What is your definition of success in Afghanistan?

[bigjohn16]

Before the President speaks tonight and lays out his plan for the future of Afghanistan I'd like to know how the members of DU define success. What do you think we can accomplish in the time frame we are hearing now of 3 years? Is 30,000 troops the right number or do we need more/less? If you don't agree with the troop increase then please tell me what you think will be the results of it.

Edit:
I'm curious as to what you think Afghanistan will look like in 3 years after the President increases troops tonight.

[harun]

1. Leaving.

[bigjohn16]

3. But if we don't?

I'm just trying to get a since of what DU thinks Afghanistan will look like in 3 years.

[MNDemNY]

7. Then we are unsuccessful.

[bigjohn16]

11. I think it's safe to say that the President will commit more troops tonight.

Will Afghanistan change, stay the same, or get worse?

[MNDemNY]

14. There will be more troops. More US deaths...

Afghanistan will remain a hell hole, It will revert back to it's clannish ways a little later than if we just leave now. No real difference. (except lives and treasure spent that we can not afford.)

[bigjohn16]

20. Thanks. nt

[harun]

32. It will look exactly like it does now, U.S. will be about 300 billion dollars poorer though.

[Fresh_Start]

4. +1

perferably before thousands more (afghani as well as coalition forces) die

[noamnety]

27. Leaving. Yes.

Not occupying another country, not killing civilians, not gutting our budget in order to keep Afghanistan in a constant state of war = success.

That's a painfully low bar I'm setting, but it appears we can't even meet that.

[Mist]

29. Leaving. nt

[Ian David]

2. A Jeffersonian Democracy with gay marriage, universal healthcare and a secular government!

What?

You didn't specify it had to be realistic.

[IndianaGreen]

53. with people singing and dancing in the streets

Our troops welcomed as liberators. Kabul becomes the Las Vegas of Southwest Asia.

[polichick]

5. Possibly a new oil pipeline. nt

[MNDemNY]

9. maybe 2!

[MNDemNY]

6. We already achieved our needs.

lqueda can no longer plan or launch attacks from there. We can keep that the case from off-shore. So success= leaving. The end.

[bigjohn16]

8. Fair enough. nt

[tekisui]

10. That ship has sailed.

Success will be when we quit acting like an empire.

[Aramchek]

47. you don't get to make that call.

[dmallind]

12. Well that depends

Short term? A reasonably competent national police force or army that is well enough trained and equipped to stop religious fanatics from taking over again and making the entire country a radicalized jihadist training camp is first and foremost. We obviously need some people to keep at least some measure of peace until they can, and we need people to train them too.

Longer term? A functioning government that can establish its own laws and enforce them throughout the country, then pass the reins in some predictable and peaceful way to another goveernment. That would however be unrealistic in the nexxt decade at least. We'd need to do the above, but also then stay around until the political stuff is established not just the military stuff.

Deos anybody who favors an immediate pullout think it would help reduce global tension, terrorism, and violence? Would the regime be better than it could be with our help or worse? Please bear in mind who were in control of Afghanistan before we got in there.

[Sinistrous]

19. Oh stop being so damned reasonable.

Folks are having too much fun at the fall-on-your-swords party here.

P.S. Good post.

[LooseWilly]

33. "Deos anybody who favors an immediate pullout think it would help reduce global tension"... Maybe

I'm not convinced we're not inciting as many, or more, new recruits "for them" as we are costing "them" in casualties.

If we were... then wouldn't "they" be falling back, rather than advancing and expanding the scope of strikes?

And why the fixation on stopping the establishment of jihadist training camps in Afghanistan? Is there something magic about Afghanistan that makes such training camps scarier than the ones that're being used in Pakistan? (and Sudan, and Somalia, and Qatar...)

It's not even certain that the Taliban will be able to re-take the country. Before the US (Carter and Brzezinski) begain funding and training the jihadists, there was a secular (and, gasp- communist!) government in charge. Maybe withdrawing US troops (to reduce recruitment incentivization) combined with support for whatever reasonable drug lords and warlords are currently to be found in the government... maybe they can fight off the Taliban themselves, or buy them off.


"Longer term? A functioning government that can establish its own laws and enforce them throughout the country, then pass the reins in some predictable and peaceful way to another goveernment." ... I can't help but think of the Supreme Court in 2000... and subsequent Warrantless Wiretapping... and then I look at this goal for Afghanistan as being laughable rhetoric, of the idealistic variety.

