A question to ask: Will expanding the war in Central Asia damage Pres. Obama's

[mmonk]

domestic policy in a similar way expanding the war in Southeast Asia did President Johnson's?

[BuyingThyme]

1. Yes.

[mmonk]

2. You seem sure.

[DevonRex]

3. Do you mean in terms of dollars or in terms of public approval?

Or both?

[mmonk]

4. In any way. Just looking for opinions.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

5. Expanding the war is a no win situation for all.

In modern war there is no such thing as victor and vanquished...There is only a loser, and the loser is mankind.
--U Thant, Burmese UN Secretary General

[Occam Bandage]

6. No. Why would it?

You have to be in a pretty impressive bubble to think that the Afghan war is remotely comparable to the Vietnam war in impact.

[TheWraith]

8. Agreed.

Leaving Afghanistan without cleaning up the mess--ours and others--first is the no-win situation.

[mmonk]

9. Exactly. Signed, the former Soviet Union.

[Occam Bandage]

27. I sure hope Obama implements Peristroika soon!

[Aloha Spirit]

7. There are a lot of points to be made here... one is that leaving the area poses a risk.

leaving the area poses a substantial risk to Obama's domestic policies.
-Congress would go crazy
-Taliban would grow more powerful
-Pakistan would be less stable
-Drug profits to terrorists would continue

On the other hand, if he just pulled up the tent, maybe the rest of the world would step in.

[mmonk]

14. On the drug trade part, I think you might ought to check our record on that.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I don't believe that he will expand it in the way that Vietnam was expanded...

I believe that he is aware of that danger.

However, whether we believe it or not, some folks still don't like the US,
and some of them are called AlQaeda, and would like to see Obama and the US fail,
just like limbaugh.

I think that we are following the Bush model in 2nd guessing how Pres. Obama
will deal with Afghanistan.

[fujiyama]

11. The war in Vietnam had far less justification

than our involvement in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

And the two countries in this case are inseparable. The good thing is, Obama seems to understand that.

The simple fact is that many of the terrorist attacks we attribute to Al Qaeda over the last decade or so leads back to Pakistan (or Afghanistan), whether it was actual involvement of Pakistani nationals or their intelligence service. The Taliban was a direct creation of the ISI and the organization DID harbor terrorists. And if we leave the region, the ISI is not going to simply stop funding it and nurturing it.

Escalating this war may or may not prove to be the greatest idea. I'm not going to pass judgment just yet. I at least appreciate the seriousness Obama is giving the region. It's about damn time. I do know in this case we can't get up and leave just yet. The Taliban should have no place heading Afghanistan and it would be stupid to concede the country to it. And sorry, I'm not really interested in hearing about how the Taliban was "willing to give up bin Laden if they were offered evidence". I don't have any patience for Taliban talking points. The group was never going to negotiate anything in good faith and we should do our best to not allow them back into power. And also, the Taliban was recognized by three nations as the legitimate government - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Obama understands that defeating terrorism will take a multi-pronged effort - both diplomatic and militarily and that any success won't be easily attained. At times it will even take such tough decisions as violating the territory of soverign nations like Pakistan.

In short, the president is VERY popular and unless we see casualties approaching even pre-surge Iraq levels, his domestic agenda won't be affected. It's all a matter of how much support Obama can retain among congressional Democrats (republicans are a bunch of hypocritical fucks and will jump at any chance they'll get to attack Obama on anything - even if it is a vital national security issue). And so far, I haven't seen too much complaining among congressional Democrats over Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.

[mmonk]

12. Well first, I wasn't asking whether you think it is justified though I

have no problems with you giving your opinion concerning that matter. Secondly, you left out a country, the United States, concerning countries that accepted the Taliban as the defacto government in the early stages. My question is more centered on the effects on domestic policy as well as if it is wise at this point.

[SpartanDem]

13. You clueless

RW, warmongering, imperialist, chicken hawk, PNAC groupie how dare our country you justify defending itself.

I thought I'd get this argument out there, if it weren't so late I'd recommend that a drinking game be played any time these catch phrases were mentioned.

[mmonk]

15. Or the position that people asking questions whether the approach

of committing more troops into the theater right now is the best solution are against the US defending itself.

