The following is from a short article written by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. It was published in the current issue of The Atlantic. I can't provide a link, because none was available in the online editon of the magazine.

"With American efforts to pacify Afghanistan now in their eighth year and flagging, the Obama administration confronts this question: Is there an alternative to the Bush strategy of invade, occupy and transform? Although few lessons from Iraq apply to Afghanistan, one does: "transformation", in the sense of modernization, is hopeless. Operation Iraqi Freedom now ranks second to only World War II as the most expensive conflict in U.S. history. Transforming Iraq has cost roughly $1 trillion, with the meter still running and the job unfinished. Transforming Afghanistan, by any measure an even more daunting task, is likely to cost that much or more. That's money we don't have. Even if we did, the attempt to create a cohesive nation-state governed from Kabul (something that has never existed in modern times) is a fool's errand. Better to acknowledge and build on the Afghan tradition of decentralized governance. Let tribal chiefs rule: just provide them with incentives to keep the jihadists out. Where incentives don't work, punitive action--U.S. air strikes in neighboring Pakistan provide an illustrative example--can serve as a backup strategy. Denying jihadists sanctuary in Afghanistan does not require pacification--and leaving Afghans to manage their own affairs as they always have will reduce internal instability, while freeing up resources to allow our own country to tackle other challenges more pressing than the quixotic quest to modernize and democratize Afghanistan."

That sure makes sense to me. When can we start?

Afghanistan....Where are the protesters? Where is the outrage? Where is the daily count of the war dead?
Oh sorry....wrong administration.......

Keedy

Originally Posted by Keedy

Afghanistan....Where are the protesters? Where is the outrage? Where is the daily count of the war dead?
Oh sorry....wrong administration.......

Keedy

I've been waiting for one particular poster on TOTV rant on about the American body count in Afghanistan the way she did about Iraq soldiers. Guess it does make a difference who's in office.

We occupied Germany and transformed it. You just have to be committed to win.

Afghanistan bears absolutely no resemblance to Germany, in any way that I can think of--people, geography, culture, history, economy, religion, national identity--no resemblance at all.

Afghanistan eats up countries that come in and think they can transform it, for one reason or another. After ten years, the Russians left with their tails between their legs and a bad taste in their mouths. I guess the Russians thought that expanding their borders from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to include Afghanistan was a good first step towards going further and absorbing Pakistan. Then they'd have Iran and all it's oil about halfway surrounded. The Afghans taught the Russkies that trying to take them over was a really bad idea.

I only hope it doesn't take us that long to figure out the futility in continuing to attempt to change a situation that doesn't want or need to be changed.

Originally Posted by dklassen

We occupied Germany and transformed it. You just have to be committed to win.

Exactly....Americans are not Russians. We can do anything we figure is right. Does anybody remember what we did on D-Day? I hate defeatist attitudes!!!!

If you do a little study you will find that we occupied Germany and Germany was filled with fanatical Nazi's who also hated America and the Jews. There were for quite some time a lot of bombings, fighting and civil unrest after Germany was defeated and we were the occupying force. Now we are allies.

I'll agree with Keedy, we are not the Russians or anything else but the United States of America. We defeated the Russians without ever firing a shot. We've been bumped and bruised but we are not losers. If we have the resolve to win we will win.

There are forces of good and evil. Unlike some in the current administration, I believe American is a force of good, a deliverer of freedom and a liberator from evil.

Running around the world apologizing to dictators won't defeat evil... It will only bring it down on us.

of we the people going ga-ga over well READ speeches/promises.
Obama and his team I fear do really think they can pull off the populist approach to the rest of the world. They will smile with him all the while laughing at him.
Do you remember the political cartoon from many....MANY years ago showing Kruschev smiling big with his hand out to shake with Uncle Sam with his other hand behind his back holding a bomb with a fuse lit. Well that's where we are again.

btk

During the last Presidential campaign, too many times both candidates were saying the same thing. Too confusing to make a choice.

But here in the Political Forum, on this question, we have a distinct difference of opinion on what the U.S. should do.

On one side, I've agreed with a writer who proposes that a continuation of the war in Iraq and an increased presence in Afghanistan is a bad idea, which has little chance of meeting any of our national objectives and will be extremely costly in both blood and treasure. The writer postulates that whatever the costs are to continue military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the money could be better spent on more important national problems here at home. Were I running for national office, I'd campaign pretty much along the lines of what that writer said, shown in the initial post of this thread . Get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them both to form whatever sort of government they'd like--or no central government at all. But with the forewarning that if there is any evidence whatsoever that either country is sponsoring or even condoning the residence or training of jihadists within their bordrs, the U.S. would respond in an immediate and violent way, without warning and with only a passing attempt to avoid collateral damage.

On the other side, several posters here believe that our continued presence in Iraq and an increase in our commitment to Afghanistan is a good idea. The argument seems to be that we should spend whatever is necessary in time, money and blood to create a democratic form of government in those places. That forming and sustaining a democracy there is in the best interests of the U.S. Their argument is that we successfully transformed other countries in the past--Germany, in particular--and we should try to do it again in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a strong belief that we can and will be successful.

What's great about this thread is that we've provided the "quiet" readers a distinct choice to think about. Maybe they'll even comment.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

During the last Presidential campaign, too many times both candidates were saying the same thing. Too confusing to make a choice.

But here in the Political Forum, on this question, we have a distinct difference of opinion on what the U.S. should do.

On one side, I've agreed with a writer who proposes that a continuation of the war in Iraq and an increased presence in Afghanistan is a bad idea, which has little chance of meeting any of our national objectives and will be extremely costly in both blood and treasure. The writer postulates that whatever the costs are to continue military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the money could be better spent on more important national problems here at home. Were I running for national office, I'd campaign pretty much along the lines of what that writer said, shown in the initial post of this thread . Get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them both to form whatever sort of government they'd like--or no central government at all. But with the forewarning that if there is any evidence whatsoever that either country is sponsoring or even condoning the residence or training of jihadists within their bordrs, the U.S. would respond in an immediate and violent way, without warning and with only a passing attempt to avoid collateral damage.

On the other side, several posters here believe that our continued presence in Iraq and an increase in our commitment to Afghanistan is a good idea. The argument seems to be that we should spend whatever is necessary in time, money and blood to create a democratic form of government in those places. That forming and sustaining a democracy there is in the best interests of the U.S. Their argument is that we successfully transformed other countries in the past--Germany, in particular--and we should try to do it again in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a strong belief that we can and will be successful.

What's great about this thread is that we've provided the "quiet" readers a distinct choice to think about. Maybe they'll even comment.

As a not-so-quiet one.....

The success of "democracy-building" seems to depend on whether the to-be-democracized nation is an industrial or agrarian state. Fully or semi- industrialized nations tend to seek public involvement in government to some fashion, as there are always demonstrations, revolutions, or other forms of public protest (and put-downs) happening. In agrarian societies, no one really seems to care what kind of government is in place, as long as it leaves farmers alone to tend their land.

So, Iraq has a chance of becoming a democracy - Afghanistan has a "snow-ball's chance in ...."

However, a quote come to mind regarding these countries: "...Therefore I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is never beneficial to a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time." Sun Tzu, from the Art of War.

At some point in time, the military's mission is over, and others skilled in nation-building (BTW, there is no military occupational specialty for "nation-builder") need to take over the job.

Some lessons are hard to learn....