[dmallind]

48. In general terms you are right, but the question was specific

We would have fewre potential terrorists had we not invaded either country, but that's a sunk cost. We cannot undo that. What we can do is help build a strong enough government that can police its own country before we go. Do you think Afghanistan has one of those right now?

The rate of attacks in Iraq has fallen. I think the idea is to try to do the same in Afghanistan. No that doesn't mean all is wonderful in Iraq. Just better.

The camps are no scarier (and I get the feeling you are inferring far more irrational fear or dread of terrorism than I really have - I suspect it's way down the list of things likely to do me any harm to be honest - but it's like having a fire extinguisher doesn't make you terrified of fire, just that you want to do something about it if you have one). The camps however were more real and more numerous. Pakistan has a stronger (not as strong as it could be) central government to take care of the problem, and the Sudanes camps havenn't generated much that can hurt us yet.

If we leave now there is no question in my mind teh Taliban will take over. they already do control some reasons, and are the only real power there outside foreign troops. Your suggestion is not that far from mine - we need SOMEBODY strong enough to hold on to power and enforce laws who is not irrevocably committed to Islamist tyranny. (I'd be just as worried if it were white skinned Xian tyranny before you even think of going there).

The 2000 election was an aberration, but unpredictable only in detail (the process it followed was perfectly legal and in place and as such predictable) and almost entirely peaceful. If Afghanistan could get anywhere close to that level of handling power changes in my lifetime I would be amazed. What constitution they want and what powers their government has is entirely up to them. Or rather could be if we protect and train them well enough to hold off the Taliban.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. Glass Parking Lot (n/t)

[bigjohn16]

16. Ok. Is everyone in Afghanistan dead? nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. I think that'd ought about do it, eh?

At the least, at least afghan squabbling would be at a minimum for a good while.

[Thrill]

15. Leaving NOW.

[bigjohn16]

18. But we know that's not going to happen.

What do you think it'll look like in 3 years?

[Thrill]

24. Unfourtnately I don't think it can end well

Its just a very bad decision. With extreme consequences. I feel sorry for the families with loved ones going there.

[bigjohn16]

25. Alright, thanks. nt

[vaberella]

31. How is that success?

So we leave the Afghani's to the slaughter we either subjected them to or introduced them to or added to?! Brilliant.

Why can't people just say..they don't bloody well know. I can tell you I don't fuckin' well know what's the best outcome---but I'm reluctant to leave them in the mess that we've helped create and again live a past that we have seen so commonly reflected. Vietnam, Pakistan, Grenada, Haiti (depending on how you look at it). Then the nation is forced to rebuild alone and with even more blood but with us playing the role of Pontius Pilate---but we created majority of their hell.

[grasswire]

17. why do we have to have "success"?

I would rather have an end than success.

In fact, if "failure" meant that the American people would stop the military industrial complex in its tracks, if it meant that we would end American imperialism and aggressions, I would choose "failure." (Withdrawal.)

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

[harun]

21. Well said.

[bigjohn16]

23. Fair enough.

What state do you think Afghanistan be in 3 years from now following the Presidents plan?

[grasswire]

40. q u a g m i r e

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

[bigjohn16]

42. So you think in 3 years we'll still be bogged down in a quagmire. Fair enough.

[lapfog_1]

22. There is really only one...

which is "keep the nuclear warheads out of the hands of radicals - either elected or otherwise".

And that one is only a temporary goal. I.E. kicked down the street for some future President or world leaders to worry about.

[vaberella]

26. To be honest, mine would be more of a fantasy.

An honest government and free enterprise and boys and girls going to school without fear of shoot outs and bombings.

[Mist]

28. But is that something our gov't has the desire, or ability, to make happen? nt

[vaberella]

38. I think President Obama and some officials do have the desire.

However, this is not wholly dependent on our government. It also has to deal with the government in Afghanistan and the apparent corruption. We can't say that development is one sided and all about our nation---it's not. Further more, we still have insurgents in that nation, Taliban loyalists. I mean when you take these things into account. Even if the desire is there by our government.

