If next Prez is a Dem, will you support adding more troops to Afghanistan?

[Ninja Jordan]

Say Edwards, Gore, Warner, Hillary or some other Dem wins the presidency in 2008, would you support a move by them to shift some of the troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan? I think if we win the WH in '08, the Dem president will move in this direction. We heard Clinton himself say that Bush thinks Afghanistan is 1/7th as important as Iraq. That is disastrous thinking. Newsweek has an article out about how the US is losing in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is gaining ground.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Yes

We can't afford to lose Afghanistan. However, the adding of troops should be happening NOW.

[Lerkfish]

2. no.

[MadHound]

3. No, I won't

The fight against terrorists isn't a typical set piece military confrontation. It is not best addressed by throwing more men and material at it. It is best fought with our intelligence services, a true police action(as opposed to Vietnam, a sham police action). Throwing more men and material at it will only insure that more people are killed, more money thrown away, and that we come no closer to our objective.

[ptolle]

7. security

As security for, and as forces engaged in the actual rebuilding of critical infrastructure elements; water ,sewer,electrical, and communications systems yes, strictly combat forces ,no.

[Lerkfish]

9. thank you. I was going to elaborate futher on my answer, but you have

done it more eloquently than I was going to.
I had just posted "no" and was going to return after a meeting and elaborate.
If I may chime in with your response:

The war on terror is a war against an idea. To continue to militarize our response to terror in a broad and nonspecific manner only reinforces the idea and increases the people willing to use terror to fight us.

the toothpaste is already out of the tube, we've mestastisized terror instead of containing it in a smaller space.

its too late. At this point, we need our troops back HOME and instead we need to send actual DIPLOMATS out to repair the damage already done.

[fuzzyball]

81. More intelligence activity is futile against terrorism

since there are thousands of latent and active terrorist cells
even here in US. You can't kill an elephant by using tweezers.
If we inspected every package that comes into US and had rigorous
checks at every airport, mall, train station, the economy will
come to a grinding halt.

You have to go to the source of FUNDING & TRAINING CAMPS where
terrorists receive aid and comfort. And unfortunately, that is
usually in some far off country.

[Mass]

4. With a clear endgame, yes.

However, 2008 is too late, and the troops sent should be elite troops that can actually help, not people to police the cities.

[Imagevision]

55. Has Unical completed the OIL pipeline thru Afganistan yet??

[No Exit]

102. What have we here? An informed person....

Methinks you refer to the real reason we went into Afghanistan.

Interesting, too, isn't it, that our government told several other countries that we were going into Afghanistan. Told them this... in June and July of 2001. I got that info from a BBC article.

Many posters on this thread are making what in my opinion is a mistake: they are not breaking free of the Bush paradigm. That is, they are assuming something like, "Well, we have to have our troops somewhere... what's the best place for them?"

Who the hell SAYS we have to have our troops somewhere, invading someone?

Why the hell can't we concentrate on taking care of our own country, and leave others to mind theirs? Why must we continue with this imperialist binge?

[Ninja Jordan]

103. You opposed President Clinton, when he recently

said he had the plans mapped out to go into Afghanistan following the Cole attack, but was preempted by the FBI and Congress? Was he mistaken about Afghanistan's relevance?

[No Exit]

105. Clinton..."was preempted by the FBI and Congress"...

That says it all: during Clinton, we had something called "checks and balances."

We no longer have such things.

[truebrit71]

5. Yes.

That is where the problem came from, and should have remained the ONLY focus in the 'war on turr'...

[liberal N proud]

6. Why are we asking this question on a democratic forum

6 weeks before a MID TERM election?

If you are truly concerned about the direction of Afghanistan or anything in this country, you will forget about 08 for 6 more weeks and address the upcoming election.

[Lerkfish]

10. I think the answer is a transparent attempt

to do.....something specific.

:)

[ComerPerro]

68. hes trying to make us look like hypocrites

[Guaranteed]

91. I'd call it checking for consistency.

It's not even my post, but there's a point here.

Lying is wrong, no matter who does it.

[wisteria]

13. Good point, but Afghanistan is in need of help now. n/t

[liberal N proud]

18. Yes, but the next president will not be in place until 2009

Why ask a hypothetical question about 08 now?