[avaistheone1]

16. Majority of Afghans blame U.S. -- not Taliban -- for their woes

So much for trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world."Poll: Afghans blame US more than Taliban for violence," from Agence France Presse, February 10:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A nationwide survey of Afghans out Monday shows plummeting support for US and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan, and a rise in the number who believe attacks on those troops are acceptable.

The poll of 1,500 people in Afghanistan's 34 provinces, conducted by three Western broadcast networks -- ABC News, the BBC and Germany's ARD -- also shows lower support for President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan central government.

Forty percent of Afghans surveyed say their country is heading in the right direction, down 77 percent from 2005, according to the poll.

Afghan opinion of the United States has nosedived: 47 percent had a favorable opinion, down from 83 percent in 2005. US favorability plunged 18 percent in 2008 alone, according to the survey.

"For the first time slightly more Afghans now see the United States unfavorably than favorably," ABC News said.

The biggest complaint: civilian deaths resulting from US and NATO air strikes, which 77 percent say is unacceptable because the risk to civilians outweighs the strikes' value in fighting insurgents.

Forty-one percent blame Western forces for poor targeting, while 28 percent blame the insurgents for hiding among civilians.

More worrisome, 25 percent say that attacks on US troops or soldiers with the ISAF -- the NATO-led multinational force in Afghanistan -- can be justified, up from 13 percent in 2006.

The survey comes as US President Barack Obama considers plans to nearly double the number of US troops in Afghanistan, and as the new administration in Washington reviews overall strategy in the region.

Only 18 percent of the Afghans surveyed believe that the number of US and NATO/ISAF forces should increase, while 44 percent want the number of foreign troops to drop.

Just 37 percent say that most people in their area supported the NATO forces, down from 67 percent in 2006.

Obama's election seems to offer little respite: only 20 percent believe his policies will improve things in Afghanistan.

"Thirty-six percent of those surveyed mostly blame US, Afghan or NATO/ISAF forces or the US or Afghan governments for the violence that's occurring, up by 10 points from 2007," ABC said.

Only 27 percent mainly blame the Taliban for the violence, down by 9 points.

Confidence in the Afghan government has also plunged: in 2005, 83 percent of Afghans approved of Karzai's work and 80 percent approved of the national government. That has dropped to 52 and 49 percent respectively.

The survey was conducted in late December and early January in personal interviews with a nationwide sample of 1,534 Afghan adults. Field work was done by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul, ABC said in a statement.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024790.php




Why should the US stick it nose in a country where its people say we are unwanted like Afghanistan?
That is Obama's first problem.

So yes, expanding the war in Central Asia will damage Pres. Obama's domestic policy in a similar way expanding the war in Southeast Asia did President Johnson's. There is not money to do everything, and Obama say this war will go on the budget. So domestic policy funding will suffer. This country is running out of money if you noticed. Furthermore, we have no moral authority to be there in the first place. Nor is there any exit strategy for getting out. This will be Obama's war and his Vietnam. I am afraid this war going to make him a very old man.

[mmonk]

19. Yes, I noticed it is running out of money. That was the reason for the question.

[anonymous171]

24. I agree. If Afghans want to be ruled by the taliban, I have no problem with it .

The people of Afghanist should know that we won't bail them out again if they suddenly dislike being oppressed by the Taliban. Not that they really minded before.

[Bragi]

17. Yes

The war will be increasingly unpopular and will undermine his administration, including his domestic policies.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Some people will underestimate this President and make wild speculations

at their own peril.

[Bragi]

21. What wild speculation?

Obama campaigned on escalating the Afghanistan war, and that's what he is doing.

I disagreed with his policy then, and I disagree with it now.

I think it will end badly. You apparently think otherwise.

Don't see any "wild speculation" involved here.

[crimsonblue]

23. We had Afghanistan under control until we shifted focus.

Obama is not looking for a military solution in Afghanistan.

[damonm]

28. Precisely.

In 2002, AQ was seriously on the ropes - we had critically damaged their operational capacity, and weakened them financially.
Then, Little Lord Pissypants decided Saddam Hussein was more important than the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US, and left the job in Afghanistan half-done.
We now see how thorough Bush's failure was. The Taliban is resurgent, and AQ is as strong, if not stronger, than it was in 2001.

