To be honest....I think there really is No Answer to the Afghan situation

[Armstead]

Sometimes there are good answers or bad answers. Invading Iraq was a bad decision. Many of us saw that at the time. It was basically clearcut. We had a choice and we screwed the pooch.

But sometimes things are more ambiguous. Sometimes there are no "good" choices.

I hate to say it, but nothing Obama could have decided about Afghanistan would have been a good choice. Committing to an indefinite war would be f--ked. Getting out tomorrow and letting them resolve it among themselves would be a disaster. Trying to steer a middle course of targeted action could be useless.

It's a goddamn mess. And, to be even more blunt, we have no power to do ANYTHING to fix it. If the antagonistic members of the Afghans and the Pakistani population are determined to continue their idiotic tribal and religious warfare against themselves and each other, its their own damn fault. It's been going on for eons, and it is -- unfortunately -- reflective of the worst aspects of human nature....Think of all of the similar conflicts that go on throughout the world.

The best we can do is to try to minimize the effect on us.....If the more hotheaded participants in those internal conflicts are determined to take the rest of the world down with them, well...maybe they'll succeed.....Or maybe we can prevent it and keep their suicidal/homicidal tendencies contained. It's all a toss of the coin.


Maybe, in the long run, it will get sorted out and they will work out some accommodation of their differences, either through a form of democratic moderate consensus or be guided by a "strongman" or authoritarian regime...Dunno.

So what should we do? What will bring the best outcome?

I don't know. You don't know. Obama doesn't know. McCain and the Hawks don't know. If there is a God in heaven s/he might know, but he or she is certainly not telling anyone.

Basically, anything Obama decides to do might bring a solution, or at least tame it enough to be manageable. Maybe it will be a disaster that will mire us there for decades.

It's just one big goddamn mess. And we're stuck with it. Whatever we do will likely be a bad decision in some way.

[Lyric]

1. Fine. All potential solutions suck. Therefore, let's pick the one

that spares the lives of American soldiers and doesn't bankrupt the country any further, and get the hell OUT.

[lumpy]

17. Hear hear

agreed

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I think you're right.

I think the only course of action is a short-term military campaign to render the Taliban/Al Qaeda inert (and ensuring the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal) while conducting a long-term political campaign to nullify the motivations for becoming a terrorist in the first place. But that's just my opinion, and i don't claim expertise.

[havocmom]

5. +1

No expertise, but common sense goes a long way, and you demonstrate common sense dealing with the reality of the situation.

[alsame]

11. I think you're right. I believe this is mostly about Pakistan and their

nukes.

[mdmc]

3. Nation building and mutual respect go along way

But, all in all, as usual, you are dead on.
Peace and low stress..

[vaberella]

39. That doesn't work when you have people killing your civilian nation builders.

Those people are coming back in body bags if you remember. Only when there are no insurgents or war or gun fire can you say...nation building and mutual respect goes a long way. Unfortunately we are far from stellar conditions.

[Peacetrain]

4. No wonder he took so long to think about it..

[Armstead]

37. yes, it's a Hobson's Choice

[blm]

6. I agree. Even though I would have preferred a 6 month pullout, I also am fully aware that this

came with a great risk of leaving behind a civil war that only an Al Qaeda type force could win in the long run.

There were no good choices, but, I do thank undergod that Biden, Reed and Kerry got the mission NARROWED and withdrawal plans on the table to blunt the push of the hawk advisors (Clinton, Holbrooke) siding with McChrystal and Gates.

[GodlessBiker]

14. Narrowed? We went in to get the guys responsible for 9/11. What, exactly, are we doing now?

I'll tell you what. We are trying to push bad people out of Afghanistan. Bad people who are friendly with those who committed the 9/11 atrocities, but who did not commit them.

The war has broadened since it has commenced.

[blm]

18. Past time we execute REAL mission before Bush let Bin Laden and Al Qaeda escape at ToraBora so he

could ignore Afghanistan while he spent the next 7yrs in Iraq.