[Ninja Jordan]

28. Cuz I feel like it?

[liberal N proud]

44. You are not concerned about gaining a democratic majority in 06?

It appears your focus is on 2008, when one of the most important elections of our time is NOW.
Surely 6 weeks isn't too much to ask to wait for your start on 08. Unless you are trying to divert attention from the task at hand.

[Wally101]

53. Republicans....the only party who

can multi-task?

If we aren't capable of dealing with more than one thing at a time, I suggest we simply stay home this november and let the opposition have the election.

Mark

[Blackthorn]

79. And YOU'RE not diverting YOUR attention from 06

..to deliver this childish scolding? This is a discussion board. People like to discuss things. Grow up.

[purji]

8. I never had a problem with Afghanistan

The Taliban attacked us and the Taliban was and is in Afghanistan.
If they really wanted to stop Terrorism they would have stopped the money from Saudi arabia.

[mike_c]

24. the taliban did not "attack us...."

This is almost as misinformed as the notion that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9.11 attacks. The folks who attacked us were mostly wahabist and islamic brotherhood jihadists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Their objectives were tangentially aligned with those of the taliban, who viewed America as part of a broader secular society that is anathema to them-- but none of the 9/11 attackers or planners were taliban mujahedin per se. Al-Qaida as an organization traces its roots back to Afghanistan's struggle against Soviet occupation, but in those days the mujahedin were recipients of U.S. foreign and military aid. They were our clients.

What the taliban did with regard to the 9/11 attacks is debatable. First and foremost, they provided sanctuary to bin Laden and his immediate organization. The taliban mujahedin also sponsored-- directly and indirectly-- training camps for islamic jihadists-- but note that both of these circumstances predated 9/11 by several years, and while a cause for concern, they were not sufficient to justify a massive retaliation against an entire country, most of whose residents had nothing directly to do with bin Laden. They were probably just as true of Pakistan as of Afghanistan, too-- certainly among the religiously conservative tribesmen of western Pakistan the afghan border is little more than an abstraction.

Just to put things into perspective, the U.S. is likewise providing sanctuary for the man who masterminded the bombing of Cubana flight 455, Luis Posada Carriles. Providing shelter for terrrorists is apparently a longstanding diplomatic tradition. If it justified the destruction of Afghanistan, why doesn't it justify the distruction of the U.S.? But that's not really the point-- I simply wanted to correct the fallacy that "the taliban attacked us."

[Ninja Jordan]

29. Perhaps not, but at the very least they harbored those who did

nm

[mike_c]

35. of course, but recall that the overwhelming majority of Afghans killed...

...by the U.S. in revenge for 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with either 9/11 itself or with "harboring those who did." An invasion is a war of aggression if it is not in self defense or part of an international consensus, i.e. a U.N. resolution calling for war (and incidentally, defining the objectives of that war). Neither circumstance excuses the invasion of Afghanistan. Res. 1267 and 1386 called for economic and diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan, but the U.S. had no cover for invading other than a national spasm of revenge. Understandable perhaps, but not a legal justification for destroying a country, most of whose population was entirely innocent of the crimes committed by bin Laden and his associates. Certainly Afghanistan itself was not a threat to the U.S. The September 11 attacks were not state sanctioned by anyone-- they were criminal actions by individuals acting on behalf of a private organization and acting out their religious beliefs. Afghanistan was never responsible for that.

[Lerkfish]

46. As did Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

yet we did not attack either of those.

:shrug:

For that matter, the US harbored them while they were in the country, keeping them under surveillance but refusing to prevent them from getting on the plane.
Should we bomb ourselves now?

[No Exit]

100. Prove it. The FBI can't.

nm

[Ninja Jordan]

104. have fun

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=osama_bin_laden

[No Exit]

107. Wow. A "document dump". I haven't seen one of those since I

used to post on Liberty Post (a place where wingnut-welfare-paid shills outnumber the normal posters by about 2 to 1.)

I don't dump loads of stuff on people and then expect them to view that as an "answer" to their comments. Here:

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Before you whine/cut-and-run to the mods, let me clarify: I am not accusing you of being a wingnut-welfare-paid shill. I am just comparing your tactics to those which they used on Liberty Post. But in spite of this disclaimer, I fully expect you to push the button. All I ask is that you read this post and this article before you ask for it to be deleted.

