A 110-page report, two years ago, by the Senlis Council, a Brussels-based think tank, reported that the Taliban’s resurgence had reclaimed 54% of Afghanistan. At that time, there was a NATO force of approximately 60,000 deployed there, of which about 30,000 were U.S. troops. The report estimated that 20,000 more were needed to turn the tide of the war. .
Six days ago, Katie Couric reported that the Taliban now controls 80% of the country. Currently, there is an expanding NATO force that will reach nearly 100,000 by the end of the year, including 68,000 U.S. troops. The commander on the ground, General Stanley A. McChrystal, now estimates that 40,000 more are needed to turn the tide of the war.
So far, there can be no conclusion drawn that the larger NATO deployments have led to a weaker Taliban. Indeed, as the acknowledged size of the NATO force has surged by what will soon be 63% this year, the territory controlled by the Taliban has surged as well.
Over the past few months, for the first time in the eight-year war, the insurgency has taken control of the country’s northern areas to the point that the integrity of a critical supply line is now seriously threatened. And, in recent weeks, militants have succeeded in forcing NATO to begin withdrawing its forces from its forward operating bases near the Pakistan border, a move described by the Pentagon as a “repositioning.”
The International Council on Security and Development describes the current situation as a deepening crisis with “substantial Taliban activity in at least 97% of the country.”
At the same time, the NATO coalition appears to be weakening. Switzerland, South Korea and Serbia have withdrawn their troops while Canada and the Netherlands have announced the schedule for their own withdrawals. Public opinion for the war is also falling in other European nations, particularly in the United Kingdom and Germany.
President Obama is currently considering General McChrystal’s recommended troop increase and he has so far ruled out dramatically cutting the size of our force. However, his final decision may be awaiting word from Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission relating to the validity of the recent, contested election which appeared to have given President Hamid Karzai the majority he needed to win reelection without a runoff.
Three days ago it was announced that Obama and his top advisors were leaning towards the conclusion that Al Qaeda is a greater threat than the Taliban. Whether this will be translated into a strategy relative to our troop strength remains to be seen. Key Democrats on Capitol Hill aren’t waiting to make their feelings known, however. On Thursday, the chairman as well as a key member of the House Appropriations Committee warned that a troop buildup would be met with severe opposition that could include a limitation on the funds that would be needed.
On the other hand, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Monday that the failure to send more troops would lead to additional deaths. However, the facts are that the surge in Iraq was accompanied by a 10% increase in American troop deaths and the surge so far this year in Afghanistan has brought with it a 61% increase in U.S. military fatalities through September.
Last week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of 15 military personnel killed in Afghanistan, ranging in age from 21 to 41. Total U.S. deaths there now amount to 872, according to icasualties.org.
The Pentagon also released the obituaries of two soldiers, 48 and 49, who were killed in Iraq. One of the deaths was categorized as non-combat-related, and the other involved a mortar or rocket attack on a military camp in Baghdad. The above website reports that total U.S. deaths in Iraq now stand at 4,349.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 143
The Taliban must be extinguished, just as the Nazi's were. The Taliban is every bit as bad as the Nazis were.
In Afghanistan, a woman cannot have sunshine touch her face. Women are slaves under Taliban rule. This is the 21st century; we cannot live in a world that is half free and have enslaved.
We lost more Americans in the Civil War than all the other wars we've been in. Was the cost of Civil War not worth it? Only a racist or a sociopath can put a price-limit on freedom.
Your disconnected absolutes really do not help put this problem in perspective. I long war of attrition where Americans get picked off year after year is not a good thing for a democracy to have to endure. What is it exactly that you are supported, and how much resources and time are you prepared to give it?
An ICBM??.............
The Nazis never attacked the United States. The Taliban works closely with terrorist groups, like al Qeda. The leader of the Taliban in Pakistan has threatened the U.S. with terrorist attacks.
We lost almost 700,000 men in the Civil War. Was that cost not worth it? I served my country in the first Gulf War. I'm a disabled veteran and would serve it again if I could.