[karynnj]

23. That was the mission in 2001, but it has broadened since then.

Obama narrowed it from what it expanded to and which some Democrats and all Republicans see. The fact that Obama called just for halting the progress of the Taliban and spoke of reconciling the reconcilables and did not mention democracy or a thriving economy. The fact is that even last month people like Clinton had to check herself when speaking of democracy. There was also a Code Pink representative who went to Afghanistan, whose agenda - making the culture treat women better - is stronger than Obama's current mission.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Reasonable

K&R

[AspenRose]

8. Yep.

[HughMoran]

9. Do as much as we can with a deadline to put the pressure in the Afghani government is about the best

...choice he had I think. I find it difficult to be terribly critical of this decision. He pissed off the left by sending more troops in and he pissed off the right by setting a date for withdrawal. In the end, neither the "left" or "right" seems to care what's in the best interest of the US & the Afghan people. I think this was a pragmatic decision - and a pretty good compromise overall.

[AspenRose]

10. And it's consistent with what we know about how Obama makes decisions.

Anyone who has read "The Audacity of Hope" knows this.

[EFerrari]

20. A great deal is known about what works for counter insurgency.

Little to none of it involves military buildup. The leading womens' rights groups in Afghanistan are against an new influx of US troops, btw.

Putting pressure on the Karzai mafia won't yield much because they don't control much and what they do control is a result of bargaining. Not to mention, they are only more humane than the Taliban by a hair and are willing to move further to the right if it will help them peel away support from the Taliban.

Similarly, it does no good whatsoever to train an Afghan army whose first loyalty will always be to individual tribes and not to a central government. Giving those people more training sounds like a singularly bad idea to me.

[HughMoran]

24. You may be right

I didn't say that this was the only possible solution, just that it's not unreasonable given the circumstances.

You do realize that we can't succeed there and than all arguments are correct since it's a no-win situation?

There are no "wrong" arguments when it comes to war decisions dumped on the lap of a Democratic President.

[EFerrari]

26. Yep. It's going to be ugly.

The thing that would work the best, imho, would be to map out where the power centers are, town by town, village by village, and work with those people. Build up the Loya Jirga, not Karzai. Make growing poppy legal and buy the damn crops. That would drive most of the crime gangs out of business or away. The people are at the mercy of their poverty and have little choice but to be pushed around by either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance or any other group that springs up along the same model.

If we could do even some of that, it would help the people and it would help rebuild their trust in us.

[HughMoran]

28. Good ideas

Making poppy legal and regulated with a guaranteed market is a good idea. Imagine the reaction on the right to that proposal though :rofl:

[EFerrari]

30. They'd be fine with it if Pfizer was given the contract.

lol

[HughMoran]

32. True 'nuf

:)

[vaberella]

40. +10...exactly. You've said it all. n/t

[rurallib]

12. Bush left Obama a pile of problems with only bad solutions

On every front Bushco fucked things up in such a way that
1) it had to be addressed and
2) all solutions had severe repercussions
Ergo - to kick start the economy we needed to borrow a shitload of money OR several other choices which had bad effects.
Same with Iraq, same with Afghanistan, same with North Korea, same with health care.

And of course the thread that ties them all together is that the country was bankrupted by the Bushco cowboys. Gee, that was convenient.
I, for one, have maintained that this was the Bushco plan all along.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. There is no there there.

I'm not seeing how such a remote, poor, isolated, tribal country is such a huge national security threat to us. I'm just not seeeing it. I know Bin Laden launched his plans from there, but he could have launched them from a KOA campground in West Virginia, or a hotel in Paris. Would we occupy Paris under the Bush doctrine?

OK, we don't like the Taliban. It's up to the Afghani peoples to not like the Taliban, not us. If the Afghanis want to join the modern world and have an actual nation, it has to happen organically and internally and their own leader, like a Kemal Attaturk, has to rise up and take them there.