[The Magistrate]

30. It Is Not, Sir, A Fallacy In Any Meaningful Sense

The relations between the Taliban and al Queda were close enough there was no essential difference between the two groups locally. Each was essential to the other's power, as the situation stood.

[mike_c]

32. of course they were different-- the main links were historical and...

...shared religious conservatism. Al-Qaida was a loose organization of foreign mujahedin during the Soviet occupation. The taliban grew from conservative Pashtun society in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. They certainly shared many objectives, and the taliban provided precisely the social setting that equally conservative wahabists deemed proper, as well as access to sanctuary and support for jihadist training, but to say that there was no essential difference between them is to say that conservative evangelical megachurches in the U.S. are part and parcel of the U.S. government simply because they share many social objectives and because elected officials so often profess deep religious convictions.

[The Magistrate]

36. The Differences You Cite, Sir, Are Of No Importance

Al Queda was essential to the power of the Taliban at that time, by two means. First, it executed the training programs that made the regime of such value to the I.S.I in relation to Kashmir. Second, its fighters and trainees were the bulk of the forces engaging and containing the Northern Alliance in the Tadjik region of the country.

The Taliban was essential to al Queda, by providing it a safe haven for operation and training. This stability was of great prestige value, giving its leaders warrant to proclaim that there was established on this earth a place of true Moslems, a precursor of what was to come as their power grew.

The two propped one another up like muskets in a stand of arms. The whole was far greater than the sum of the parts. Neither could be attacked without engaging the other. Even if one took the view they were simply allies, in conflict to attack allies of a power is often the best way to reduce it and destroy it. The actual cause of the end of WWI, for example, was not the defeats of Germany in France, but the route of Turkish forces above Salonika, that threw open the Danube valley and the rear of the Austro-German heartland.

[fuzzyball]

83. Taliban & AL qaeda shared a common goal...kill the non-believers

of Islam. That was enough linkage to take action in
SELF-DEFENSE.

[leesa]

78. Never happened. The Taliban didn't attack us. No one knows who did

9-11 because it has never been investigated. We invaded Iraq based on what the liars in the White House said and they had threatened war with the Taliban in July 2001 (to start October 2001 if they didn't accept the trans-Afghan pipeline deal).

[fuzzyball]

84. You look cute in that tin-foil hat n/t

[mike_c]

11. no-- not under any circumstances I can reasonably foresee....

I want to see a complete reevaluation and overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, and a complete and unqualified repudiation of the "wars" of aggression the U.S. is engaged in. Simply shifting the focus from one crime to another does not make it less criminal.

[wisteria]

12. Yes, and Senator Kerry has just called for this in an editorial in the

WSJ

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id...


Quite simply, we must change course--starting with the immediate deployment of at least 5,000 additional U.S. troops. That includes more special forces to defeat the Taliban, more civil affairs troops to bolster the promising Provisional Reconstruction Teams, more infantry to prevent Taliban infiltration from Pakistan, and more clandestine intelligence units to hunt al Qaeda on both sides of the border.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. I agree

It's not that I believe we should add more troops to Afghanistan for more "war," but for secutiry reasons rather. The region along the Afghan-Pak border is where bin Laden and some of the top guys may be located.

[No Exit]

101. I thought we got the "top guys".How many more Al Quaeda #2's can there be?

nm

[babylonsister]

14. No. Get out now. nt

[LynnTheDem]

16. No.

[creeksneakers2]

17. Yes

I agree though that more troops would have to be part of a plan for eventually leaving.

[gratuitous]

19. To do what?

"Smash" the Taliban again? Eradicate the poppy crop again? Fight the war on terror again? Apprehend bin Laden again?

Or should they go there to provide security to folks who will actually be doing something useful?

I for one would need greater specifics on what the aim for committing more troops to Afghanistan would hope to accomplish. Because to this point, all I see is a colossal waste of money and lives, and I'm not willing to write anyone a blank check for more of the same, whether another fucking Republican bloodthirsty greedhead or a Democrat.

[bowens43]

20. No.

[Zynx]

21. My goodness yes.

It is not in our interests at all to see the Taliban come back into power. I would redeploy everything we have in Iraq and put it in Afghanistan, where they should be.

[mike_c]

25. this is one of the problems with U.S. foreign policy....

