Afghanistan 2024

[pizzaman]

So Obama committs US troops to Afghanistan until 2024. What miraculous event is supposed to take place that will let us leave then?

Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice. He sounds more and more like W in his
dedication to war in the mideast. On that alone I will not support him for another term.

Please keep comments to the subject (Afghanistan.) Many on here have other reasons to dislike Obama, keep that in another thread.

[DaytonIllini]

I really thought he'd get us out of there. What a quagmire. No way I'd let my kid join the military to get their life tossed away in that mess. We went there for noble reasons (in my mind) but we accomplished what we set out to do. We should be home. I don't know that it is Obama's fault as the R's are pushing for an extended stay there as well but what a waste. Over 1200 killed under Obama. You'd never know it though from the near radio silence the press is operating under.

[Clemens]

Afghanistan is just a mess and I don't know what we should do there. I doubt that we can ever set up a stable, legitimate gov't there so I lean toward pulling out. I'm just not sure it is "winnable", whatever that means in the context of Afghanistan. The thing is we can't win in Afghanistan until somehow things change in pakistan and that isn't going to happen.

JMO what we have there is Vietnam Part 2. The taliban are just waiting for us to pull out so that they can move in and take over. The thing is you can't force democracy on someone, you have to want democracy and be willing to fight for it in order for it to succeed. Afghanistan is just too tribal in nature for anything resembling a democratic gov't to succeed.

What will be interesting is that as we start pulling out troops, this will become more and more a problem for India. They definitely don't want a pakistani proxy gov't in Kabul. Will they step up and try to stop this or just try to limit the extent of the damage?

Also as DI points out, the press has done a terrible job covering this war. Other than the first year of fighting, it rarely makes the news and what does make the news is pretty thinly covered.

I don't agree that this is a war of choice, it may be getting to that point but it wasn't our choice to fly jets into the WTC. If we had committed to this war from the start to the extent that we did in Iraq it most likely would have been over long ago. Instead we tried to hire tribal groups to do our fighting for us. Tribal groups that mainly took our money and gave us very little in return.

Take a look at troop levels in Iraq vs afghanistan, (page 9)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf


IMO if we had put these troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we'd most likely be looking at a very different situation there now. We might have had things under control in Afghanistan to the extent that we could have told Karzai to take a hike and put in a gov't that was at least on our side.

The shame of this is we had a chance to win there and we blew it by taking our eyes off the ball.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by Clemens

Afghanistan is just a mess and I don't know what we should do there. I doubt that we can ever set up a stable, legitimate gov't there so I lean toward pulling out. I'm just not sure it is "winnable", whatever that means in the context of Afghanistan. The thing is we can't win in Afghanistan until somehow things change in pakistan and that isn't going to happen.

JMO what we have there is Vietnam Part 2. The taliban are just waiting for us to pull out so that they can move in and take over. The thing is you can't force democracy on someone, you have to want democracy and be willing to fight for it in order for it to succeed. Afghanistan is just too tribal in nature for anything resembling a democratic gov't to succeed.

What will be interesting is that as we start pulling out troops, this will become more and more a problem for India. They definitely don't want a pakistani proxy gov't in Kabul. Will they step up and try to stop this or just try to limit the extent of the damage?

Also as DI points out, the press has done a terrible job covering this war. Other than the first year of fighting, it rarely makes the news and what does make the news is pretty thinly covered.

I don't agree that this is a war of choice, it may be getting to that point but it wasn't our choice to fly jets into the WTC. If we had committed to this war from the start to the extent that we did in Iraq it most likely would have been over long ago. Instead we tried to hire tribal groups to do our fighting for us. Tribal groups that mainly took our money and gave us very little in return.

Take a look at troop levels in Iraq vs afghanistan, (page 9)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf


IMO if we had put these troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we'd most likely be looking at a very different situation there now. We might have had things under control in Afghanistan to the extent that we could have told Karzai to take a hike and put in a gov't that was at least on our side.

The shame of this is we had a chance to win there and we blew it by taking our eyes off the ball.

I think you were more right in the beginning of your post. The people need to want democracy. That is not a priority in Afghanistan and I doubt anything we did or will do will change that. The people need to come to the reality of democracy on their own.

[DaytonIllini]

Agree with all of the above but we won. We just allowed mission-creep to take over. We went there to kick some ass on the people that attacked us. We turned their country into a war zone for a decade to get even for 3000 US lives, 4 planes, and 3 buildings. We killed the guy that masterminded it. We killed dozens of his lieutenants, his captains and his followers by the bushel full.

We won. They lost. When we set the ridiculous goal of bringing a backward ass group of perverted derelicts living in the 7th century into the 21st century and expected them to understand Voltaire and Adam Smith we shot too high. Declare victory, come home and if they act up again, incinerate them. End of problem.