[BeyondGeography]

16. But, magically, he chose a cave in a country governed by an Islamic theocracy

:dunce:

[NoSheep]

19. Probably because Pakistan has nukes and had already allowed the Taliban

to implement Islamic law in the Swat Vally (until we were blackmailed into giving them more money to prevent further encroachment by these extremists)then they started fighting them again. Remember that from this past summer? I think we are trying to make Afghanistan more stable so the two countries can stand up to the extremism. Two-thirds of the new troops are intended to train Afghans in security. I think we are trying to help them get a vital security force so the Taliban can't take over and the fact that there is an imaginary line drawn between the 2 countries doesn't seem to matter much. There are no plans on the table to continue that indefinitely which was explained very clearly last night. It isn't simply about "not liking" the Taliban. I think it's about stabilizing the region as much as possible without going way further into bankruptcy. we do need to keep Pakistan from becoming vulnerable to enemies because they are a nuclear power now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

25. Thoughtful answer, thank you.

We supported the Taliban when we thought they were strictly a fly in Russian ointment. We never ever ever learn about the unintended consequences of our actions when we back regimes/movements/leaders just because to do so meets our short term goals while not recognizing that we are furthering their longer term goals. Then we are left constantly battling the Frankensteins that we ourselves animated.

[Armstead]

27. So true -- Look at creeps we supported in Chile to oust the "Marxists" there

[NoSheep]

31. You're welcome. I thought we supported (actually helped create) al Quaeda but

I didn't think the US supported the Taliban. (I could be wrong! The Bush adminsitration may have been sending them Christmas cards!)....I understand the Taliban to be a fundamentalist extreme right wing Islamist group who, because they do not recognize the laws enacted by governments, destabilize the areas they are in. They actually provide some services apparently that lead folks in a place such as these impoverished areas of the Middle East to join up and fight for territory with them. al Quaeda is an international terrorist group that while started in this region, finds safe haven as well as recruits in many destabilized areas. In the Midde East, they are kind of existing side by side. There are many who join both groups due to having ZERO security otherwise. This is why things are kinda murky there to say the least. If we can pull enough citizens away from the allure of marginal security the Taliban provide and allure of seeming purpose that al Quaeda provide, we may be able to train them to keep stability in their region, HOPEFULLY making it safer for the US, especially because of Pakistan's nukes.

[NoSheep]

15. I wholeheartedly recommend this thread!

I also feel he could have said "We're going to start bringing them home tomorrow" and it may still have taken 18 months to get them out. Some of the reactions here have been beyond ridiculous.

[treestar]

22. I recommend it to and even if Obama said he was going to end it

now, they'd be saying it wasn't fast enough, as they say for Iraq.

It's easy to decide from the computer keyboard that it's all easy.

[Bluerthanblue]

21. i agree-

it's a lose lose situation.

War always represents failure-

[Window]

29. K/R. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

33. Bravo. NT

[TheKentuckian]

34. This continues to hang on a lot of stuff we can't control

and even more we can't directly discuss. How do we train up Afghans to hold extremists out of their territory if they don't want to? How do we make sure Pakistan and the CIA do what they are supposed to on the other side of those mountains, and why does any of this really make us more secure when organized terror can just set up shop literally anywhere?

I have no doubt that Obama considered the situation, understands the gravity, and doesn't want to spill the treasury on the sand. I even believe he wants to get us the hell out but that doesn't translate to actually having a plan that all the moving parts fit together for an effective purpose.

I guess I could argue that this is a beat em down and go concept that would be workable if only we had some way to be sure what happens in Pakistan and if the Afghans actually really wanted the Taliban out, which we and they don't that I can see.

I just am unable to wrap my mind around the very concept of enforcing one's will one someone (or group) for the purpose of freeing their will. As far as I can reckon this piece is more article of faith than valid policy. Perhaps one can make another do what they want them to do but I can think of no example of successfully using force to make someone proactively do what you want of their own free will. Such things require social engineering on a much more complex and long term scale like religion as well as economic and political systems. Once such systems are ingrained then precise use of force can be used as motivation, distraction, and as a system of control. This trying to wave a big stick and things will magically come together because everyone wants the same things stuff just can't go on. Never mind the wrongness of it but because it is unworkable and probably very risky to us in a lot of different ways.

I don't like the whole intangible nature of the whole situation.
I don't like jumping into military situations where we negate our technological advantages.
I'm still not clear on who and where we are fighting.
I'm not getting how you neither occupy nor liberate nor depopulate a territory.
I don't know what we'll be doing differently to maintain and expand the numbers and loyalty of the Afghans we recruit.
I don't see what we offering the Afghans that changes the dynamic that allows them to have extremists running shit and amok.
I see nothing that will ever allow us to be free of financing Afghanistan and Pakistan probably as well to some extent.