Lots of things aren't "in our interests," but if that is the litmus test we apply to justify going to war, then we are no different from history's other imperialist regimes. One goes to war in self defense or in alliance with a broad international consensus-- NOT because this regime or that nation doesn't act "in our interest."

[Zynx]

47. There's a difference in magnitude.

Technically, it is not in our "interests" for Kirchner to be President of Argentina, but its not a big deal. For the Taliban to come back into power is not just "not in our interest", but is an extremely hostile action considering that they harbored Al-Qaeda for several years and would probably do so again. Even Iran wanted the Taliban gone. That tells you something. We should have focused on wiping out the Taliban completely rather than just putting it into remission.

[mike_c]

54. that's simply not possible, and acting as though it is is patently insane

The taliban cannot be wiped out by anything short of heinously successful ehnic cleansing. The taliban is not just an organization, like the communist party or the rotarians. It is a social movement arising from Pashtun religious conservatism. The only way to "wipe out the taliban completely" is to virtually sterilize a huge swath of territory because the people who live there WILL resurrect the taliban or something like it if given an opportunity-- it rises out of their cultural history and the struggle against occupation that has typified their social history. Wiping them out completely will require genocide. It would be like trying to wipe out baptists completely in America. I simply don't want my country to have any part of that.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. I think so too.

I wish Gore were president.

[No Exit]

99. What's wrong with "redeploying" what we have to our HOME?

Bringing our troops and our resources back here? What business do we have re-making other people's countries?

Opium trade? Bush wants it if his financial empire gets a cut.

Taliban? Um, please re-view Fahrenheit 9/11. The Taliban were the American oil industry's best buddies, as long as said industry thought it could get something out of them. And no, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not my only source for this contention. Does the name Bridas mean anything to you?

Our troops are in Afghanistan to make it safe for our oil elites' pipeline. That is NOT a good enough reason to waste young soldiers' lives.

[RethugAssKicker]

22. NO...

This war on "terror" is total bullshit... and shows how simple minded the American government and its people think...

Terror is a method, a strategy.

We need more intelligence and more law enforcement.

[GOPS Worst Fear]

23. Yes But ONLY Afghanistan

Because that was where we should have been in the first place. No more additional wars anyplace else!

[The Magistrate]

27. The Attack On Afghanistan, Sir, Was Quite Proper

To have essentially abandoned the place was a grave error.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that piling back in in a few years on would be the best course: it is not just in comedy that timing is all. The current situation in Afghanistan is merely a symptom of greater troubles in the area, most noteably the actual balance of forces contending within Pakistan, and the situation in Kashmir which drives the turmoil. More soldiers in Afghanistan will not address this, and their operations would be dependent on friendly stability in Pakistan, which is not likely to be forthcoming in the future.

[mike_c]

31. I disagree about the attack on Afghanistan being "proper..."

...but I agree completely with the rest of your comment. The Soviet lesson in the perils of occupation is a valuable one, and an increased American effort in Afghanistan will run up against the same will to resist that undermined the Red Army. The mujahedin are still there-- they might be less effective without a sugar daddy to arm them the way the U.S. supported them against the Soviets, but that just means their eventual success will take longer. The essential requirement for success is the will to resist, and they have that in abundance.

The mujahedin are not just a governing organization, i.e. the taliban, they are a manifestation of deep religious conservatism. They are an ideal that permeates Pashtun society. One cannot eradicate ideals by attacking civil governments-- if anything, this is likely to backfire entirely. The only way to deal effectively with the taliban is to work with indigenous oppostion or, failing that (and the opposition might be worse than the taliban itself, frankly), to use a combination of isolation and diplomacy to contain the problem and provide incentives for change. Bullets will only strengthen their resolve unless we use them with such draconian ferocity that we lose our own moral claim to propriety.

[The Magistrate]

33. Not Only Proper, Sir, But Necessary

Were he ruling in a democratic polity, The Mahatma himself would have been compelled to give the order for it if he wished to remain in office. There are times when the people demand such action of their government, and this was one of them.

Further, there is no serious quarrel about the action being justified. There is no room for real doubt the attacks in September of '01 were conducted by al Queda; there is no doubt its principal stronghold was in Afghanistan; there was no remedy save the application of military force. Even if one viewed the thing as properly a police matter, there was no way in which police could have operated to do their work without military force opening the country to their efforts.