What is the point you are trying to make? Germany was the height of culture, brains, power and industry in the pre-WWII world, the Taliban is simply not that level of threat, to the US, to the world, to anyone. What the Taliban can do in the short term is to consoldate and activate radical Islam. I think we can agree that would be bad. But trying to fight the Taliban as a Western democracy means that we are not going to be as brutal as would be necessary to win the war, so we will sit there and do what we did in Iraq and take casualties, while the radical Islamist claim victory, and we see body bags. It is not a smart or tenable move in the long term for us to do that, unless we were going to just go all out.
My point is in the late 1930's and early 1940's Hitler did not have access to any WMD's. The Taliban could access WMD's and potentially kill millions of innocent people. We need to be pro-active in the situation.
That's the kind of activity that creates more terrorists than it kills. It's a net loss.
One or two WMD despite being hugely disruptive will bring a bloodbath to the whole region I think. For example, say Al Qaeda smuggled a nuke into an American city and detonated it.
i think the only reaction would be to unconditionally flatten anything of value in any of the countries that are friendly to the Taliban, who whoever it would be that did the attack. Because if something like that happens, there is no way to trace it back with police, it is an act of war by all of these states, and any threat would be extinguished because our existence would be at stake.
And in my opinion, it would take at least another 100,000 troops to accomplish what you are proposing here........
The only valid reason for taking such action, I believe, would be if the country or insurgency involved represented a clear and present threat to the United States or, as in the case of treaties, to its allies. It's very possible that the Taliban's main threat is to the likelihood of an oil pipeline ever going through that area.
If al Qaeda, which is centered in Pakistan, is, in fact, the main threat to the U.S. then perhaps our efforts should involve a greater degree of cooperation with Pakistan and the establishment of a secure but smaller area within Afghanistan from which to conduct our high tech operations, thus saving big bucks and many lives.
Absolutely. And anyone who doesn't think we should help our fellow man because he doesn't live next door to you or doesn't look like you... is a racist.
In a perfect world, the U.N. would stop genocide and human rights violations. But they're too political. No country should have a veto, including the U.S.
As a leader of the free world we Americans are obligated to help our fellow man.
The UN is not too "political" the majority of the countries there are not democratic. Specifically there are so many radical Islamic countries that Israel gets blamed simply for wanting to survive.
There is no denying it, we are at odds with this force of nature, radical Islam, and time is not on our side. Every year that goes by we are more dependent and weaker, and they get more education, technology and get stronger. And we continue to let them move to and reproduce in the West.
A doctor could explain this epidemic very easily. That still is not a mandate for useless or suicidal action.
Look at a map of the world. Check where in that big geography the oil is. What a coincidence the "terrorists" are in exactly the same places. We invaded and occupied for six years the third largest oil reserve in the world. We are constantly threatening the second largest oil reserve in the world, and we invaded and occupied for eight years the country that has been needed to transport Caspian oil to a warm water port, for decades.
Sure there is such a thing as terror vs. civilization, but "terrorism" and the "war on terror" has more importantly been used as an excuse to garner public support for policies that would never otherwise fly, i.e. soldiers aren't going to be too happy dying over oil reserves or pipelines, and neither are their friends, family, or public in general.
Marilyn and Erik, how about helping your fellow man by expecting other countries to step up? You're wanting to send American troops for ALL human rights violations? So the lives of our military are to be spent protecting the world?
I want everyone to step up. But are you insinuating that if China and Russia think its OK that human rights are being violated that we should side with them and allow it?
And yes, I want to send U.S. troops wherever there is genocide taking place. We should have been in Rwanda years ago. Now we should be in Sudan and Darfur, too.
If you don't feel the same way, then I feel sorry for you.
In a perfect world, the U.N. would have an autonomous police force that only answered to the Inspector General. How would you like to have several people (countries in the case of the U.N.) decide whether or not you need assistance when you call 911? The U.N. is a joke and someone needs to step up until we have another viable option.
