Victory in Afghanistan Defined

[WeDidIt]

Destroy the capability of the Taliban and Al Queda to operate at will from a position of power within the governing structure of the nation of Afghanistan.

It's pretty simple, people. If the U.S. pulled out right now, the Taliban woul step right back in and take control once again. Al Queda would again have a safe haven to conduct training exercises and plan future terrorist events.

[floridablue]

1. Use spy satellites and drones to monitor

The first suspected training camp could receive bombing. Keep the spy & attack drones along the border to Pakistan. Same purpose, same result.

[Robb]

2. Wait, bomb "suspected" training camps?

...Do we get to shoot suspected child molesters, too?

[floridablue]

3. Since the Federal Prison Hospital across the street

Is filling up with them, perhaps you have a good idea. I seemed to have left out a step. You first verify the training camp before attacking it. We don't really want to bomb any more weddings like is alleged to have happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[2tr4nqued]

4. The goals in Afghanistan are unrealistic and naive.

The war is not worth fighting. Obama is wrong about sending more troops.

[HughMoran]

8. This tends to work better when their is a legitimate & unsupportive government

It would quickly get muddled if the Taliban were to take over and work in concert with those who would finance them. A couple of "bombing women & children" episodes later and the US would suddenly appear to be the bad guy.

[rocktivity]

5. You mean, versus the government that's "in control" now?

The longer we stay, the more people are going to be radicalized into joining the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the longer we'll have to stay to fight them...

Two weeks after 9/11, I said Bush had better put careful thought into how he retaliated, or "we'll end up with a war that has Viet Nam's fingerprints all over it."


rocktivity

[treestar]

9. The comparison to Vietnam

The main issue I have with that is that VN was a Cold war proxy war, and the Soviets were a superpower and the Cold War was all pervasive and global.

Afghanistan (not that I like it) is very concentrated on Al Qaeda being there. And there is no superpower to back them.

[IndianaGreen]

11. In Vietnam we replaced the French

In Afghanistan we are replacing the British and the Russians.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Yes, tis true. Our best buddy, the thug Karzai, is essentially "the Mayor of Kabul."

It's Civil War:

Karzai & THUGS (Government, NATO + Mercenaries) vs. The Tribal Native Peoples (Taliban, et. al. locals)

[AllentownJake]

6. There is a governing structure in Afghanistan

Who knew

:shrug:

[bigjohn16]

7. We just have to kill or capture all the people with Taliban and Al queda Tshirts.

It's just that easy. :eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. He Shoots... He Scores!!! That seems to be the thing no one wants to talk about.

What does a Taliban look like? What does an Al-Queda look like?

No uniformed army will ever win a guerilla war, which is what this is.

[IndianaGreen]

10. There is a greater chance that Jesus is alive and well and returning with angry gay angels

than such a ridiculous and insane mission goal could ever be realized.

[avaistheone1]

17. You got me.

:rofl:

[JVS]

12. Taking out the Taliban is an unrealistic goal

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Pretty Pathetic.

I love the way the administration and apologists for the administration use the same bush BS argument confusing the Taliban with Al Qeada.

I also love the use of bush buzz words that we all once laughed at "Al Qeada would have a safe haven".

Are people intentionally playing dumb and forgetting these already debunked arguments for war?

Are they so blinded by "hope" that they are actually willing to accept Obama continuing a war started on false pretenses with no hope of actual "victory".

[Whisp]

14. its not like Afghanistan is the AQ capital of the world...

They supposedly have cells all over the world - whats to be done next - bomb Spain?

I don't agree with this escalation at all.
the only reason I figure Obama went with it was pressure from the arms merchants - they have to spend their toys somewhere. so he did it to keep them busy for a while.

I don't like this at all but that doesn't mean everything Obama does is now tainted or suspect. I believe he is doing the best he can with what he has.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Here is NATO's definition of what winning is

In a nutshell, the grand strategy is to break up the country into individual cantons run by local warlords, the same warlords accused of narcotrafficking and human rights abuses, particularly against women. This is the outcome we are being asked to support. This is the outcome our troops are being ordered to fight for.

Europe backs Afghanistan strategy aimed at “regionalization”

27 November 2009

The US and its allies are planning a massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In a television address next Tuesday, delivered from the West Point military academy, US president Barack Obama will announce his plans to increase the current American military contingent of 68,000 by an estimated additional 30,000 soldiers.

The NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen is at the same time seeking to drum up an additional 10,000 soldiers from European countries. There is every indication that he will get what he wants. Despite increasing economic and political tensions with the US, the European powers are completely behind the war in Afghanistan. Having supported the war from the start, European powers would suffer the consequences alongside the US of any Vietnam-style debacle.

According to the new German defense secretary, Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, the United States and its allies are condemned “to success” in Afghanistan. The deployment is “a litmus test, not only for the transatlantic alliance, but for the entire west,” he has said.

The decision by president Obama was preceded by fierce disputes within the American leadership and NATO. The result is not only a substantial increase in troops, but also a new strategy, the precise implications of which are being played down with the term “regionalization”.

During his inaugural visit to Washington, Guttenberg said it was necessary to put aside “the romantic idea of democratization of the whole country along the lines of the western model” and instead “transfer control of individual provinces step by step to the Afghan security forces.”

<snip>

The new strategy of “regionalization” is aimed at dividing Afghanistan into individual cantons—in a similar manner to what took place in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia. Up to now the US-NATO occupation supported the government of Hamid Karzai and sold the process to the public as “democratization”. However, occupation forces are moving increasingly to hand over power directly to regional warlords and their militias—on the assumption that such regional forces will follow the orders of their imperial masters. As soon as there is no more danger in a specific province, Guttenberg declared, then the international troops should be withdrawn from that area.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n27.shtml

[ShortnFiery]

18. Yes, and they'll obscenely try to spin-this Civil WAR as DoublePlusHumanitarian.

[ShortnFiery]

16. NO! Not unlike the Vietnam Conflict: Inserting our Military into an ongoing CIVIL WAR.

Propping up a THUGGISH tin pot DICTATOR (Karzai) who only controls the heavily populated centers against THE NATIVE PEOPLES who are fighting for their SOVEREIGN freedoms.

Newsflash: The Taliban did NOT attack the USA on 9/11. The DECENTRALIZED and all but non-existent (in Afghanistan) al Qaeda were the people who PLANNED and ATTACKED the USA not ... I say again, NOT the Taliban. We have NO MORAL HIGH GROUND here and should withdraw immediately.

Every day that passes with OUR combat troops OCCUPYING those two Muslim Nations, is a day that we are increasingly LESS SAFE, both on American Soil and abroad. :(

[avaistheone1]

19. We are going to underfund everything in the US to go after 100 Al Qaeda

in Afghanistan at the cost of $1 million per US soldier.

What folly!!

[MadHound]

21. So, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda move on to, oh say, Sudan,

Are we going to invade that country too? And then they move to say Niger, will we invade there as well (especially with that bonus oil)? Or back to Afghanistan, will we invade again?

You are as short sighted as the politicians that got us into this mess and keep us wallowing in the shit. This "battle" against Taliban and Al Qaeda is a war of ideas, ours against theirs, yet rather than bring our best and brightest ideas of our country to the table, instead we brought the worst, our military. You cannot convince people that your way of life, your morality is better than theirs by blowing the shit out of them at every turn.

Rather you've got to work constantly, persuasively to convince them that what you're selling is better. For instance, we've had numerous chances to do just this. A year ago, there was a major earthquake in the mountain region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, not far from US troop positions. We should have immediately flown airdrops in there, followed by a convoy of humanitarian aid, everything stamped with BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Instead, we either sat on our ass, or continued to bomb innocents. Meanwhile, the local terrorist organization brought in their own convoy of aid, and you can bet your ass that they had their logo stamped all over everything.

To make a country inhospitable to extremists, you've got to give the people a moderate alternative that they can turn to, not just bullets and bombs.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Yes, WE SHOULD all NOW go look under OUR beds, there may be an 1) al Qaeda; 2) Taliban; and/or ...

3) EVILDOER there. :crazy:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. If that is "victory" --

then the only way to do that is a permanent lockdown of that country -- American troops there forever, like in Germany and Okinawa but militarily active. :shrug:

Are you prepared for that?

[backscatter712]

25. Looks like we have a plan. Not a particularly great plan, but a plan.

I believe the plan is to use the increased troop numbers to smack down the Taliban long enough to buy off the local warlords, get them to play ball with us, and thus decrease the violence level long enough to get out of Dodge.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Obama's plan is as full of holes as Operation Barbarossa and the Bay of Pigs

It is based on a lot of false assumptions and just plain ignorance about the Afghan people, who clearly were not consulted.

[backscatter712]

27. At this point, I think the goal is just to create the appearance of victory.

At least make it look like victory long enough to justify pulling the troops home.

You're right - it's fucked up.