Should the US immediately withdraw troops from Afghanistan?

[debbierlus]

Yes or no.

Where do you stand on ending this war?

(And, yes, I realize the logistics may mean that it happens over a period of a few months. The question here is should we immediately begin withdrawing troops to be completely out within a short period of time).

[Don Caballero]

1. No

If we left there tomorrow President Obama would be blamed for the ensuing genocide by the Taliban against their enemies. We will and should always have a presence in AfPak.

[wuushew]

"We will and should always have a presence in AfPak"

I strongly disagree with this statement. Justify your reasoning.

[timeforpeace]

29. No, I'm with President Obama on this, he knows what he's doing.

[mike_c]

31. the U.S. SHOULD be blamed for the consequences of its evil foreign policy....

U.S. out of Afghanistan and Iraq NOW!

[TexasObserver]

46. You whiffed that one. Didn't even come close to the ball.

[gateley]

2. Yes -- BUT -- are there groups of people there who are dependent on us?

If so, we need to make provisions for them somehow.

Other than that, get the hell out!

[BOSSHOG]

3. We have to cut our losses and leave

We can't do the conservative thing and insist that more must die tomorrow so those that died yesterday did not die in vain.

[immoderate]

19. We declare victory first...

:shrug: Couldn't hurt.

--imm

[gateley]

32. Yes -- cut our losses. Don't lose any more. We seem to be loathe to that

approach, though.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. End all the occupations, bring all the troops home.

This imperialism bullshit is killing THIS country as much as it is the countries "we" occupy.

[debbierlus]

20. I am a little surprised at the numbers thus far

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Sadly, I'm not

Tragically, even far too many people who call themselves "Democrats" and even "Liberals" or "Progressives" have bought into the PNAC mythology of Afghanistan, despite the fact that we supposedly went there to find a 6'5" skinny Arab guy with a kidney condition, who should have stuck out like a sore thumb, and instead did nothing but revitalize the nation's number #1 cash crop (the one Chimpy's dad named himself after, and is probably cashing in on himself)

[debbierlus]

36. 100 million a day JUST on Afghanistan - this is just BIG business

[Individualist]

49. DLC is pro-military industrial complex.

No surprise.

[rd_kent]

5. NO, Not until all troops are out of Iraq first.

Then all out of Europe.

[ShortnFiery]

6. If this is any measure, I fear our "big party tent" is too damn BIG. eom

[JuniperLea]

7. We should be careful... Bush was not careful...

We need to make up for that by thinking this through thoroughly before taking action.

I hope the careful thoughts take us to the reasoning that says, we've done enough harm... this isn't working... time to go.

[sabbat hunter]

8. No because

Unlike Iraq, we do have a group/enemies in Afghanistan that have attacked the US, would like to do so again.

[lib2DaBone]

9. Heard on NBC News last night....

"....the Tali ban are receiving Arms and Ammo from sanctuaries inside Pakistan."

I could be wrong... but isn't the United States giving billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan?

Does this then mean, that we are paying for BOTH sides of this ugly war?

[redqueen]

13. "we are paying for BOTH sides of this ugly war"

And some people are making lots of money from it.

[Lost-in-FL]

18. Yes. You are right.

Afghanistan is no longer the issue. Taliban/Al qaeda is operating in tribal areas within Pakistan out of the jurisdiction on Pakistan.

I think they are indirectly paying for both the insurgency in Iraq and Taliban/Al qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

[kenny blankenship]

26. We are also arming the "taliban" by handing out AK47s and M16s to Afghan army trainees

who simply disappear after their training period is over. They've been taking their sign-up bonus and the rifle and going home. Some of these folk are "taliban", and some of them are just in it for the money. They can pocket the sign-up dough and sell the rifle.

[debbierlus]

10. Interesting results so far - thanks for taking the time to check in

[Lost-in-FL]

11. Leaving is the least immoral choice. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

39. How so?

Leaving guarentees the deaths of those who have worked alongside the United States in Afghanistan.

It ensures that al-Qaeda will have a base from which to launch large scale attacks, like those of 9-11.

And it ensures a huge boost for radical Islam.

