What To Do In Afghanistan??

[Guest]

Now that we're going to be out of Iraq by year-end, how do we continue in Afghanistan?

As a perspective, the cost of continuing the war in Afghanistan will cost the U.S. $107 billion in 2011 in direct costs (not including military pensions, benefits and treatment for wounded, replacement costs for weapons, etc.) That's roughly $2 billion per week in taxpayer expense to pay the soldiers, buy the ammunition and fund the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

What are we fighting for? The Pentagon and our generals in the theatre believe we should continue and even escalate our personnel and expenditures to re-build Afghanistan. They say it could take a decade or more, but they believe we could make a difference there.

However the government in power in Afghanistan is considerably less enthusiastic about our presence. Back in 2004 our government hand-picked Hamid Karzai to be President of the country. He was later re-elected in an election widely believed to be widely influenced by his supporters. Few are satisfied that it was anything close to a democratic election.

The Karzai administration, almost from the beginning, is known to be subject to operate with widespread corruption. Beyond that, Karzai is really only "president" of that portion of the country where the capital, Kabul, is located. The rest of the country is controlled and governed by Taliban tribes.

A number of months ago, Karzai announced that he was negotiating an agreement to co-govern the country with Taliban tribes, the very same people that the U.S. hand-picked him to replace. It's the Taliban tribes that we're fighting there and who are killing our troops.

Now Karzai has escalated the situation a step further. In a nationally-televised address in Afganistan last weekend, Karzai told his country that he "would back Pakistan if it went to war with the United States".

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/24-Oct-2011/Karzais-pledge-of-support-to-Pakistan---jolts-America-WSJ

OK, so we are facing yet another question of what our strategy should be in another Middle Eastern country.
Should we continue our efforts to re-build Afgahnistan under the Karzai regime?

Should we actually increase our investment in manpower and expenditures in the country as suggested by the Pentagon?

Or should we withdraw from Afghanistan completely, permitting the Taliban to probably regain control of the country as Russia did a couple decades ago when they had a similar lack of success? (A parallel strategy might be to begin to escalate our financial and military support for India, who may finally tire of "peaceful" co-existence with an unstable Pakistan on it's northern border and escalate the situation militarily.)
What do you think?

[Guest]

the USA and it's allies values will be never be transferred to the people who run the government currently or who are standing by to fill the void when ever non Afghanistan forces depart.

Karzai only keeps the US connection for the money.
Eventually we will be asked to leave just as has just happened in Iraq.

There can be no such thing as democracy in the center of the Islam world.

My vote is to cut our losses in lives first and $$$ second and just prepare to leave. Their core beliefs of thousands of years are not going to be changed.

As Obama has proclaimed, when asked to leave Iraq, it is time to work on the needs at home.

btk

[Guest]

the USA and it's allies values will be never be transferred to the people who run the government currently or who are standing by to fill the void when ever non Afghanistan forces depart.

Karzai only keeps the US connection for the money.
Eventually we will be asked to leave just as has just happened in Iraq.

There can be no such thing as democracy in the center of the Islam world.

My vote is to cut our losses in lives first and $$$ second and just prepare to leave. Their core beliefs of thousands of years are not going to be changed.

As Obama has proclaimed, when asked to leave Iraq, it is time to work on the needs at home.

btk

These are excellent points.

We went to Afghanistan to root out terrorist cells which openly attacked us and our interests. Warfare has changed. Our present tactics are tantamount to Cornwallis lining up brightly colored uniform lines and marching to meet the enemy. Add that our large presence magnifies the ugliness and fear of war, which only alienates our hosts and stimulates terrorist recruitment. All the money involved encourages corruption and twists even the best intentioned local leaders.
Intelligence gathering, Seals and drones are what works today.
Get all of our personnel and equipment out asap. Turn on the satellites. Make the "few, good" volunteers Seals and spies. Fight terrorists with terrorists. We do have the resources to make our terrorists more effective at a fraction of the cost of old-fashioned warfare.
This is how to protect America.

[Guest]

I say just nuke them all and let God sort them out.

[Guest]

I say just nuke them all and let God sort them out.

Starting to think that I agree!

[Guest]

I say just nuke them all and let God sort them out.

Works for me!!!