Do I think human rights violations are ok? I'm surprised you would ask that. That's a no brainer.
Here is what I was trying to add ...
I have wondered if we could air-drop thousands of mass-produced solar powered laptop computers, red, white and blue, that carried inside them some games, educational tools, some hopeful propaganda messages about what the rest of the world is like and what the US and the West is trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and we just pulled back and did not prosecute the war so aggressively and just supported the Afghan government in the field if the subversive idea of these fun toys would have an effect on the next generations? And we should airdrop food, that is coded red, white and blue. We cannot develop a relationship in public with people who are too terrorized by their neighbors to even talk to Americans, maybe we could do it in private.
And before you say it: Yes, I know that not imposing conditions on the above, we might be helping those who hate us. But I think such efforts would do lots more to "win the hearts and minds" of the Afghanis.
The Taliban just come in and threaten of kill those who would use those services or work to maintain them. It is too expensive.
We have to look at a new style of war. Our paradigm is not sensible. For example we build a billion dollar bomber that we cannot afford to send into actual combat and whose lifetime shorted by much cheaper countermeasures.
Giving stuff with no conditions is great, it just has to the right stuff that cannot be subverted, otherwise we are funding the enemy.
I don't think you are taking into account the isolation of these people, how they hear only a little bit of information and are shaped more by what they live than what they hear. The Taliban is a low-tech totalitarian system that is perfect for this kind of place and easy to defeat a superpower. They have a permanent presence when we are by nature temporary. They can use any kind of force and do not have to worry about the world's or their citizen's opinions either.
We either have to outmatch their force, or find a way to last while we accomplish what we have to accomplish here.
The irony is that we are going to be there until Iran changes, so why not just attack Iran - if we judge we can win - and save the lives and money we will waste while waiting in the dump of Afghanistan? Time is not on our side here.
100,000 troops to do what? What was I proposing?
But, you gotta remember the "oldstyle male religious hierarchy" would be shooting back a few of their own (along with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers as well)........
If so, how?
I feel for the guy, I really do, Obama is in an impossible situation (albeit one of his own creation.) He always promoted the military effort in Afghanistan as the "right" war, the correct war, the war that was justified by the facts, the war that wasn't Bush's war, Iraq.
So what is he supposed to do now? All of the lead commanders in Afghanistan have been placed there by his own administration. Is he really going to disregard their recommendations?
Obama has no choice but to scale back, even at the risk of resignation by his commanders.
1) Karzai is corrupt, and enables corruption throughout Afghanistan
2) The election was corrupt, even the UN has admitted this fact
3) The Taliban have been resurgent for over a year now and the violence is escalating
4) We've been in Afghanistan eight long years, with very few tangible results
5) After eight years, there are approximately only 90,000 trained Afghan forces
6) The specter of mujaheddin defeating Soviet forces in the eighties cannot be ignored
If Obama spends his political capital on escalating the war in Afghanistan, he will lose the battle on healthcare reform. That's my prediction, because it seems rather apparent he doesn't have the juice to pull off both tasks successfully.
The hard left just won't let it happen, they want an "all or nothing" scenario, and they believe they have the votes to push their agenda through. These are hard core peacenik socialists, believing war is a barbaric hold over from our primal past, and that healthcare is a "right" just like life itself, like the divine right of liberty and the legal pursuit of happiness.
I don't pretend to know what Obama will do, as it pertains to sending more troops to Afghanistan or not, I'm only predicting what will happen to what is being called "healthcare reform," IF-- if Obama sends 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. Such an escalation changes the equation dramatically, nearly doubling the number of troops incountry.
In my opinion Obama has a choice, Afghanistan or healthcare reform; one or the other but he can't have both.
I believe Obama is going to opt for the "Biden plan." Revert to a counter terrorism position rather than a full blown counter insurgency.