[Lost-in-FL]

43. A boost? What more boost than killing over 3,000 people in one day...

in an operation that cost less than $500,000? To make sure you didn't forgot, the 9/11 highjackers where mostly from Saudi Arabia, recruited in Europe (Hamburg), and trained in Florida flight schools. Do we really need to go there?

What more boost does Islam need when their memberships keeps growing the longer the US stays in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan? Al Qaeda have a base... and that base is PAKISTAN not IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN. Next Somalia, Yemen, et. al. Al Qaeda is using Pakistan (not Afghanistan) as their base of operation. They don't need Afghanistan.

You don't read much about Afghanistan do you?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. Who Doesn't Read Much About Afghanistan?

You honestly do not believe that surrendering in Afghanistan would provide an enormous boost to radical Islam? ...seriously? Look, I realize you don't like war, but let's be a little realistic here. :think:

Secondly, al-Qaeda's membership actually doesn't appear to be in an upsurge. Much of their funding has been cut off to the point where they've had to publicly beg their sympathizers for financial assistance. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been greatly neutered thanks to their own bloodthirstiness as well as U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between Sunni rebels and foreign fighters in Iraq. Their command is in a fair degree of disarray thanks to the two front war they're now waging in Afghanistan/Pakistan, as well as the drone strikes targeting their leaders.

Third, there are numerous areas in Afghanistan where our troops have not set foot for months, if not years, so to say this entire battle needs to be focused in Pakistan and not Afghanistan is pure speculation on your part. We know that there are hostile forces in many of these areas, and at this point, who's to say al-Qaeda is absent from the scene?

Fourth, how about this, if you sincerely believe I'm so ill-informed, you recommend a few articles. I'd be more than happy to take a look. I get the feeling, however, that I'm just as well equipped to debate this subject as you.

[Lost-in-FL]

54. Surrendering?

It isn't that "I don't like war" but if we want to be "warmongers" one need to place emotions aside. One way to leave emotions aside is by leaving behind utterly cheesy terms such as "surrendering" and develop some unadulterated common sense. I think "you" are being unrealistic here. If this "war" is about not "surrendering" :eyes: to al Qaeda we are fighting in the wrong place (like fighting Iraq after 9/11). Al Qaeda is a global phenomena and does not require Afghanistan. Afghanistan might have been an strategically significant area in the past but there are now so many places where al Qaeda can thrive. Unless you are a "hatemonger" or civilian contractor in Afghanistan, troops in Afghanistan will only help your bank account for centuries to come.

Forget about Iraq and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda members are Arab-Sunni Muslims and Iraq is over 70% Shiia (Shiia-Persians). To topple that, factions within the Sunni minority in Iraq HATE al Qaeda. Why would Al Qaeda need Iraq, so many choices... so little time. And yes "Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been greatly neutered thanks to their own bloodthirstiness". But since Al qaeda is out of Iraq lets go back to the main subject, Afghanistan.

Even if we did succeed, what "success" means to you? What would a "win" in Afghanistan would mean to the world? Would it erradicate or "lessen" the impact of radical Islam? Erradicating radical Islam is starting to sound everyday like fighting the "war on drugs", "poverty" and "world peace" all at once. Al Qaeda reaches far beyond Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan borders. Al Qaeda thrives on places without or with very weak governments and the ME is full of places like such. Pakistan is sounding super, and nuclear weapons included!

What the troops needed to get done in Afghanistan they did in less than 30 days with very little troops and Afghans Tribal help (thus beating the Brits and the Soviets who in the past were very unsucessful). Then, BushCo fu@#$ed it all up and thank to that now Pakistan is increasingly unstable (much more than before).

So if surrendering is a bad choice according to you, please tell me what "winning" would look like? Would Afghans with their purple-tainted-fingers run their own government and their "fresh-concrete-smelling"-spanking new infrastructure with zero USA intervention? Would a country with a 70% iliteracy obtain perfect SAT scores overnight? Would the dead soldiers and civilians will come back from the dead? Would the limbs lost to soldiers in the war regenerate?

This war against Afghans is not about us anymore but about people wanting to be left alone.

You asked for links? here...