[Guest]

Afghanistan is not and will not be a democracy in our lifetime. 42% of the population of Afghanistan and ~20% of the population of Pakistan are Pashtuns and speak Pashto. This is a language that is, in general, not shared by others in either country. The Pashtuns are a clannish and patriarchal people who have been in place since the time of Alexander the Great.

There is a logical country for these 50 million people and it would be called Pashtunistan. They exist as a clan with their own values and have moved back and forth across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border forever. They continue to do so as a nomadic people. The idea of the Pashtun people having their own country thrills Pakistan just as much as the idea of a Kurdistan thrills Turkey. This is why the government of Pakistan does little to curb what we refer to as terrorists. To do so would be to voluntarily tear their country apart.

Within the clan(s) there are tribes led by their elders. The tribes are organized as patriarchies. Each extended family has its acknowledged leader and an unacknowledged but very real ‘Capo’. None of these people - the tribal elders, the family leaders, the strong arms and their people has any interest in democracy, civil rights or our values. They have their own set of values and their own structure and do not wish to change. So why are we trying to make them change?

If we wish to achieve stability in this region we first need to accept the very real and unchanging structure and set up a way to work with it. The Pashtuns like Al Qaeda about as much as we do, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The solution will not be easy but it must start with accepting that they will live with the structure and values that have persisted for several thousand years. We can build friends here, but it will take time and mutual respect rather than drones and troops.

[Guest]

Afghanistan is not and will not be a democracy in our lifetime. 42% of the population of Afghanistan and ~20% of the population of Pakistan are Pashtuns and speak Pashto. This is a language that is, in general, not shared by others in either country. The Pashtuns are a clannish and patriarchal people who have been in place since the time of Alexander the Great.

There is a logical country for these 50 million people and it would be called Pashtunistan. They exist as a clan with their own values and have moved back and forth across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border forever. They continue to do so as a nomadic people. The idea of the Pashtun people having their own country thrills Pakistan just as much as the idea of a Kurdistan thrills Turkey. This is why the government of Pakistan does little to curb what we refer to as terrorists. To do so would be to voluntarily tear their country apart.

Within the clan(s) there are tribes led by their elders. The tribes are organized as patriarchies. Each extended family has its acknowledged leader and an unacknowledged but very real ‘Capo’. None of these people - the tribal elders, the family leaders, the strong arms and their people has any interest in democracy, civil rights or our values. They have their own set of values and their own structure and do not wish to change. So why are we trying to make them change?

If we wish to achieve stability in this region we first need to accept the very real and unchanging structure and set up a way to work with it. The Pashtuns like Al Qaeda about as much as we do, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The solution will not be easy but it must start with accepting that they will live with the structure and values that have persisted for several thousand years. We can build friends here, but it will take time and mutual respect rather than drones and troops.Good summary, BBQ. Your description of the Pashtuns also seems to explain why the government of Afghanistan under Hamid Karzai, only "governs" a small area of the eastern part of the country around Kabul, the capital. The southern part of the country adjacent to the Pakistani border is controlled by the Pashtun tribes. If the U.S. or India ever chose to attack Pakistan, almost certainly the Pashtuns on both sides of the border would fight against that country and the possibilty of Indian occupation.

Farther north, towards the borders with the former Turkic states that were part of the U.S.S.R., the Tajik and Uzbek tribes prevail. Only the area around Kabul isn't controlled by the tribes.

No occupying country has ever been able to overcome the historic strength and control of the tribes. The British and the Russians tried before us and left, admitting failure. Even during the few decades in the early 20th century when the Afghan kings ruled from Kabul, they essentially used the tribes as the structure of their government.

Afghanistan is certainly not a totalarian state, nor is it a federal or parliamentary republic. It certainly is not democratic. For centuries Afghanistan has been a collection of loosely affiliated tribes, almost small countries unto themselves, with their own structures of rules, laws, leadership and customs.

You're absolutely correct, BBQ. The chance that the U.S. will succeed in changing the tribal structure of the region is about the same as the Brits and the Russians before us. The only question is: when will we admit it and cut our losses of blood and treasure already spent?

[Guest]

Starting to think that I agree!

What about all the pregnant women whose babies will be killed? Still work for you?

[Guest]

I say just nuke them all and let God sort them out.Not a very thoughtful response. About the same as Herman Cain's statement that "when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, I don’t know."

