USA Afganistan

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sure there's a goal: a state which can and will prevent terrorist bases from being established there.

This is a completely unrealistic goal, though. Afghanistan currently hosts many terrorist bases, and probably will continue to do so.

Unless the US is willing to go old-school and kill all the people over the age of 2, there is no solution. No government will ever have legitimacy being backed by the US in Afghanistan. Hell, we have never been able to control more than a small area around Kabul - the rest has been controlled by various warlords.

The ironic thing is that this was Osama Bin Laden's plan all along: provoke the US to bring its military might to bear in a region where they can bleed us out slowly. We only accelerated that by invading Iraq (a real gift to Bin Laden). The Taliban are thinking in terms of generations. They don't care about dying either. They welcome death. And here we stand, unable to learn that cutting off a head form the Hydra just makes it stronger. So unless we are willing to burn the whole thing down, we might as well just be cutting ourselves.

First you mention two options - endless more of the same, or pulling out. But you're right, this is the third option, the one I am thankful we are too civilized for. Of course I don't think the uncivilized option needs to go as far as 2. Just kill every man over the age of 15 and every woman over the age of 30. Offer the 15 to 30 year old women as brides to any convict willing to move to Afghanistan as settler, giving each settler 20 acres. Open settlement up to non-convicts as well, at 40 acres.

Rename the General in charge of the Afghan effort "Sherman" and tell him the native Afghans are Sioux.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is a completely unrealistic goal, though. Afghanistan currently hosts many terrorist bases, and probably will continue to do so.

Unless the US is willing to go old-school and kill all the people over the age of 2, there is no solution. No government will ever have legitimacy being backed by the US in Afghanistan. Hell, we have never been able to control more than a small area around Kabul - the rest has been controlled by various warlords.

The ironic thing is that this was Osama Bin Laden's plan all along: provoke the US to bring its military might to bear in a region where they can bleed us out slowly. We only accelerated that by invading Iraq (a real gift to Bin Laden). The Taliban are thinking in terms of generations. They don't care about dying either. They welcome death. And here we stand, unable to learn that cutting off a head form the Hydra just makes it stronger. So unless we are willing to burn the whole thing down, we might as well just be cutting ourselves.

First you mention two options - endless more of the same, or pulling out. But you're right, this is the third option, the one I am thankful we are too civilized for. Of course I don't think the uncivilized option needs to go as far as 2. Just kill every man over the age of 15 and every woman over the age of 30. Offer the 15 to 30 year old women as brides to any convict willing to move to Afghanistan as settler, giving each settler 20 acres. Open settlement up to non-convicts as well, at 40 acres.

Rename the General in charge of the Afghan effort "Sherman" and tell him the native Afghans are Sioux.

If you're going to give the settlers 40 acres, make sure you give them a mule as well. That way, you can piss off all the black people who'll be annoyed that the government actually kept its word this time.

 

[J842P]

This is a completely unrealistic goal, though. Afghanistan currently hosts many terrorist bases, and probably will continue to do so.

Unless the US is willing to go old-school and kill all the people over the age of 2, there is no solution. No government will ever have legitimacy being backed by the US in Afghanistan. Hell, we have never been able to control more than a small area around Kabul - the rest has been controlled by various warlords.

The ironic thing is that this was Osama Bin Laden's plan all along: provoke the US to bring its military might to bear in a region where they can bleed us out slowly. We only accelerated that by invading Iraq (a real gift to Bin Laden).

The question is why are there so many bases and the answer, fundamentally, is Pakistan. If Pakistans interests were the same as ours, we wouldn't need to be there.

I agree under the circumstances the goal is unrealistic but at the same time unfettered control of the country by terrorists is denied. And unfettered control is what lead to 911. We learned from that that allowing terrorists a state is a bad idea.

I disagree on OBL's strategy. He wanted, through his attacks, to make our support of Saudi Arabia problematic. Then the caliphate could be established. His focus all along was bringing down the House of Saud and liberating the Land of the Two Mosques. A Soviet-style bog-down in Afghanistan was a tactic, not a strategy. Kinda backfired.

It's easy to see how first Obama now Trump get roped into continuing, the only alternative is to leave and hope that somehow nothing bad happens. I read critiques from both the right and the left that the "blob" or the NSC or the Defense Establishment tail is wagging the dog, but I don't see any good ideas.

The answer is not "fundamentally Pakistan", the problem is that the Pashtun regions are essentially ungoverned, and the closest they have ever bee to being governed was by the Taliban.

Yes, elements of the Pakistani military/government support the Taliban, but that isn't the only issue.

The solution was negotiating with the Taliban, which we refused to do after 9-11, even though they offered to give up Bin Laden to a neutral country. We didn't want that, so we decided to invade. Now, we will likely end up having to negotiate with them anyway, except now we have wasted tons of blood and treasure. So, *the worst of all possible solutions*.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. This has always been the two options facing the US in Afghanistan: eternal war or pulling out and conceding to the Taliban. It amazes me that anyone believes any US-backed government will ever have legitimacy in Afghanistan.

The choice for Afghanis is US backed or Pakistani backed. That's not as simple.

No, it isn't. There is internal rule, like the Taliban.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The answer is not "fundamentally Pakistan", the problem is that the Pashtun regions are essentially ungoverned, and the closest they have ever bee to being governed was by the Taliban.

Yes, elements of the Pakistani military/government support the Taliban, but that isn't the only issue.

No, but it's the biggest issue beyond our control.

I think you're confusing the Pashtun areas of Pakistan with those of Afghanistan.

The solution was negotiating with the Taliban, which we refused to do after 9-11, even though they offered to give up Bin Laden to a neutral country. We didn't want that, so we decided to invade. Now, we will likely end up having to negotiate with them anyway, except now we have wasted tons of blood and treasure. So, *the worst of all possible solutions*.

That's not my recollection, but whatever. I do think the invasion was necessary.

And it was a complete success, AQ and the Taliban fell like a house of cards. No terrorist run state. That's a plus.

And as far as commitments go, when compared to Asia, it's small potatoes. 8k troops? We have 35k in the Korean DMZ. We have over 800 bases worldwide. Afghanistan is easily manageable.

No, it isn't. There is internal rule, like the Taliban.

Pakistan didn't start the Taliban, but they co-opted them.