Increasing the isolation of Afghanistan would hardly have been possible: it was already one of the most isolated regimes on the planet. The ties between it and Pakistan would not have been broken under any circumstances, and these are about the only real tie that regime enjoyed. Pakistan views the place as its route of retreat in the grand conflict with Hindu India, and is not going to let go of that. To the Pakistani hard-liners, it was essential to the struggle in Kashmir, and remains essential to that in their eyes today. The Taliban was wholly a creature of the I.S.I., and al Queda in the region largely such a creature, and these provided a conveyor belt of fresh fighters for the Kashmir struggle, in exchange for the patronage and protection of that service. They still enjoy that patronage and protection today, while Pakistan is on the verge of splitting in two over the issue of Musharref's quite limited co-operation with the U.S. in the matter.

[mike_c]

38. all very well and good, but what is the point of international law...?

...if we are to simply throw it out the door whenever "the people demand it?" What you've argued is that sometimes the need for revenge is so great that it cannot be denied-- that is mob rule. It might very well be that there was no good way to get at bin Laden legally while the taliban protected him, notwithstanding the equally compelling truth that destroying the mostly innocent people of Afghanistan didn't actually result in apprehending bin Laden anyway. That is an argument for seeking international consensus about changing the law, not for unilaterally ignoring it.

We did it for revenge-- never a lofty motive-- and we took our revenge largely against innocent people, as is more often than not the case. Yes, we deposed the taliban, although it remains to be seen whether even that success endures. I'm no fan of religious conservatism in any guise, and the taliban is a particularly odious philosophy in my estimation, but even that victory was hollow at best-- the religious conservatism that fostered the rise of the taliban is simply part of Pashtun tribal life. We cannot eradicate it with bullets unless we use something disturbingly akin to the "final solution" applied to native Americans in places like the Black Hills. Is that the international business the U.S. should be engaged in?

Afghanistan was revenge, plain and simple. The present circumstances give the lie to any other motives-- we have never made any serious attempt to do much more than kill Afghanis and give lackluster support to a puppet regime that mostly just goes through the motions behind protective walls in Kabul, no matter how good intentioned Karzai himself might be.

[The Magistrate]

39. The Attack Violated No International Law, Sir

Nor were the people of Afghanistan destroyed, or anything approaching that.

As to the question of revenge, Sir, my inclination has always been to take people as they come, rather than expect them to be something history and personal life will clearly demonstrate they are not: it is a lot less wearing on the nerves and the hair....

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up!"

[mike_c]

43. then we will simply have to agree to disagree....

There has been much debate recently about the strictures imposed by international law and how they relate to acts of aggression by the United States. It seems clear to me that the invasion of Afghanistan was plainly illegal, no matter how popular it might have been among Americans. You argue with equal conviction that it was not illegal, and that it was justified in any event. I think it was a revenge killing on a national scale-- and remember too that one of the worst hell-holes in the American gulag system is at Bogram Air Force base to this day-- while you think it fulfilled some loftier need to destroy the sanctuary that sheltered bin Laden. You argue that we have not "destroyed Afghanis" or even come close, while I think that bombs and missiles are rather indescriminant in their destruction, and that it's easier to label the stacked corpses as "terrorists and enemy combatants" no matter what they might have thought of that in life. The civilian body count in Afganistan will likely never be known with any certainty, but how many is too many, and for what actual cause? I suppose these are simply irreconcilable differences between you and I.

But note that bin Laden was not captured, and the Taliban was not eradicated, largely because they are the manifestation of a religious ideal deeply rooted in Pashtun society. Just like the Soviets before us we are learning that bullets cannot kill ideals until they've wiped out all the people who live by those ideals. So was what we did in Afghanistan justified if even those objectives were never achieved? What did we achieve except revenge killing?