[Clemens]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Agree with all of the above but we won. We just allowed mission-creep to take over. We went there to kick some ass on the people that attacked us. We turned their country into a war zone for a decade to get even for 3000 US lives, 4 planes, and 3 buildings. We killed the guy that masterminded it. We killed dozens of his lieutenants, his captains and his followers by the bushel full.

We won. They lost. When we set the ridiculous goal of bringing a backward ass group of perverted derelicts living in the 7th century into the 21st century and expected them to understand Voltaire and Adam Smith we shot too high. Declare victory, come home and if they act up again, incinerate them. End of problem.

Well we won in the sense that we destroyed their current base of support but we didn't win in the sense that we killed their senior leadership and made Afghanistan a hostile place for terrorists. They just fled to Pakistan, sometimes with our help.

Airlift of evil

IMO our goals in Afghanistan at the start were very poorly thought out. (virtually the same story as Iraq but that is a different topic) If we had committed enough troops to Afghanistan at the start we could have put in a strong and friendly gov't that would have been required to keep the taliban out. If the gov't we put in place didn't do this, we should have shown them the front door. Without a friendly, strong gov't in Afghanistan, the taliban are just going to move back in and start all over.

As to your comment about incinerating them if they act up again? If you are suggesting nukes, that will never happen. Our other choice in that scenario would be to what? Maintain bomber cover over them and try to bomb them into submission? The soviets tried that and failed worse than we did. There are no strategic targets in Afghanistan to bomb. You would be playing whack-a-mole in the mountains for decades trying to make that work.

[carverchile]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Agree with all of the above but we won. We just allowed mission-creep to take over. We went there to kick some ass on the people that attacked us. We turned their country into a war zone for a decade to get even for 3000 US lives, 4 planes, and 3 buildings. We killed the guy that masterminded it. We killed dozens of his lieutenants, his captains and his followers by the bushel full.

We won. They lost. When we set the ridiculous goal of bringing a backward ass group of perverted derelicts living in the 7th century into the 21st century and expected them to understand Voltaire and Adam Smith we shot too high. Declare victory, come home and if they act up again, incinerate them. End of problem.

I think the mission-creep was pretty understandable. We didn't want to pull out and have the same situation arise two years later and have to re-invade. Of course, now, Al Queda is, if not destroyed, at least greatly diminished. I hope we have some assessment about whether the Taliban is likely to permit Al Queda (or its successors) to set up shop right after we leave.

I do have moral concerns about the Taliban--I've read enough and seen enough to be truly, truly shocked at the behavior. (and no, I know that the Taliban alone is not the only evil in the world--but they were an evil that we happened to be fighting for other, also good, reasons). When we leave, I hope we have some plan to protect the people who've helped us, who've attempted to do good, and who are most likely the first to be killed when we leave.

If I felt like Obama (or Romney, if he becomes president) had an actual, realistic plan for permanent stability over there, I'd be more supportive of staying. Lord knows, we've already spent a lot of time and money over there--another couple years might be worth it if it actually did something. Ultimately, I suppose we're trying to salvage something positive out of the situation (and I will be very, very shocked if we have troops in Afghanistan in 2024). Of course, we tried to do that in Vietnam, as well....

Anyway, I guess I'm ultimately a bit ambivalent about it all, but yeah, I definitely understand your position and think that's a pretty defensible approach. (and by incinerate, I'm assuming you mean coming in and re-driving them from power and killing as many of them as possible--not nukes or just carpet bombing without boots on the ground)

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

So Obama committs US troops to Afghanistan until 2024. What miraculous event is supposed to take place that will let us leave then?

Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice. He sounds more and more like W in his
dedication to war in the mideast. On that alone I will not support him for another term.

Please keep comments to the subject (Afghanistan.) Many on here have other reasons to dislike Obama, keep that in another thread.

First, we were in Afghanistan and the middle east well before Obama and will be there long after him.

Second, the difference in Obama and W is that 1) Obama went in there after something that actually existed differing from why Bush went into Iraq and 2) Obama actually accomplished his goal and "won" the war if you want to say that.

I want the troops home just as bad as everyone, trust me. However, the middle east has been and will most likely always be a complete mess that the U.S. and other "most powerful nations in the world" will be tied to for one reason or another.

Let's not act like Obama is doing anything different than what has been done in the past.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Clemens

Well we won in the sense that we destroyed their current base of support but we didn't win in the sense that we killed their senior leadership and made Afghanistan a hostile place for terrorists. They just fled to Pakistan, sometimes with our help.

Airlift of evil

IMO our goals in Afghanistan at the start were very poorly thought out. (virtually the same story as Iraq but that is a different topic) If we had committed enough troops to Afghanistan at the start we could have put in a strong and friendly gov't that would have been required to keep the taliban out. If the gov't we put in place didn't do this, we should have shown them the front door. Without a friendly, strong gov't in Afghanistan, the taliban are just going to move back in and start all over.