Take a look at a topographical map of Afghanistan. Then consider that there are only about 28 Afghans living on each square mile of the extremely mountainous country. Now tell us on which mountain top or which small village would you drop your nukes?

Maybe you as well as Herman Cain ought to learn a little more about a region that could be so influential in maintaining the American way of life. While Kabul may be 1,900 miles from the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, it's only 1,000 miles from Tehran to those same oil fields, and only 650 miles from either Baghdad or Damascus, Syria to the oil wells where we get the oil to make our gasoline. That's only a little farther than the distance from the Iraq-Kuwait boerder to downtown Baghdad. How long did it take our army to make that trip...about a day and a half?

[Guest]

Not a very thoughtful response. About the same as Herman Cain's statement that "when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, I don’t know."

Take a look at a topographical map of Afghanistan. Then consider that there are only about 28 Afghans living on each square mile of the extremely mountainous country. Now tell us on which mountain top or which small village would you drop your nukes?

Maybe you as well as Herman Cain ought to learn a little more about a region that could be so influential in maintaining the American way of life. While Kabul may be 1,900 miles from the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, it's only 1,000 miles from Tehran to those same oil fields, and only 650 miles from either Baghdad or Damascus, Syria to the oil wells where we get the oil to make our gasoline.
Thank you for mentioning my name with Mr. Cain. I am honored. I am sure that we can pinpoint our bombs without disturbing some oil fields.
But if we do take out some oil fields than maybe the Kenyan idiot will start thinking about developing some of our very own oil in the USA.

[Guest]

Not a very thoughtful response. About the same as Herman Cain's statement that "when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, I don’t know."

Take a look at a topographical map of Afghanistan. Then consider that there are only about 28 Afghans living on each square mile of the extremely mountainous country. Now tell us on which mountain top or which small village would you drop your nukes?

Maybe you as well as Herman Cain ought to learn a little more about a region that could be so influential in maintaining the American way of life. While Kabul may be 1,900 miles from the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, it's only 1,000 miles from Tehran to those same oil fields, and only 650 miles from either Baghdad or Damascus, Syria to the oil wells where we get the oil to make our gasoline. That's only a little farther than the distance from the Iraq-Kuwait boerder to downtown Baghdad. How long did it take our army to make that trip...about a day and a half?

Very interesting take. I was not aware of the distances. Of course Cain should learn more about the region. If the last administration has learned a bit more we might not be in this mess in Iraq. I am interested in seeing if Cain can modify a position based on new information without being called a flip-flopper. Personally, I think the ability to process new information and using it to change a belief is a sign of intelligence, not weakness.

[Guest]

how about an announcement that we intend to depart Afghanistan completely by _ ? _ ? _ 2012. Over the course of the draw down the USA and it's cooperating countries will triple the size of it's drone force with the increased number to be focused on Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, etc, etc.

Further that the USA will endeavor to maximize the philosophy of an eye for an eye with the caveat that our response will be a 3:1 response effort.

Just thinking out loud!!



btk

[Guest]

how about an announcement that we intend to depart Afghanistan completely by _ ? _ ? _ 2012. Over the course of the draw down the USA and it's cooperating countries will triple the size of it's drone force with the increased number to be focused on Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, etc, etc.

Further that the USA will endeavor to maximize the philosophy of an eye for an eye with the caveat that our response will be a 3:1 response effort.

Just thinking out loud!!



btk

good thinking.

[Guest]

... I am interested in seeing if Cain can modify a position based on new information without being called a flip-flopper. Personally, I think the ability to process new information and using it to change a belief is a sign of intelligence, not weakness.Absolutely correct! Look at the quote from Pat Buchanan that I have in my sig below.

[Guest]

OK, we're off topic now. I'd like to hear more on our commitment to Afghanistan. But to reply to the last few posts, I must emphasize that Buchanan said a philosophy should be alterable with NEW information.

Cain is showing some ignorance and/or arrogance by his flip remarks about geography. Then there are his 'whoops' remarks about abortion and his ever so recent discovery that 9/9/9 would really add taxes to a lot of people.

If you are going to be a leader, you MUST be intelligent enough to have already processed OLD information, some from elementary school, and then to have built a coherent philosophy.

It's critical to be open to new ideas and changes, but the solid foundation comes first.