[The Magistrate]

49. Questions Of Law, Sir, Are Really Not 'Agree To Disagree' Matters

The attack on Afghanistan violateded no law; it certainly fit no definition of aggressive war ever argued, or ever likely to be argued, before a sutting tribunal. Loose charges of illegality like that go far towards undermining the acceptance of laws of war as serious matters among the people, and deprive the whole concept of support among the people, for they are obviously nothing but trumped up political noise. There were certainly some violations in the course of the conflict, particularly the processional massacreof
That it failed, after a promising beginning, is of course unfortunate, and speaks to the basic incompetence and lack of seriousness of the present regime in our country where military matters are concerned. There really is no excuse for the failure: success, both in taking Bin Laden, and in securing the quiesence, even the acceptance and friendship, of the mass of people in Afghanistan, was readily achieveable on lines well known to students of guerrilla suppression and pacification.

[mike_c]

52. oh magistrate, I just KNOW the Soviets rationalized it in much...

...the same way, and that our misadventure in Afghanistan will turn out at least as successful as theirs did!

[The Magistrate]

57. Not Really, Sir

The Soviets had bothered to put in place a puppet government first, viewing it as a culmination of at least a century and half's worth of effort to dominate the place, begun in Czarist days, and in a larger sense, of more than two centuries imperialist encroachment on the Moslem states of Asia, commenced with the long series of wars against the Ottoman. They made no pretense they had been attacked by any force operating from the place; they simply got an "ally" to ask them to provide fraternal Socialist assistance in accordance with existing agreements and doctrines. Nor would their invasion of the place have turned out disasterous except for the anti-aircraft weaponry the forces opposing them were supplied with by the United States. It is certainly possible, with the bulk of U.S. forces tied down in Iraq, that the NATO forces currently constituting the bulk of the occupation force in Afghanistan will be stood down and withdrawn by their governments if matters continue as they are going at present, but that will be far from a disaster on the pattern of the Soviet defeat; it would be merely the recognition by those governments that they have no essential interest in fighting over the place.

[Don1]

94. Some of this is really stretching history?

"...they simply got an 'ally' to ask them to provide fraternal Socialist assistance in accordance with existing agreements and doctrines."

Your word "got" is a bit tricky as you imply through colloquial speech that the Soviets directed Afghans to ask for Soviet intervention, but you frame it in such a way that you could save face by claiming a literal interpretation that "got" is totally passive on the part of the Soviets. So, I have to ask you bluntly, did the Soviets ask Afghans to ask them to occupy their nation or not? And how reliable is your information in consideration of US imperialist aims in the context of the Cold War?

[The Magistrate]

109. The Afghan Government At The Time, Sir

Was a puppet operation, and stood in approximately the relation to the Soviets that the Diem government in Saigon stood to the United States, down to the detail of having to contend with a popular rising against it, though in its case the nationalist element was tinged with religious ideation rather than Communist doctrine. The puppet requested assistance, and doubtless was prevailed upon to do so, as securing the position under local threat was the desire of the dominant partner. The Soviet action was reasonably popular initially with the urban and modernist elements of the population, and obviously not with the rural and traditionalist majority, but certainly no one in power in either country bothered with any consultation of the popular will: the thing was an exercise in power, as is usually the case where rulers are concerned.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Let's talk about that in 2008

EDITED for typing

Or earlier, if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed as they richly deserve.

Until then, Bush will be fucking up the war on terror and Cheney will using it to enhance his retirement package at Halliburton.

[The Magistrate]

37. Indeed, My Friend

By then, the Taliban may well be in control of the place....

[Jack Rabbit]

40. I certainly hope not

Unfortunately, given the way Bush and the rest of the Spanish Inquisition have kept us safer, the task of keeping the Taliban at bay will be more difficult by then.

[The Magistrate]

42. It Is Not My Preference, Sir, Certainly

But it would not take very long odds on the proposition to tempt me to enage in a small money wager....

The degree of incompetence displayed by the present regime must have consequences, and past a certain point, these gain a self-reinforcing qualirty, and begin to come like an avalanche.

[TayTay]

41. Yes, absolutely

Afghanistan should have been the focus all along. They have a narco-economy and are still prime ground for the Taliban.

It should hvae been done differently and we should be helping the Afghan people to stabilize their nation and help them to not be dependent on warlords and drug money for survival. That was always a worthy cause.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Absolutely not.

It was a mistake in first place, and adding more troops is just fixing a problem by making another mistake.

This is just a rehashing of the old "we need to be more aggressive in Vietnam" argument.

[Zynx]

48. Vietnam we had no business being in.

Afghanistan, we do. The real enemy is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. The real enemy isn't Afghanistan.

