I'll admit it: because I love this country, I think it would be bad if we WON in Afghanistan

[Ken Burch]

Let's face it, all "winning" would do would be to reestablish the idea that we should TRY to get into war after war.

It couldn't mean anything positive or progressive for the American people, or for the Afghan people.

It would just mean our leaders would act even MORE as if their natural role is to build an empire, rather than to build a decent society and help others create a just, humane world as they were SUPPOSED to be doing.

I love my country too much to think an empire could ever be a good thing.

All empires lose their humanity and their souls.

They become places without beauty, dreams, hopes or spirituality.

And then there's the sickening and inevitable results of the vindication of war itself.

"Winning" would just mean more and more and more killing down the road, with no end ever possible.

That's why I don't think any decent human being could or should want this war to go on, let alone want to "win" it.

In the end, life is what matters.

Killing is the end of meaning.

(This OP is MEANT to be discomforting and provocative to people.)

[spanone]

1. there is no win in afghanistan...not to worry

[gateley]

2. I was going to say -- I'm not sure what would constitute a 'win' in a situation like that. nt

[CJCRANE]

3. There was a small window of opportunity

after the "loya jerga" was formed back in '02.

But it turned out that the neocons' lofty rhetoric about spreading democracy was just a figleaf for their real agenda.

[timeforpeace]

4. Won't happen. And if the Iraq war hadn't ended the way it did, Obama wouldn't think he could win.

[WeDidIt]

5. Not discomfroting or provacative to me

Hilarious, yes, but not discomforting or provocative.

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

7. Because you want every Afghan slaughtered and because life means nothing to you.

You've shown your bloodthirsty colors. You should just admit you're a Reaganite and go away.

[WeDidIt]

17. Because I agree with Obama

I don't oppose all wars, I only oppose stupid wars.

Afghanistan is not a stupid war.

That was his stance when I heard him speak at an anti-Iraq war protest in 2002, it was his stance when he ran for the Senate in 2004, and it was his stance when he ran for the presidency starting in February of 2007.

[Ken Burch]

19. You're assuming the Pentagon will LET it end when the president wants it to end.

They kept it going as long as they wanted in 'Nam. In this country, the military aren't REALLY under civilian control anymore.

[WeDidIt]

21. You obviously have no comprehension of the chain of command

See, idiots believe the Pentagon dictates to the president when in fact the chain of command has Barack Obama currently at the top.

The President of the United States IS the Commander in Chief. Had you ever worn your nation's uniform, you would understand what that means.

[Ken Burch]

22. The president is SUPPOSED to be the Commander-In-Chief

Really though, it hasn't worked that way since Johnson escalated in 'Nam.

The Pentagon wants a war...they get a war...that's how it is now.

Why pretend otherwise?

If the "Commander-in-chief" thing REALLY worked, Clinton would have been able to life the ban on gays in the military with no trouble at all. The Pentagon would simply have accepted it if they REALLY deferred to civilian power anymore.

[WeDidIt]

23. Bullshit

The president calls ALL THE SHOTS.

You're the one pretending.

Take off the tinfoil hat and rejoin reality.

[Ken Burch]

24. You're a trusting soul.

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

25. Tighten up that tinfoil hat

:tinfoilhat:

You know, the space aliens are really in charge.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

31. Can I quote you on that when the draft is reinstated?

n/t.

[Bigmack]

30. "Stupid war"? Shiiit, if you look up...

"Stupid war" in the dictionary, the first entry is "Afghanistan",

 There has never been more than 20,000 Taliban fighters, there is now less than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.  We've been there for 8 years.  We have 100,000 troops there, plus another 100,000 "contractors".  We have control of the air and the only major weapons systems in the area.  And the Taliban are winning.  Desertion in the Afghan Defense force is over 50% and retention after expiration of enlistment is 10%.  Afghan commanders have sold their troops' ammo.  The Taliban are using the Afghan army boot camp to train their fighters.  That way, when they defect, they take their uniforms and weapons, too.  They can't defend themselves, and we can't turn a 14th century tribal culture into a 21st Century democracy in a few years by bombing them. The drone attacks? For every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died. Winning hearts and minds there, all right.  

The terrorists have bugged out to Pakistan, and we certainly can't invade there. I figure the terrorist cells will move to Indonesia next. Think we should invade there, too?