If he's smart, he'll start a rather bold removal of troops rather than sending more men and women to a country where we have little chance of prevailing.
SOURCE -- jJack Midknight / Afghanistan or Healthcare: Which One Does Obama Want More
The Vietnam protestors were the baby killers, not Lyndon Johnson and our U.S. military men.
We need to have the intelligence to fight with our strengths and not get bogged down in a quagmire. We actually did fairly well in Iraq, but the permanence of that situation and the cost of it, in money and morale is questionable.
jJack, you are right, it is a tough call, but he knew that when he campaigned for the Presidency. He called Afghanistan "a good war" and vowed to do all that he could to win.
Now, he needs to lead and get the Congress and the country behind him. This is his chance to show us how good he really is.
PS Domestic social programs don't count when you have American troops fighting for their lives. If he makes his decision based on political considerations, like health care reform, and wastes the lives of those who have died, he' ll be a one term Nobel Peace Prize winner for sure.
I myself am a "hard core peacenik socialists" and I approve of our efforts to defeat alQueda (and the Taliban), in Afghanistan and anywhere else they're lurking. And liberty and the "legal pursuit of happiness" were declared to be "divine right[s]" in 1776 for the first time. The right to pursue happiness includes being healthy enough to do so IMHO. And liberty doesn't mean much when you're not free from having to watch your loved ones suffer and/or die because they (or you) don't have enough money to keep them from doing so.
BTW I think it shows a lot of gall to use an article you wrote as a source when you're trying to make an argument. A better approach is to quote others' articles and refer the reader to your own writings for more information about your grounds for the opinions you express.
I'm predicting Obama WILL be a one term president, as there are FAR TOO MANY intractable problems for him to solve and he's trying to solve them all. It can't be done, and he should have known it.
As you state, he campaigned with specific "promises" (like all politicians I suppose,) he should stand by those campaign convictions and do his best to fulfill them.
This is not to suggest he cannot change with evolving circumstances, SUCH AS IN AFGHANISTAN ! ! !
Bring our boys home NOW, because the FACT is, he probably isn't going to offer up the kind of support REQUIRED from the CiC to get the job done.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner should seriously consider sending over the 40,000 or whatever new troops and then turning and attacking Iran with the goal of removing the religious government leaders. Or if we could get the to fight the Saudis ... problem with that is what do we use for oil in the meantime?
Ever since we saw fit to unbalance the teeter-totter over there Iran has been champing at the bit to take over a leadership role of the terrorist nation. Iran is at the root of all the world's major problems right now, and they are convinced we will die as country before we do anything about it.
Hell, maybe there are right, maybe there is nothing we can do?
We knock over Iraq and it hits Afghanistan, which then knocks over Pakistan, which then topples over Iran....etc.......
We signed the SEATO Treaty in 1954 and promised to protect soverign countries in Southeast Asia. The South Vietnamese asked for our assistance.
Those who protested the Vietnam War in the 1960's and forced Nixon to withdraw our troops are the real baby killers.
But he had one big problem. The Caspian Basin was landlocked and the problem was getting the oil out. To the east lay thousands of miles through China. To the north was Siberia and to the west was the route that was actually set up involving a long pipeline through breakaway Russian provinces and eventually into Turkey.
The ideal and shortest route lay to the south, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The Taliban, which controlled 97% of Afghanistan by 2001 was too fragmented and unreliable to deal with in this respect. The attacks on 9/11 presented the perfect solution, or so it then appeared.
The pipeline may not have been the main reason for the war but it sure as hell gave Cheney an added motive to push for it.
One thing to consider is all the oil we find has an associated amount of CO2 that comes with it if we burn it, and we are already creating some hellish problems with what we have out there already.
This thing certainly has an oil/energy component to it, but oil pipelines are almost impossible to defend and infinitely expensive ... I just do not see it.