The Irresistible Ilusion
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html

Conservative Historian Andrew Bacevich Warns Against Obama’s Escalation of War in Afghanistan and Intensifying Use of Air Power in Region
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/11/conservative_historian_andrew_bacevich_warns_against

Ahmed Rashid - US Needs to Keep it simple.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402277.html

A new direction for Afghanistan? (Video link)
http://video.pbs.org/video/1276001522

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. Alrighty

Al-Qaeda might not necessarily "need" Afghanistan, but the fact remains that al-Qaeda's most articulate leaders and its best brain power thus far are located either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. This is the area where its denunciations of the West, its calls for volunteers, and its calls for financial contributions are coming from. This is also the area where al-Qaeda is most likely to reconstitute its camps if we walk away from this thing. Are you advocating that we ignore all of this or what? Because I can't see for a moment how it's wise to do so.

Frankly, I think Pakistan's instability is much their own doing. If you trace the history back to the ISI directing arms and weaponry to the most radical of Islamic groups in the 1980s to the Pakistani government treating the Taliban with kid gloves until the Taliban marched to within 70 miles of the capital, it's hard to treat the Pakistani's as innocents in all of this. They played an enormous role in creating this situation, though it's nice to see that to some degree, they've woken up.

And finally, I see little hope for democracy within Afghanistan. The people seem to have no taste for it. What will victory look like? It's hard to say. It could a loose federation, it could be an autocratic ruler - I lean more towards the loosely knit federation, personally. With that said, what would defeat look like?

[Lost-in-FL]

58. Democracy is foreign to Afghanistan

Why would you think forcing democracy and "our way of life" in Afghanistan would work? Would you be ok with the people of Afghanistan voting for OBL and Al-Zawahiri to replace Karzai? Good thing OBL doesn't believe in democracy!! The past elections (another embarrasement for the US, UN and source of pride for Ismamists) proved that you cannot force democracy in a country that does not live for democracy.

Defeat would look like this: The Taliban was the central government in Afghanistan but there were tribes fighting against them before the US took power away from Taliban (to later give it back to a stronger Taliban). If history have a purpose, it could predict that in the absence of the US, tribes within Afghanistan will come forward to fight the Taliban (composed of Pashtuns, only one tribe from the many tribes in Afghanistan). That has been the way of life for centuries. The reason why the US has "not gone to certain areas of Afghanistan" as you stated earlier is because these areas are being ruled by tribes that are not under the Taliban. The Taliban is once again taking over the areas they ruled in the past (Kandajar that saw the birth of the Taliban, and now they want Kabul). Why has the Taliban succeed and is popular among Afghanistan? Because they are the only one regime that had a strong, stable governance that brought peace to the people (Yup, even with all the attrocities commited against women and forcing children to madrassas). The British Empire didn't do that the Soviets didn't do that neither. The US did for a short time and looked very promising until Bushco went to Iraq and with him took all the resources to Iraq.

Afghanistan "politics" and "government" are based on tribalism and it won't change overtime. As a matter of fact, democracy might work for our disadvantage (and this is greatly my opinion). The best that could be done (because we cannot sustain 2 wars efficiently and win both wars at once unless you implement a draft) is to root out al Qaeda influence from the Taliban and force Pakistan (not by the US alone, but by all western countries) to clean up their mess. Have you ever heard that Diplomacy is cheaper than war? People that could potentialy commit attacks against the US and Europe are already among the people and residing in western countries, not in Afghanistan. IMO that is why efforts at home would be best than fighting it out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"but the fact remains that al-Qaeda's most articulate leaders and its best brain power thus far are located either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. This is the area where its denunciations of the West, its calls for volunteers, and its calls for financial contributions are coming from." I have to say no to your statement. The most articulate leaders are among us: the Neocons than want endless war for power and that articulate their message of hate througout the world, write books about it, make policy of it, etc. Al Qaeda can recruit anywhere that has internet access. The continual occupation of Muslim countries will only exacervate recruitment.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

59. Some Agreement.

1) Hey look, I never said that I thought forcing democracy or "our way of life" on Afghanistan could work or that it was necessarily a good idea.

With that said, no, I wouldn't be ok with the people of Afghanistan voting two of the most brutal international terrorists in history into office - nor would most of the planet. If they did so, the international aid Afghans rely on to survive would be cut off in short order and rightly so.