The real question is, is it possible in the political, social, and rather chaotic environment within Afghanistan from the government to the havoc Bush/Cheney committed for 8 or so years. I see your post leaning this on the Obama admin---seemingly to forget the destructive han Bush/Cheney essentially played and cost--making this an even bigger nightmare for our current Admin.

[bigjohn16]

30. When you say fantasy do you mean you think that won't happen?

If so what do you think the likely outcome will be?

[vaberella]

36. It's unlikely to happen with 30,000 troops and 3 years.

What I dream of is something that could take 10-20 years to do. It that long and more for Pakistan to get where it's a bit more developed than nations surrounding it after our destruction in the 80s. So no...30,000 troops and 3 years is a nada.

Keep in mind we don't know the full strategy and still have to await what he has to say. I will dabble in a bit of speculation here though. What he could do...with the nation building plan I've heard which actually engages outside of the government (which most has deemed to be corrupt) and a sort of small push-back against the Taliban forces---I think in the 3 years time, if that time frame is to believed (before full, 100%, withdrawal) would establish a shaky stability. I think it would topple without a more long term investment, however not military investment, development initiative goals. However, I do think we are in some way obligated to this nation for what we've done.

You see, a lot on the left keep screaming---GET OUT NOW. LET'S GO NOW. But reeks of Republicanisms. You see, this is the same left who wants Bush to pay or his crimes. Well the 9 years of war and destruction and death we've laid at the feet of Afghani's with our own also paying the ultimate price as well---we're not taking responsibility, nor are we trying to pay. To us, our loss of life is enough of a price. But we're talking a 9 year invasion not including the havoc we enabled with Al-Qaeda funding in the 80s/90s. When you take all of that into account we should feel obligated to do something to help out this nation. In essence we say---this is worthless and leave---leaving people behind.

We're not leaving cattle, cattle wasn't killed---it's not cattle grazing the mountains. These are humans. I don't know what the best response is, what the real outcome will be---it's too hard to say without knowing the full extent of Obama's plan, as I've stated before--and I don't know if this is the best decision since I'm not a fan of troop increase. But I'm not going to count it out.

[LooseWilly]

34. A country as stable as Pakistan?

Hmm... I think they're pretty close, come to think of it... maybe if we give them $1,000,000,000.00 in aid too?... (or was it $10,000,000,000.00?)

[bigjohn16]

35. So you think we should give them money and withdraw our troops? nt

[DailyGrind51]

39. Getting out as fast as we can!

[bigjohn16]

41. With a speculative troop increase of 30,000+ and a 3 year timetable

What do you think Afghanistan will look like?

[vaberella]

43. Apparently the new number is 15,000 and the 3 year time table is because of deployment.

ie...most troops won't be in until 2011 and then we're movingw out---for the folloing 1.5 years.

[bigjohn16]

44. What is the source for the 15,000 number? nt

[vaberella]

49. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=28559&mesg_id=28559

Currently it's the new numbers being reported. Media outlets--they say so much.

[bigjohn16]

50. 1/3 less than McChrystal requested would be 30,000. Roughly nt

[branders seine]

45. 100% exit immediately

is the most successful of all possible outcomes.

[bigjohn16]

46. Fair enough but since that's not going to happen tonight what do you think the outcome will be? nt

[branders seine]

51. I think our presence there will drag on with no particular or measurable

purpose. This presence will continue to cost blood and treasure. Our economy will erode further. We will not get health care or any meaningful reform of the current runaway capitalist monster that is destroying the country and the world. republicans will make gains in 2010. At some point, probably during the 2012 election campaign, some horrific event will take place, with huge American and/or civilian casualties. This event will catalyze far-right opposition to Obama and the Democrats, leading to a new faux-populist republican regime. It will be mid-century at the earliest before any kind of progressive movement can create another opportunity like the one Obama has squandered. By then, the US will just be a larger version of Mexico, so it won't matter.

[Vidar]

52. Escape.

[goodgd_yall]

54. Success in Afghanistan

is going to have to come from its own people. After the waste of Iraq, we have no business spending millions more and losing thousands (of lives) more in a futile effort to change Afghanistan. The more we kill innocent civilians there, the more recruits Al Qaeda and the Taliban or whatever group rises up against foreign troops will get.

The best thing we could do for our security is to keep military forces out of Muslim countries, stop being Israel's buddy, ensure potential targets of terrorists' attacks are secured, and support our intelligence agencies in nipping terrorist activities in the bud.