Aren't you getting a warm fuzzy all over knowing this chick is engaged in battle for your honor ??? *double chuckle*
The mission started out to get OBL and Al Q, Now the Talaban is the enemy and it is called the Afgan/Pakistan war. Seems we might want to be told the truth about the mission. I have heard some calling it the Middle East War now. More expansion?
Years from now the history books with call these wars, "The Oil Wars" In my opinion
With all due respect, there's no oil in Afghanistan. And if you're suggesting the war is being waged to build a pipeline so we can transport the oil, that's ludicrous.
The Taliban is like a cancer and it needs to be surgically removed before it grows. Its that simple. Tolerating the Taliban is like tolerating the Nazis. Its unacceptable.
a) The Taliban were our friends when it suited us.
b) A UNOCAL consultant now runs Kabul. Do you figure that's just a coincidence?
Proves how uninformed you are--- there is more than one "natural resource" to steal *chuckle*
You brought up a subject I with which I'm not familiar. What other natural resources are abundant in Afghanistan? I must look that up.
When I look at the number of lives lost, maimed human beings, destruction of civilization, loss of treasure and the emotional toll I see absolutely nothing that is worth the toll we've paid.
I have a problem with people who are selfish and all they care about is themselves. There's a social and moral disconnect to not care about your fellow man.
Caring about your fellow man includes not littering countries you invade and occupy with depleted uranium that will cause birth defects and cancer for half a million years. But I suppose those people don't count as "your fellow man" because they aren't Americans, right?
Which war is illegal, the one where we freed the Iraqi people or the one where we're trying to free people from the brutal Taliban.
I admire people who travel half-way around the world to save whales or save the Rain Forest. Yet I despise people who are so selfish they don't want to end peoples' suffering under the yoke of tyrrany.
I can't understand how any can lack such a conscience as to stand by and watch a whole people being brutalized and not want to end it.
Democrats want to waste money by having the government run health care when the government has already proven that they can't run anything and the Republicans don't want to pay for anything.
I think insurance needs to stay in the private industry. And we can pay for health care if we legalized sports betting. Every convenient store should allow betting on Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NHL and eveing boxing and MMA. Ten times more money is bet illegally on sports than legally on the lotteries. We could completely fund health care if we legalized sports gambling and took the 10% juice that bookies get.
Have you got any answers other than calling the insurance companies "tyrranical"?
BTW, there's no company more tyrranical than Wal-Mart. A 12-pack of soda is now almost $5.00 when you can get the same 12-pack at a convenient store for $3.00. It's because Wal-Mart has eliminated their competition and they can raise their prices now. If the government allowed health insurance across state lines, like auto insurance, you would see more competitive pricing for health care.
Both of them are and were illegal acording to our laws. Neither country attacked us. BTW the mission in Afghanistan was not to overthrow the Taliban, it was supposed to be to get OBL. That mission changed after getting him was a bust.
Pre-emptive war is illegal by international law, except in cases such as troops massing on borders.
Something can be illegal, but still be the right thing to do. I was personally saw tens of thousands of refugees fleeing into refugee camps near the Turkish border. It broke my heart to see their faces. The Kurds were brutalized under Sadam Hussein. It still haunts me today.
The only thing worse than war is genocide and slavery. And to end the threat of genocide or slavery are the only reasons for going to war, in my opinion. I believe that genocide and slavery are taking place in Afghanistan and we need to stop it.
In fact, if I had lived during the American Revolution, I probably would have stayed a loyalist. The American Revolution was fought over taxes.
The Europeans sure don't, they be squirming in their seats if they did-- they fear the US population might wonder why they don't have to defend themselves, why it is OUR job to defend Europe.
Seriously, the ONLY THING that could stop ANY INVASION of Europe, is USA troops, because as you so glibly point out-- no one else has an effective military ready to flight an extended, globalized war.
For better or worse our leaders (and I would suggest most of our citizens) have, and still do believe in the idea of American exceptionalism, of American DUTY as the beacon of liberty in the world, to undertake missions around the world NO ONE ELSE CAN DO ! ! !