[crimsonblue]

30. I never had a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan

For all the historical lamenting of "nobody can win a war in Afghanistan", we sure took control of the place pretty damn easily. Also, the people of Afghanistan loved us, because we ended the reign of terror of a brutal Taliban dictatorship. The Taliban cracked down on religion, imprisoning buddhists and destroying sacred monuments. The Taliban was directly involved in the financing and training of extremism, fueled by their booming Opium trade.

Instead of finishing the job, Dubya decided to seek revenge for Poppy against Saddam. We allowed the Taliban to reconstitute and permeate throughout society in Afghanistan, convincing the people that the real problem wasn't the brutal dictatorship of the Taliban, but rather the evil white people from America. The Opium trade, once almost completely eradicated by US forces, was allowed to reflourish, and now Afghanistan is producing more Opium than ever.

[Bragi]

33. Where to begin...

You wrote: For all the historical lamenting of "nobody can win a war in Afghanistan", we sure took control of the place pretty damn easily.

The largest military in human history toppled a poor, weak backward government. However, they won the battle, not the war.

You wrote: The Taliban was directly involved in the financing and training of extremism, fueled by their booming Opium trade.

The Taliban were horrific, but they were the only government ever to go after the drug lords. The drug lords now support Karzai, the guy Bush put in power.

You wrote: We allowed the Taliban to reconstitute and permeate throughout society...

Don't flatter yourself: the Taliban government was toppled, but the Taliban never left the country that they have always "permeated".

- B

[Bragi]

31. Please note

AQ's main target in the area is Pakistan. They don't need Afghanistan, and aren't fighting there in any great number. The fighting there is primarily being done by the Taliban, not AQ.

[Bragi]

29. Disagree

The U.S. toppled the Taliban, which wasn't terribly difficult, since it isn't that hard for the most powerful military in human history to topple one of the poorest and most backward governments on the planet.

Since then, efforts to bring the country under "control" have been unsucessful.

The pro-U.S. government that was set up by Bush has been unable to seize control of anything beyond the city of limits of Kabul. The war lords, drug barons and religious extremists that have run the place for the last 200 years are basically still running the place.

In my view, this isn't going to change. No matter how much Obama expands the war in Afghanistan, in the end the U.S. will eventually leave, and the thugs and medievalists that have always run the place, and who live there, will take over once again.

The only question is how many American lives, how much U.S. treasure, and how much of Obama's reputation abroad, will be spent before the inevitable withdrawal occurs.

At least that's how I see it. I'm waiting to see if Obama is going to pull some rabbitt out of the hat on this one, but so far, I'm not seeing it. To mix metaphors, I'm seeing him digging his big Afghan hole deeper.

- B

[damonm]

32. Disagree with your disagreement -

Right when we could have made a difference in rebuilding Afghanistan, we pulled out to go to Iraq.
It was that major suckoff of attention and resources that led to the current problems.

But time will tell. You may well be right - but I don't think so.

[Beacool]

18. It depends.

If there's minimal loss of life, if we manage to contain the Taliban and if we don't stay in Afghanistan for years to come, no.

But, if it becomes another quagmire like Iraq and if we have another terrorist attack in the US, yes it would affect his image.

:shrug:

[crimsonblue]

22. NO.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will never be "Obama's wars", just as Vietnam was never "Nixon's war".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Depends on how long he stays there.

If he stays there indefinitely and the economy continutes to tank, and he gets a bunch of U.S. troops killed, yes.

If he kills Osama bin Laden in the first six months, then pulls the troops out, no.

[Bragi]

34. You wrote:

If he kills Osama bin Laden in the first six months...

It is generally agreed that OBL is not in Afghanistan, he is in Pakistan, so it is unlikely that escalating the war in Afghanistan will lead to OBLs capture.

[damonm]

26. I would be inclined toward no...

As we are not escalating this war on a lie, as we did in Vietnam. The damage done there was to Johnson's credibility - he, based on this lie that became more glaringly apparent as time passed, expended political capital he should have saved in order to fix flaws in the Great Society, as I've said elsewhere.

Obama is expanding not only the military effort, but also the diplomatic. He recognizes that the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated because of the drain on resources caused by the utterly pointless Iraq misadventure, and THAT is why public opinion in Afghanistan is turning against us, as others in this thread have pointed out. I expect that will turn around as Obama's policies begin to take effect in the region.