I guess it all comes down to the point that a President and Congress can't just come up to the mike and honestly say that it is fucked up over there and has spun out of control to the point that there isn't really anything we can do but not waste anymore blood or treasure.

That the worst nightmares may well happen but not a soul can honestly say it won't happen no matter what we do.

That being the land of the free demands being the home of the brave because we won't and cannot search and control every closet to make sure no boogie man jumps out of one somewhere, sometime.

Just say there are some real serious problems that for a variety of reasons we cannot directly affect so we'll give aid to Pakistan and offer to help them anyway we can but as they don't want us directly in the situation there is little we can do to address the actual concerns we have in the region that there isn't much we can do with a giant army over there.

That we're going to work some sweet bribes for all the locals, give them small arms, and keep a gravy train rolling as long as things stay cool over there (aka we don't have any problems) and we'll maintain some special forces (CIA as well, of course), clerks, and marines to protect them to make sure and to pass out loot every month but for all intents and purposes of a serious military effort we are getting out of Dodge.

They can't just announce that the plan to fix unemployment isn't to send everyone to guard gravel for a tour or two.

That we are all fucked up and have to reinvest in our own country and will have precious little to defend if we don't stop blowing our wad on a bunch of bullshit that will buy the average American jackappleshit.

Hell, I'm not sure the American people processed the moderately less bullshit than usual approach we got last night and have serious questions about the real ability to accept the real truth.

[ShortnFiery]

35. No, there's ONE answer that will stop American Bloodshed - Bring the Troops Home NOW!

Every day our troops operate in those two Muslim Nations, Americans are LESS SAFE.

[Armstead]

36. That's a good solution for us in the short run...But it may lead to a worse situation too

It could get nasty for them and us if even the sliver of stability we provide is removed and the Taliban are free to eithber take over or instigate a long civil war...and if Pakistan falls.

I dunno. Part of me believes that we shouod just get the hell out yesterday...Another part says we should at least give it the old college try.

Like I said in my OP, I don't think there really are no good answers. best we can do is hopefully minimize the bad results of any action.

[vaberella]

41. Dude it's not even good for us in the short run. Blow back will be even more extreme.

Then we'll be back in that nation.

[Armstead]

42. Like I said originally....

the whole thing kinda sucks...Whatever we do or don't do will have bad repercussions

[vaberella]

38. FINALLY!! That's what I've been saying this whole time.

The only answer we do know is that we do have to get out. The problem is when and how soon and what conditions. <---There is no right or easy format to figure that out.

[backscatter712]

43. I think Obama picked what he felt was the least bad choice.

There are some serious concerns about the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. It's no longer just about Afghanistan. What happens if we leave, the Taliban retake Afghanistan, then they keep going and take control of Pakistan? Now they have nukes! There's the possibility that they'd give a nuke to Al Qaeda, though more likely, Al Qaeda would set up shop there again, with their training camps like they did before 2001. Also, if the Taliban has Pakistan's nukes, India's going to feel really threatened, and they have nukes too. The little cold war between India and Pakistan will heat up in a hurry. And that would cause the other countries in the area - the former Soviet republics, Iran, China to start taking action for their security - it's hard enough to get Iran to back off of their nuclear program now, but if they've got nuclear-armed crazies (IIRC, the Taliban slaughtered an Iranian diplomatic envoy in Afghanistan at one point,) they're going to want to have their own nukes, which will set off other Middle Eastern nations, especially Israel...

I think that's what's got Obama to continue with the Afghanistan war. Karzai's sorry excuse for a government is obviously not worth it, but the Pakistani nuke situation is genuinely scary.

I do hope Obama realizes that the true end to this clusterfuck will be done politically, not militarily. That means we very well may have to cut a deal with the Taliban - maybe we tell them "You get this chunk of land, but in exchange, you will get no nukes now or ever, you stay in your borders, you do not harbor terrorists, etc..."