As to your comment about incinerating them if they act up again? If you are suggesting nukes, that will never happen. Our other choice in that scenario would be to what? Maintain bomber cover over them and try to bomb them into submission? The soviets tried that and failed worse than we did. There are no strategic targets in Afghanistan to bomb. You would be playing whack-a-mole in the mountains for decades trying to make that work.

No. Not nukes. If a government like the Taliban ever actively supports terror again though they can be bombed into submission pretty easily.

There are a plethora of places on this planet from which a small determined group of people with a desire to kill can operate. Impossible to patrol and control them all. I think though that we have definitely known in the past about terror bases in Libya, Somalia and Afghanistan and done nothing. Those days are over and I suspect we will continue to hunt and make the lives difficult for them for many decades to come. If occupation and changing the government of Afghanistan could do any good, they'd just set up in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Uzbek or wherever.

The best we can hope for is whack-a-mole from this point on.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

First, we were in Afghanistan and the middle east well before Obama and will be there long after him.

Second, the difference in Obama and W is that 1) Obama went in there after something that actually existed differing from why Bush went into Iraq and 2) Obama actually accomplished his goal and "won" the war if you want to say that.

I want the troops home just as bad as everyone, trust me. However, the middle east has been and will most likely always be a complete mess that the U.S. and other "most powerful nations in the world" will be tied to for one reason or another.

Let's not act like Obama is doing anything different than what has been done in the past.

I agree. The problem is that he was elected to do something different - and he didn't.

[Clemens]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I agree. The problem is that he was elected to do something different - and he didn't.

He's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would do as far as the middle east and central asia go.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I agree. The problem is that he was elected to do something different - and he didn't.

No, the problem is that he didn't do anything different and those who elected him on that premise are either ignoring it or haven't noticed.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Clemens

He's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would do as far as the middle east and central asia go.

I was speaking in the broader sense. He ran on being a different president. Someone to represent red states and blue states. That nonsense.

[Clemens]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I was speaking in the broader sense. He ran on being a different president. Someone to represent red states and blue states. That nonsense.

Which is not what the OP requested

Please keep comments to the subject (Afghanistan.)

I was trying to stay on topic

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Clemens

Which is not what the OP requested



I was trying to stay on topic

And I was responding to AHS's claim of not doing anything different. Bombing multiple countries, ignoring the rule of law, assassinating people without trial, declaring death warrants upon American citizens, expanding police powers, stretching and expanding the Patriot Act, sending drones over US skies to spy on our citizens, moving the TSA onto our highways. These are all responses to Afghanistan and its attack on us. They are all responses by Obama. And none of them were what all the other presidents have done. Obama would be puking if he was a Senator and the current president was a Republican doing this crap. And I daresay most of our nation's presidents would not have acted this way.

The war is over. Our people are dying for nothing. And he is the only person that can stop it. He hasn't. That's all that matters.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

And I was responding to AHS's claim of not doing anything different. Bombing multiple countries, ignoring the rule of law, assassinating people without trial, declaring death warrants upon American citizens, expanding police powers, stretching and expanding the Patriot Act, sending drones over US skies to spy on our citizens, moving the TSA onto our highways. These are all responses to Afghanistan and its attack on us. They are all responses by Obama. And none of them were what all the other presidents have done. Obama would be puking if he was a Senator and the current president was a Republican doing this crap. And I daresay most of our nation's presidents would not have acted this way.

The war is over. Our people are dying for nothing. And he is the only person that can stop it. He hasn't. That's all that matters.

Other than the bolded, I agree completely. People of high moral character and reason do not get the support of their party necessary to run for president. Therefore we are left with what we have had for 12 years.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

No, the problem is that he didn't do anything different and those who elected him on that premise are either ignoring it or haven't noticed.

I voted for him, I noticed, and I started the thread critical of him. The conservative notion that somehow Obama is immune to objective commentary from those who may have supported him is just wrong.

Back to the topic, what will ever happen in Afghanistan that will ever get us out?

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

I voted for him, I noticed, and I started the thread critical of him. The conservative notion that somehow Obama is immune to objective commentary from those who may have supported him is just wrong.

Back to the topic, what will ever happen in Afghanistan that will ever get us out?

I completely disagree with the bolded. I am very glad that you have noticed, but you are in the extreme minority. Well, I should say that I don't know if you are in the minority among those who have noticed, but you are very rare among those who actually question him publicly. There are other instances, but they are quite rare. I know many Obama supporters who follow him blindly. They have been silent on my Facebook wall for the past couple years, and they say nothing which questions any of his decisions, including Afghanistan. They called Bush a war-monger and that Obama should end the wars. They have said nothing about Obama's complete opposite actions.