2) Some tribes have already come forward to fight the Taliban in substantial numbers, and if we hadn't disarmed many others, they'd probably be doing the same. In other words, we don't need to leave for this to occur, it's something we can take advantage of now if we play our cards right.

I disagree, the reason we haven't consistently been a presence in many areas of Afghanistan is because we simpply don't have the manpower to do so. We might go in and clear a village of Taliban fighters, but we don't have the troop levels to maintain a presence there. Our forces have to move on to the next Taliban hideout. And when they do, the Taliban have consistently flooded back into the areas we've just cleared out.

Is it a question of Taliban "popularity" or is it a question of force? The United States and its allies disarmed many villagers in the first few years of the war, which might have seemed wise at the time, but has essentially left them defenseless against Taliban attacks. What we've seen this last year, however, is that villagers who have the means to defend themselves from the Taliban are using it and driving them back. There seems to be a trend on this board of people portraying the Taliban as nationalists who enjoy widespread support, and that might be true in certain areas of Afghanistan, but overall it seems much of the "support" they're receiving is based on people who fear for their lives if they disobey.

3) While I like this idea, all the evidence thus far indicates that diplomacy alone would not be enough to allow the Pakistani military to exert control over Taliban held areas. The Pakistani military has been driven back from numerous offensives in Waziristan because they simply don't have the technology (particularly, the air power) to win. They need assistance.

4) While I agree that we have our own fanatics that need to be kept in check, I do not see that as a reason to ignore the fact that al-Qaeda's best known and most articulate figures remain in this region. This is an organization that has leveled repeated attacks on this country and they deserve to be taken down.

[sabrina 1]

60. 'Al Queda in Iraq'? You still believe Cheney's lies

that there was ever Al Queda in Iraq? You still don't know that Saddam was the enemy of Muslim extremists as he sold out, in their opinion, to the West a long time ago. Why would you perpetuate that lie which the entire world knew was a lie from day one? Except for those indoctrinated by Fox et al.

As for Al Queda in Afghanistan? Many observers, including Gen. McCrystal, say there is very little if any, Al Queda presence in Afghanistan:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/11/us-commander-no-sign-of-al-qaeda-presence-in-afghanistan/

McChrystal: No major al-Qaida signs in Afghanistan

Speaking on the eight-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack, top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal says that he sees no indication of any large al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Gen. McChrystal’s comments come at a time when the Obama Administration is facing an increasing revolt over the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and officials have used the “threat” posed by al-Qaeda as their primary justification for continuing the conflict.

Seemingly oblivious to having already dismissed the conflict’s ostensible raison d’etre, the general continued to defend the war, maintaining that it was winnable given increased effort and insisting that, while he had no evidence to back it up, he “strongly believes” the war has prevented other terrorist attacks.

The US is currently planning on making deals with members of the Taliban. If they were worried about Al Queda, that would be a huge mistake, wouldn't it?

We are being lied to, as always. We do not belong there, we never did, we are there because Afghanistan is strategic in the race for the world's last oil resources.

And Gen. McCrystal is not the only saying this, btw. So, since Al Queda is not there, and other countries like India have offered to help stabilize Afghanistan, what purpose does it serve for the US to remain as an occupation force there? We do owe them humanitarian assistance considering the damage done to their country, but that's all.

'I realize you don't like war'! Lol, surprise, too many Democrats are as in love with war as their Republican counter-parts. You've bought into the Fox image of Liberals. You say you are informed about all this, yet you use the Cheney/Bush myth about Irag and Al Queda to back up your claims. Not a good indication of being informed.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

61. Let's Look at the Facts

U.S. intelligence indicated that there was a small al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the American invasion, though this was mainly in the Kurdish controlled region, was not buddy-buddy with the Hussein regime, and certainly was not one of the reasons we invaded. Nonetheless, it existed. After the invasion, as we all know, al-Qaeda in Iraq very much flourished for a number of years. They're in decline today, clearly. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can sit there with a straight face and argue they don't exist.

Also, al-Qaeda's numbers have always been relatively small. That doesn't change the fact that they're extremely influential and extremely deadly, given room to operate freely. But you've peaked my curiousity. What are YOU proposing we do with this knowledge? Withdraw? And if so, what are the practical consequences of such a move?