The Soviets had over 100,000 troops in the country (at any one time), and lost 14,500 dead and 54,000 wounded.   They lost 330 choppers and 150 tanks.  A million Afghans died.  Two million were displaced.  The Afghans were firing at the Soviet  tanks while they were crossing the border back into Soviet territory.  At least the NVA wasn't firing on our choppers flying off the roof of the Saigon embassy. Don't plan on the Taliban being that generous.

We'd better start working smarter, and what we've done hasn't worked. Our military is stretched to the breaking point.

[roamer65]

6. I think the "best" <sarcasm> is yet to come...a regional war.

I think Afghanistan and Pakistan will erupt first, then followed by Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Bush's blunders will eventually start World War III. I think the regional war will start this year.

[G_j]

9. all too possible

I hope not :-(

[Oregone]

8. Everyone should want the least amount of human suffering & misery

There is no crystal ball to know what will produce that. There is some history and some educated guessing that could help. But the desire to diminish suffering should precede any desire to "win", no matter what.

[CJCRANE]

10. The neocons never wanted to win...

there's less profit in winning. In fact they did win both wars but instead of bringing liberal democracy they brought torture and negligence which of course reignited the conflicts and made them self-sustaining.

[Ken Burch]

11. I think they mainly kept Afghanistan as it was to trap Obama or whichever Dem won

They'd have just carpetnuked the place if McCain had won to get it out of the way.

[uppityperson]

12. Problem is how is "win" defined?

[Ken Burch]

13. Good question. And I think we both know that the answer will be

that however it's defined, or whether it's defined at all, they war machine will find a way to say it hasn't happened YET and the killing will need to continue. And continue. And continue. And continue.

The Pentagon wants this to be the war that keeps on giving.

[applegrove]

14. Think of how the women suffered under the Taliban. You can't want that back.

[Ken Burch]

15. Outside of Kabul that's how all of them are still being treated.

Face it, the rest of the country will never accept Karzai and Karzai will never be removed as Mayor of Kabul.

What should be done is to negotiate for Kabul to be made a "free city", and removed from the rest of the place. That's the only possible hope there is.

There can't be a positive future anywhere else in the country. It doesn't matter which warlord beats which OTHER warlord.

And again, nothing is ever worse than becoming an empire.

[Ken Burch]

16. self-delete

dupe post due to weird technical glitch.

[johnaries]

18. I disagree with your definition of "winning".

Although that does bring up a valid point - what is "winning"?

I think Obama has made that clear - whereas Bush left it nebulous and open-ended: much as you have done.

That is the defining difference between this administration and the last: the "definition" of the conflict.

I am a Pacifist. But, like Sun-zu, I realize that sometimes the best path to Pacifism is through militarism. Nobody hates War more than a true Soldier. A true Soldier has seen the horrors of wars and wants nothing more than to avoid it. A True Warrior is the greatest pacifist. Because they know the cost of War.

What Obama did is "redefine" the purpose - No, more than that - actually, he defined a purpose where there was none.

Every "Monday Morning Quarterback" here o DU focuses on the increase in troops. That is NOT the strategy. Obama has changed the strategy. But the simpletons here don't pay attention to the change in strategy - they only want to puff themselves up and revel in their self-important attitudes.

I am a Progressive. I want to "progress" and move our country forward. Anyone who thinks they are "right" without serious debate is moving us backward - not forward.

I regret that as a Progressive that I should have to say this to other Progressives - but why are you submitting to RW propaganda? I thought that we as a group were immune to this. Why are you embracing it?

[JVS]

20. That's like worrying about there being too many jobs in our country, it ain't gonna happen.

[varelse]

26. No worries - we can't win in Afghanistan

Sadly, our soldiers might be there for years, or even decades, before we ever admit that.

[winyanstaz]

27. sorry...all this post did for me was to make perfect sense...

War is evil.
War is wrong.
War is insane.
War is bad for the planet.
War is supposed to be the LAST resort to DEFEND ourselves..NOT to build an empire or steal oil.
End these wars...bring our troops home NOW!

[Ken Burch]

29. I'm ok with you feeling that.

n/t.

[Toasterlad]

28. Don't Worry: There's No Way To "Win" In Afghanistan.

When you don't even have a valid reason for "playing", you can't "win".

So, you don't have to worry about us "winning" in Afghanistan.