To your last statement, I sadly see nothing that would get us out anytime soon. No one wants to be "the guy" who pulled us out then let the Taliban and Al Qaeda take back over. Don't know if that would actually happen, but it's a big enough fear that I don't see it occurring anytime soon.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

I sadly see nothing that would get us out anytime soon. No one wants to be "the guy" who pulled us out then let the Taliban and Al Qaeda take back over. Don't know if that would actually happen, but it's a big enough fear that I don't see it occurring anytime soon.

I'm of the opinion that the longer we occcupy a foreign country the more enemies we make. I don't see us staying there until 2024 as beneficial to reducing threats against the US. A steady gradual reduction in troops to zero or a very limited number of advisors in the next 1-3 years would accomplish the same thing at far less cost IMO, but what do I know.

[NV Illini 74]

Looks to me like the Taliban have already taken over again.

What's it take to leave? Pack up and leave. 24 hours. Just like when we left after the Russians left.

The only problem is that Afghanistan has strategic mineral deposits. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia tried to go back in once we left. Maybe there's an opportunity there?!

[Clemens]

We may not be in Afghanistan that much longer

Afghanistan security deal Obama signed has holes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_1...ned-has-holes/

Either nation can quit the agreement with one year's written notice. If both parties want to cancel it they can do so by mutual agreement at any time.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said the "strategic partnership agreement" is not intended to address the specific terms of an ongoing military relationship. The agreement pledges the two nations to begin work on a more detailed pact, and sets a goal of one year to complete it.

Those are loopholes big enough to sail a ship through.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

I'm of the opinion that the longer we occcupy a foreign country the more enemies we make. I don't see us staying there until 2024 as beneficial to reducing threats against the US. A steady gradual reduction in troops to zero or a very limited number of advisors in the next 1-3 years would accomplish the same thing at far less cost IMO, but what do I know.

Oh I agree with you completely, I'm just stating that I don't think that will happen.

[Clemens]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

And I was responding to AHS's claim of not doing anything different. Bombing multiple countries, ignoring the rule of law, assassinating people without trial, declaring death warrants upon American citizens, expanding police powers, stretching and expanding the Patriot Act, sending drones over US skies to spy on our citizens, moving the TSA onto our highways. These are all responses to Afghanistan and its attack on us. They are all responses by Obama. And none of them were what all the other presidents have done. Obama would be puking if he was a Senator and the current president was a Republican doing this crap. And I daresay most of our nation's presidents would not have acted this way.

The war is over. Our people are dying for nothing. And he is the only person that can stop it. He hasn't. That's all that matters.

US presidents have always acted this way, particularly when at war.

Targeted Killing
Vietnam
WWII
WWII
US Civil War
Castro

Ignoring the rule of law
Japanese American internment
Suspending Habeus Corpus

Bombing other countries
Cambodia


Spying on US citizens
Bush II
Nixon
Clinton, Reagan and Carter
LBJ

That is what I can think of off the top of my head and a quick google search. There are more, the assassination of Allende, the Diem Assassination, Iran contra, Project Mkultra, HTlingual, extra judicial rendition and torture under bush, the list goes on and on.

Some of those links apply to more than one of your points but suffice it to say, none of this is new or unique to Obama. I don't agree with much of it but to say that most of our nations presidents would not have acted this way is patently false.

I know you hate Obama and I am not a big fan of him either but as far as Afghanistan and Iraq go, he has done pretty much what he said he would do when he was campaigning.

[OlivetNaz]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

...People of high moral character and reason do not get the support of their party necessary to run for president. Therefore we are left with what we have had for 12 years.

This is why I am worried about the long-term viability of our country. You can only elect morons for so long before the country goes off the edge of a cliff.

Now here's the scary part...if the tone of national politics in Washington doesn't change to something more positive and much more cooperative than what we currently have, Bush II and Obama could both be seen as excellent presidents who were very smart in 60 years.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

And I was responding to AHS's claim of not doing anything different. Bombing multiple countries, ignoring the rule of law, assassinating people without trial, declaring death warrants upon American citizens, expanding police powers, stretching and expanding the Patriot Act, sending drones over US skies to spy on our citizens, moving the TSA onto our highways. These are all responses to Afghanistan and its attack on us. They are all responses by Obama. And none of them were what all the other presidents have done. Obama would be puking if he was a Senator and the current president was a Republican doing this crap. And I daresay most of our nation's presidents would not have acted this way.

The war is over. Our people are dying for nothing. And he is the only person that can stop it. He hasn't. That's all that matters.

You can't be implying that things will turn for the better under Mitt "double Gitmo" Romney, are you? I agree that Obama's failure to utterly repudiate these un-American anti-terror policies conceived by Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Bolton/Yoo is his biggest failing as President, but any electible Repub will be no better if not far worse, Santorum wants to invade Iraq yesterday.