MY President has decided to send at least 30,000 more troops to a country far away.

[cherokeeprogressive]

I was listening during the campaign leading up to the General Election, and heard his intent to do something to that effect. That wasn't what I thought to be the most important issue of the 2009 General Election though... He also promised to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell", repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, renegotiate NAFTA, and institute EFCA.

He definitely earned my vote with those other campaign promises. What was my alternative? Those whose names shall remain unspoken in this OP, THAT was my alternative. No thanks.

I am terribly disturbed. The man I voted for has chosen to add to the number of American Servicemen and Women who have already been sent to their deaths in a part of the world where the "combatants" cannot be distinguished from the civilians by any visual means. Yes, this disturbs me.

The war in Afghanistan is what can only be described as a GUERILLA WAR. The tactics of guerrilla warfare have been used successfully in the 20th century by, among others, the People's Liberation Army in the Chinese Civil War, the Irish Republican Army during the Irish War of Independence, and Fidel Castro's rebel army in the Cuban Revolution. Most factions of the Iraqi Insurgency and groups such as FARC are said to be engaged in some form of guerrilla warfare.

I offer this scenario for your consideration: Suppose the Taliban, or Al Queda, or whoever we're fighting in Afghanistan (President Obama's speech tonight was ambiguous on that fact) simply faded into the countryside for FOUR years and ceased all acts of aggression, sabotage, or terrorism in Afghanistan.

Consider that.

What then? Leave? Stay? Stay and wait for the Taliban or Al Queda to raise their heads? How does that play into any kind of timeline for withdrawl from Afghanistan?

[avaistheone1]

1. The Taliban is always going to be there even after we leave

in victory or in defeat.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. "Is always going to be there".

Then our fight, whatever it is, will never end.

I'm not liking that.

[lapfog_1]

4. Can we extrapolate forwards and backwards?

If they are "always going to be there" does that imply that "they were always there"?

Because, before the Soviets arrived, the Afghan people I know say it was a very peaceful society. There were gardens and universities and farmers grew things other than poppies. Islamic, but not radically so. Less militant than Pakistan.

And no Taliban.

Were they just dreaming?

Ok, I'm just pulling your chain a bit. I don't like sweeping statements.

I'm pretty sure that the Taliban will still be around after we leave in 2 to 3 years.

But it's not a guarantee.

[smalll]

3. Yes, for a quarrel in a "far away" country, between people of whom we know nothing.

I'm Just Sayin'! :shrug:

[jeanpalmer]

5. I just read an article

that explained how the Taliban did that very thing in Kunduz, which is in the north. There, the Pashtun are only 50% of the population. The Taliban left Kunduz in 2001 as we moved in, but in the last year or so, have come back in force. So they can lie low for a long time, but it doesn't mean they've given up. Eighteen months should be a piece of cake for them, now that they know the withdrawal schedule.

But regarding "fading into the countryside," they don't have to fade into it. They control it. If you believe media reports, part of the new strategy is to withdraw troops to the urban centers and apparently concede about 97% of the country to the Taliban -- because the country is too big and can't be controlled with a force of 150,000 soldiers, and the countryside is too sparsely populated to make it worthwhile to put troops there. So the Taliban really only have to wait for the allies to leave the remaining 3% of the country.

I doubt they'll cease acts of aggression against the occupiers. If they stop everything, they run the risk of losing momentum. Plus they like to fight. My guess is they'll conduct operations just like they do now. In the longer run, the Taliban will win and be in charge, whether we leave in 2, 10 or 50 years. I don't see any force that can stand up to them once we're gone. Karzai certainly won't. He's a puppet with no base. He'll take the first flight out, once we leave. It will be a repeat of the exit from Viet Nam.