world where they feel that they are out of reach of the U.S. and can organize effectively.

The Taliban is a problem, I'll admit, but I firmly believe that they could be dealt with without a massive influx of soldiers that will only serve to cause more problems than solve. In that regard, I think special forces operations are more effective than house-to-house sweeps and a show of military power. That strategy seems to work in conventional warfare, but as we all know, this isn't exactly a conventional war.

Again, I respect your viewpoint and I appreciate a rational discourse of ideas. I sincerely hope that you are right, for all of our sakes.

[cbdo2007]

65. I hope so too, not for the sake of being right but to end both of these stupid wars!

I agree with your assessment of the Taliban and I think if we were back in 2001 that it would have been more beneficial for us to just use special forces operations...but unfortunately Bush had to go over there and get us into a clusterf*ck. THEN he royally screwed everyone over more and attacked Iraq for no reason. This whole situation would be completely different if he had focused on Afghanistan and had brushed off Iraq as a bunch of blowhards, like most people do.

So if we could go back in time, you're right that special forces would have been better, but in our current situation where we completely went over there and completely messed everything up, the influx of soldiers shouldn't be seen as just a "show of military power" but as added security for our troops over there so that they can finish things up and pull out responsibly. What does "finish things up" mean? I honestly don't know the details. You're right that the terrorists are probably mostly located in other unstable areas now, but I do think Obama wants to bring the troops home ASAP and that he feels like the most effecient and responsible way to do so is with the surge.

Thank you for the conversation as well. It's hard to find people on here sometimes who are willing to discuss the issues rather than just argue.

[HamdenRice]

41. Nitpick: It should be "List of empires THAT failed to conquer Afghanistan"

An empire is not a person.

Carry on.

[trof]

77. My bad. And I was a journalism major.

:-(

[hunter]

72. We can't even handle the drug-war lords of our own nation.

There have been dozens of gang murders within a few miles of my home, some just a few blocks away from my home. The police in my city hardly pay attention to anything unless it is bleeding or has a gun. Fender bender? Stolen x-box? Cars broken into? Serious acts of vandalism? You can file a report on the police website because odds are the police are occupied elsewhere at the moment with something quite a bit worse. I hear shots fired and then sirens, I hear car chases, I see the police helicopter with its searchlight circling around the neighborhood and I'll simply lock the doors and go to bed not even bothering to turn on the evening news. It's just more gang war, same old shit different day.

Good luck solving a very similar problem in Afghanistan where the weapons are bigger and the grudges go deeper... When we insert ourselves into a situation that has all the aspects of a well armed gang war combined with a bloody domestic dispute we are going to suffer some serious losses.

I don't worry much about the Taliban. There's plenty enough bad in my own neighborhood.

[Vidar]

75. Good list. Recommended.

[dugaresa]

76. why not pull our troops out and let them fester until the fix their own situation

right now we just unite them against us because they don't want us there to begin with.

[Quantess]

83. There's no "winning" Afghanistan.

[amborin]

85. China is glad; the US is bogged down & declining; China, rising. Sad!