[El Supremo]

12. Yes, it ain't gonna work.

8 years - no results.

[robdogbucky]

21. This is simply more flypaper

For the lord and the flies:

By C. J. CHIVERS -

KABUL — Insurgents in Afghanistan, fighting from some of the poorest and most remote regions on earth, have managed for years to maintain an intensive guerrilla war against materially superior American and Afghan forces.

Arms and ordnance collected from dead insurgents hint at one possible reason: Of 30 rifle magazines recently taken from insurgents’ corpses, at least 17 contained cartridges, or rounds, identical to ammunition the United States had provided to Afghan government forces, according to an examination of ammunition markings by The New York Times and interviews with American officers and arms dealers.

The presence of this ammunition among the dead in the Korangal Valley, an area of often fierce fighting near Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, strongly suggests that munitions procured by the Pentagon have leaked from Afghan forces for use against American troops.

The scope of that diversion remains unknown, and the 30 magazines represented a single sampling of fewer than 1,000 cartridges. But military officials, arms analysts and dealers say it points to a worrisome possibility: With only spotty American and Afghan controls on the vast inventory of weapons and ammunition sent into Afghanistan during an eight-year conflict, poor discipline and outright corruption among Afghan forces may have helped insurgents stay supplied. The United States has been criticized, as recently as February by the federal Government Accountability Office, for failing to account for thousands of rifles issued to Afghan security forces. Some of these weapons have been documented in insurgents’ hands, including weapons in a battle last year in which nine Americans died.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/world/asia/20ammo.htm...


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/waxma...

Waxman Says U.S. Embassy in Albania Concealed Info About Arms Shipment
By Andrew Tilghman - June 23, 2008, 1:03PM

Was the State Department involved in a shoddy and potentially illegal ammo shipment that led to the arrest of a 22-year-old Miami arms dealer last week?

That's what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) now says. The House oversight committee says it has evidence that the U.S. embassy in Albania helped Albanian officials keep the allegedly illegal shipment of Chinese-made ammunition to Afghanistan under wraps and then failed to disclose that information when Waxman's committee asked about it.

Last week we updated you about the arrest of Efraim Diveroli and three of his business partners with AEY Inc. Federal prosecutors say he violated the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits buying and selling weapons from certain countries, including China. The ammunition in question was obtained by AEY from an Albanian arms dealer.

Waxman's new-- and potentially explosive -- evidence stems from an interview by the oversight committee of Army Maj. Larry Harrison, the Chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Albania. Harrison told the committee about a previously undisclosed November meeting that included Albanian officials and U.S. Ambassador John Withers and others from the U.S. embassy in Tirana.

Source: Associated Press

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.

"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.

Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/170909...


The fun never stops. This and the willingness to bail out Wall St. at the expense of Main St. and lack of support for other progressive views such as LBGT rights and the Fake War on Some Drugs from the last election campaign and subsequent actions on same have left me wondering why I voted?

Get out now. Let someone else support the oil companies' quest for control and profit of mideast oilfelds.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

40. Eight Years?

Right, but for the majority of those eight years, what was the strategy? Our goal was a holding action, not victory (thanks to W's obsession with Iraq).

[mvd]

14. Yes

An orderly withdrawal starting now. I always say that meddling got us into this mess. But as I'm not completely apprised of the situation, I'd leave it up to the President to decide whether some troops must be left to follow Al Qaeda wherever we think they are.

[dmosh42]

15. No, but not to continue an 'occupation'.

I felt, as in Iraq, we could have avoided the larger population centers, and eventually the enemy would need to fill the void, if they want the power. Then we fight a sort of guerilla war, except now they're in the open, and the targets. Every time they withdraw, we withdraw. This would frustrate them greatly, and we wouldn't need a tremendously large force on the ground. Plus with the drones, we can follow them home, and 'chop off the heads". But that would be a 'smarter' way, and Halliburton wouldn't want that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. We lost (again). Get out. Get over it. Now, it's just poltical CYA to stay.

[Lost-in-FL]

23. We lost the war and business continue as usual for 99% of americans.

The one percent being those who directly faught the war and their families. That is IMO the biggest disgrace. That we move on like nothing ever happened.

[liberal N proud]

17. Afghanistan will bankrupt us

It did Russia.