The enemy's a nationless terror group.

Blowing up Afghani weddings and red cross buildings hasn't done us any good.

[Zynx]

58. The enemy is in Afghanistan.

It is not the Afghan nation, but we have to be in Afghanistan to get them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Wrong again.

They're in Pakistan now.

[Zynx]

66. As far as I'm concerned, the Taliban is also our enemy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Alright.

Then go and fight them yourself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. No, we've done enough damage there

Control of Afghanistan should be turned over to a UN peacekeeping force, to European countries that will provide aid for rebuilding the infrastructure by hiring local people, and to NGOs such as Oxfam that will economically empower the people so that they don't need to grow opium poppies to survive.

[ulysses]

76. agreed.

...that will economically empower the people so that they don't need to grow opium poppies to survive.

Just to note that the economically empowered generally don't feel the need to resort to terrorism, as well.

[Nimrod2005]

51. Si

[IndianaGreen]

59. The Taliban will be running Afghanistan long before January 20, 2009

And it is quite possible that by that time the US would lost the war in Iraq as well, and quite possibly be losing the war in Iran.

[Vidar]

60. No.

[AZBlue]

61. Absolutely.

If the goal is to (1) go after the Taliban and replace them with a government of the Afghani's choosing (a non-terrorist controlled government whose goal is not the eradication of the US citizenship); and (2) the out of control opium trade, which is ruining the lives of Afghan citizens.

[Ninja Jordan]

62. Agreed

It should have been done all along.

[High Plains]

67. The out of control opium trade is feeding Afghan families.

Afghan farmers will make about $750 million this year from their poppy crops. Ya got something else in mind for them?

By the way, your prescription sounds eerily like what was said five years ago.

[LetsThink]

63. Yes-- If necessary: But-- No net gain in our regional presence .......

I'd support moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. But, I'd think any effort like this should be part of a larger offensive strategy that addresses more endemic issues - like, why the radical religious folk are able to continue to recruit, educate and train terrorists. These root issues must be addressed soon in order to make any effective change in the region and to improve our own security here at home in the US. So-- greater range of effort: intell. on the ground, cultural and other efforts- increase the diplomatic effort including relief efforts in the region. Needs to be an integrated program not just a military effort....

Dems are the group that always comes up with these innovative solutions to tough problems. We have always been the ones with the understanding, knowledge and experience on the ground - all required components for success.

[Change has come]

64. yes n/t

No if's, and's or but's.

[ComerPerro]

69. Maybe if we can get Iraq resolved. Right now, its all just a mess

[NeedleCast]

70. Nope

I spent some time in Afghanistan soon after 9/11 and was probably in the first 10% of forces to hit the ground there. If the objective in Afghanistan is still "Find Osama" then more folks on the ground are unlikely to help. Now, if the objective is to continue to keep the Taliban in check, then more forces are probably a good idea.

[DuaneBidoux]

72. yes

[Az_lefty]

73. Yes, as long as we get them out of Iraq...

[citizen snips]

74. yes

[bklyncowgirl]

75. We have to do Afganistan right.

There was a point right after the fall of the Taliban when things looked like the Afghan people might get a chance at peace and democracy. Americans were heroes to a large part of the population. Hell an American soldier was cheered wildly when he won the first Bushkasi (Headless goat polo--I know I'm spelling it wrong) match since the Taliban took over)

Then Bush pulled the troops out and turned his attention to Iraq.

We owe it the the Afghans to do this right--that is if we have any credibility left.

[leesa]

77. Of course not. What possible good could come of it?

More terrorism will produce more terrorists.

[napsi]

86. And I suppose sticking our heads in the sand

will produce security? I prefer to take the fight to the enemy. I only believe we took the fight to the wrong enemy. It should have stayed in Afghanistan and perhaps even Syria. Saddam was a personal fight between "w" and he got US troops killed for his personal agenda. Syria and Iran are our enemies and we should be ready for that fight because it's coming and coming soon.

On a post-script- Chavez of Venezuela is nothing more than a "thug" and he means nothing if oil goes below $55 per barrel. His only claim to fame is his ability to control a State owned oil co. which provides him riches while he doles out a few extra $$$$ to the poor. If he cares so much for the poor in his country, why is the poverty rate over 35%? I'm amazed at the people of DU who find this jerk to be some kind of Savior. Get a grip!