The right likes to claim that Reagun brought down the USSR when it was really that fact that they were mired in an ongoing war with Afghanistan.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. +1, nt

[robdogbucky]

27. don't forget

Gdansk, Poland and the shipyards, the Czech Republic, Boris Yeltsin, etc., etc., etc., etc., but yes Afghanistan adventure contributed greatly as well.

"It did Russia.

The right likes to claim that Reagun brought down the USSR when it was really that fact that they were mired in an ongoing war with Afghanistan."




We know better

Don't we?



More centavos

robdogbucky

[Obamanaut]

22. Yes, but also in every other '...stan', plus the other 700+ sites where

American military is supporting someone else's economy. It is time these other nations take care of their own defense.

Review foreign aid policy as well. Stop sending dollars to anyone who is misusing/abusing our generosity, and that would be most of them. It aggravates me to know that the US sends money to help the poor while the corrupt leaders are driving around in limousines (heh, that's here too though.)

[elocs]

28. If you mean a Star Trek beam the troops out immediately, then no.

Even over a few months that would be incredibly irresponsible and if we are concerned about civilian deaths then an immediate withdrawal would result in a civilian bloodbath as we leave each area. Plus, after such a withdrawal we would see DU filled with posts about how the women of Afghanistan have become enslaved as well as the massive revenge that the Taliban would take upon any Afghani that was suspected to have helped us in even the smallest way.

[TheKentuckian]

30. I can't answer yet but if the way out is a nation building effort then I say cut the losses

If the idea is to remove threats like organized terror or to help secure Pakistani nukes then there is a case to be made, our military can effectively deal damage or guard fixed locations.

This nation building nonsense must stop now because next it will be Yemen then Somalia and on and on. We can't divert those kind of resources either in blood or money.

[damntexdem]

33. Yes, but it's a bummer.

There was real reason to go in -- had it only been undertaken by a competent administration. But the Bushistas ruined all chances of success. Now, the situation is basically irretrievable, certainly not worth being bogged down there.

But there remain problems:
1) our withdrawal really will encourage Al Qaida;
2) the Taliban and their horrors will likely be visited upon the Afghan people once again;
3) Pakistan will be further destabilized; and it doesn't have much stability in the first place.

Still, it is not at all clear that we can really do anything about all this.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

38. On A Better Path

The strategy that's been proposed for the United States seems like a logical next step, one that's definitely worth attempting considering what's going on with other nations (Britain's troop increase, Pakistan's push into the Taliban's strongholds, etc.) I agree that Bush left us in a very bad position with regard to Afghanistan, but that alone is not a reason to give up the effort. Not in my book, anyway.

[RyboSlybo]

34. War on terror? 911 payback? Osama Bin Ladin?

Although the thought of getting payback for the tragedy that was 911 sounds nice and all... I think that whole spiel is just a warm and fuzzy to get support for this War.

I think there is more to this thing then they are telling us.

I do not know all of the facts by any means and maybe someone here has an opinion on the subject to let me know if my thoughts on the matter are way out of line.

I have read that our Country needs to impose a democratic form of government in Afghanastan in order to construct an oil pipeline to run through the region...

True? False? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

Here is a snipit from the article I read earlier....

"On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

37. Pipeline Thing.

I guess I don't follow your reasoning. Why would the U.S. need to impose a democratic form of government on Afghanistan in order to get a pipeline constructed? Wouldn't that be much easier to do under a dictator?

[Vincardog]

35. Let the Afghanis and Indians guard their own pipeline. Darth Cheney is not calling the shots any mo

[blues90]

41. I say we get out NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blow the equipment in place

and get out. Even though I know no one ther it still breaks my heart to hear about ALL deaths in the ME . Call me what ever you choose but this is an occupation and an illegal one and a damn lie.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

42. Sigh.

This breaks your heart? Because handing Islamic radicals a victory of this magnitude is guarenteed to make things worse.

[blues90]

44. yeah well just who created this insanity ?

Are you saying there is any possible way to stop these people in Afganistan. Or that somehow because of death counts we are going to win and alter them to become what we want them to become like a democracy.