[NativeTexan]

80. Of course......

.....Afghanistan is the place where our REAL ENEMIES hide!!!

[ShortnFiery]

82. Hell NO! We need to get our empiric butts out of the M.E. eom

[Ninja Jordan]

95. Is it "empiric" to go after those who're closely linked to 9/11?

I agree that the Iraq war has really F'ed up the US's image, but pretty much the whole world was for going into Afghanistan.

[No Exit]

85. Hell f**king no. What business have we there?

There has yet to be proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack of 9/11. Even the FBI concedes that there is no proof.

Therefore, even if Bin Laden was in Afghanistan with the protection of the Taliban (which was its government), we had no cause to attack there.

The truth about our attack of Afghanistan is that it was planned before 9/11. This has been confirmed by, among others, the BBC. Our government told several other countries--in June and July of 2001-- that it was planning the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

html The desire of our government to attack and control Afghanistan, and to oust the Taliban, came from the desire of our oil company Unocal to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban had messed up this plan.

We have no business being there. Our troops there should be brought home.

Bin Laden? He's dead. (Also note an article today which reminds us that OUR CIA interviewed Bin Laden in July of 2001. He was in an American hospital, in the middle east, receiving kidney treatment.)

[Guaranteed]

92. .......

:eyes:

[No Exit]

97. We have no business in Afghanistan. Period. End of statement.

:thumbsdown:

[Ninja Jordan]

98. ........

[wiley]

87. Yes, but most troops in Iraq are exhausted and on

their fifth "hold". The question should read do you support sending more troops to Afghanistan. Proposing 08 candidates is a distraction.

[Singular73]

88. LOL, thats like putting more cops on the scene of the crime 2 years later

Idiotic.

But its a good platform.

[ProudDad]

89. Only if they're

U.N. Peacekeeping forces and the U.S. pays its dues.

[politicat]

90. No, but I would support humanitarian, peace-keeping and other aid.

And that will mean troops on the ground as well as a lot of money. I'd be very happy if a president committed some fraction of the DoD budget to making Afghanistan liveable again, with support and money and troops from the UN. The fact is that if we throw enough money at Afghanistan, it will come out of the darkness. The Russians need to pay for some of it; they messed up the place in the first place. (Before the Russian invasion, recall, Afghanistan was pretty progressive and could have been a leader in the region for peace and appropriate government.) The rest of us need to kick in because we let the Russians mess the place up, and we should have stopped that before it got out of hand.

[LWolf]

93. No.

I support bringing our troops home and focusing our attention and resources on domestic ills.

[Don1]

96. Good question!

I have some questions, too. Will we still need to send in more troops by 2008!? If so, it will be pretty bad there by then. What will be the goals? Open-ended goals like now or stabilizing the place by engaging in an indefinite war against guerillas or supporting a democratic government which might end up losing in a legitimate election to the Taliban? Or maybe capturing Osama bin Laden who by then might be as far away as Australia? Which Democrat is going to be the President, Kucinich or Hillary? Kucinich would at least ask the Afghans if they wanted US forces to be present in Afghanistan. Hillary might be worse than Bush in that she is more competent but makes the same fundamental errors in assuming that occupations are naturally good phenomena. So, I guess my answer is "I don't know and you are scaring me. Please stop."

[liberaliraqvet26]

106. Yes.

The taliban is a disgusting regime and should not be allowed to regain power in that country. We should have had more troops in there to begin with but I do believe that a peacekeeping & rebuilding force can succeed in that country.

now as far as Iraq is concerned, HELL NO.

[Clarkie1]

108. The international community has a responsibility to help Afghanistan.

We were the ones who bombed their country, and NATO and other international organizations have an obligation to help rebuild their country. The Afghani people cannot succeed in preventing a failed state themselves. The current administration has failed misesrably. Wes Clark has an article in Newsweek that blasts the current administration's policy in Afghanistan. They have completely taken their eyes of the ball. Afghanistan was and is a central front in the war on terror, Iraq is not. We can't save Afghanistan ourselves, but together with our allies and international organizations we can lead in a stronger commitement ot the people of Afghanistan and preventing it from becoming nothing but a base for terrorists. It needs to be a political and economic solution, not a military one, although the military will play a role.