I'm sorry but dead people do not amount to anything other than insane clear cut murder . Have you seen what these soldiers deal with ? to me it looks like they take each step knowing it may be their last. They are sitting ducks out in the open like they are. We have no rigth to put them in this situation and for what exactly?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

47. Alternatives?

What I'm saying is that there are logical steps for the United States to take in Afghanistan, steps that thus far have not been taken. These include an increasing the American pressence in heavily populated areas, gaining the trust of the locals, and expanding outward from there. Will it work? There's no guarentee, but it's certainly worth trying, considering the alternatives.

I have no desire to "alter" the Afghan people. That's not what we're there to do, nor should it be.

And what do you mean by "who created this insanity"? We wouldn't be there if we hadn't been attacked, so I think it's pretty clear who created this insanity.

[blues90]

51. you talk about alternatives

At what price in lives is when you say enough. There is no wy we are going to win hearts and minds by force and outright murder and there is no proof Afghanistan attacked us. yes now they certainly do have a good reason to attack us for what we have done . You forget we installed their fake so called leader and how about Iraq we installed and supplied our installed leader. It's our weapons being used against our own .

I don't follow your thinking at all. It's either the caspian pipeline or develope democracy which in definition is altering the people in Afghanistan take your pick but in no way can it be justified other than to protect corporate interests or a false sense of some sort of forced democracy which is in no way desired or invited by the people of Afghanistan.I don't recall them asking for our help.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

52. No One's Suggesting That

Who is suggesting we "win the hearts and minds by force and outright murder"? I'm certainly not, nor is our military, nor is our President. At this point, what our military commanders are arguing is that we need to win their trust by establishing a policy that doesn't abandon the Afghan people the second the Taliban (and/or al-Qaeda) are cleared out of their area. Most Afghans know by now that once we move on from an area, the Taliban and their sympathizers move back in and re-establish control. There are ways to break this cycle and what has been proposed by our military leadership seems like an intelligent way to do so. Will it cost lives? Absolutely. But then again, can any of us really pretend that a uniltarial withdrawal wouldn't cost lives either?

Secondly, I too have misgivings about the recent Afghan elections, and also some misgivings about the Iraqi system (though I see much more hope for democracy in Iraq). However, this idea that we were behind it seems absurd to me, considering the extraordinarily difficult situation this has put the U.S. in.

Third, while I believe Bush had a democracy fetish, I also believe that in the end, whatever government exists in Afghanistan is not likely to be democratic in nature. The Afghan people have no taste for it and without their support it will never last. And frankly? I don't really care what system they end up with. That's their business. So long as it's not engaged in attacks on my country or its neighbors and refrains from sheltering those who do carry out such attacks, it's not much of a concern to me.

[blues90]

53. I don't know how we win their trust.

What reason is there for them to trust us. We send drones in there and kill citizens in groups. I don't think there is a strategy that will work there , not military anyway.

As it is now even if we went in and built them cities these would be targeted and with the taliban mixed in with and a threat to the citizens how are we even to do that.

See we brought this mess there and then it was spread into Iraq and Pakistan as you know and now parts of Africa. We really don't have allies to help and when we did we tossed them to the side through the last admin.

I can't imagine a way to remedy any of this other than to get out of there and re-think it and then find another way.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. It May Be Possible

The drone attacks are mainly focused on remote villages and not on the urban population centers. Gaining the trust in some remote villages may never be possible, but the urban centers could prove a different story. The policy that the military is suggesting would entail securing the urban centers in much the same way we did in Iraq - through stationing our soldiers in with the population, by consistently patrolling (instead of simply moving on when an area appears cleared out), and by defending them against attacks directed against them. There's no guarentee that this will be effective, but it seems like a logical thing to try to IMO.

I would argue that our allies have been more patient with Afghanistan than they were with Iraq, and rightly so. Britain, for instance, is actually increasing the number of troops for the Afghan mission. Pretty shocking, considering how we've wittled away six years focusing on Iraq instead.

[TexasObserver]

45. Yes

[Swamp Rat]

48. Yes. There is no 'winning in Afghanistan'.

[nemo137]

55. And then what?

What happens to Afghanistan after we pull out? I think that that's the question that needs answering - are we committing a greater evil leaving or staying,

[Echo In Light]

62. Yes. Militarization, and expansion of empire is a horrible thing.