In fact, if I had lived during the American Revolution, I probably would have stayed a loyalist. The American Revolution was fought over taxes.
That's all anyone needs to know about your contempt for the American way of life.
If we stay, the same thing happens, only our people are caught in the middle.
A lot of Pakistanis are not interested in the Taliban, they are interested in Sufism, which is just about the polar opposite of fundamentalism.
Sufi's dance, and the Taliban don't. Who would you rather have in your town?
A lot of Pakistanis don't want to put up with the Taliban, so they left Swat until the Pakistani army got irritated enough to swat the Taliban.
Obama can declare Afghanistan's neighbors as now being in charge of helping Afghanistan (more convenient since there's some language and culture in common). He can announce the obvious, that Pakistan has a lot more interest in having a stable neighbor than in having noisy neighbors shooting it out.
In other words, he can declare we've done what we can.
We have Afghani grapestock carefully tended in California, and when there is enough peace, we'll send some native plants back.
We need to bring our people home to help us deal with our own troubles.
That's pretty obvious to the rest of the world and even to our own people.
Our so-called leaders seem to get it last, after they've burned through piles of money and lives.
If the druglords were to shoot it out with the Taliban, they'd probably be the ones left standing. The druglords have been running the country for a long time, and will continue to do so no matter what we or the Taliban do.
Do you realize that under the rule of the Taliban, a woman cannot have sunlight touch her face? Did you know if she gets caught in public with an unrelated man she can be put to death?
Are you serious when you talk about saving grapes, but not the people who grow them? That's more than a little odd.
I think it is time to line up the Congress and have a roll call vote on whether we stay or go, with the understanding that if they vote to stay, we will do what is necessary to win. If we vote to go, then those Senators and Representatives own whatever consequences result from that decision.
Then it will be the President's turn to sign or veto the recommendation of Congress. He is inexperienced in warfare, so this will put him on record with the American people and the world on whether he chooses to fight to win or cut and run.
I don't fear either of those two alternatives, because we will either give our troops a commitment to win, or bring them home to fight another day. What I do fear is another politicized "LBJ" war like Vietnam where our troops are sacrificed for politics and return home without honor.
It is time to stop the B.S. on the Sunday news shows and get a "fight to win" or a "cut and run" vote from Congress an the White House.
This is the problem with the American dialogue on this. It's framed as "fight to win" (where there is, in actuality, no winning) or it's characterized as "cut and run," which is just a slogan as evidenced by the rarity in which we hear that Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon.
You sound like Neville Chamberlain. Did we defeat the Nazis? Who's worse, the Nazis or the Taliban? And we lost many more men fighting the Nazis than the Taliban.
On the other hand, you are advocating a position without explaining the risks of a Taliban-Al Qaeda victory in Afghanistan, including their access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Your line about "no enemy headquarters" sounds good, but there is a price to pay, whether we stay or leave.
Just be honest about what you are advocating, and spare us the pretty words.
A surgical strike to root out and capture or kill OBL and other Taliban and alQueda leaders still makes more sense than adding more American troops. We sent soldiers when the situation called for police.
But if you try to talk to Americans about this , they have no particular expertise in general and will not weight things the same as people who are in the military, government or industry.
Of course all of these experts always think they know better, and act like it as well But sometimes they do. What about world war 2? It would have been much much less bloody and terrible all around if we had gotten involved way earlier.
The Taliban is a governing body. They rule particular areas through intimidation and terrorism.
Would you have been opposed to our American Civil War in the 1860's? People made the same argument that the war was illegal and the objectives were very similar. Women are slaves in many areas in Afghanistan and as a women I would think you would want to support the effort.
Even Code Pink is re-thinking their position on the war in Afghanistan because of what is happening to women over there.
Are we to assume that in addition to discussions with his only military leaders the Obama administration is also discussing this with NATO
Here is a link to the NATO site.
I have mixed feelings about all this. Especially since, for a while, before Iraq, Afghanistan was stabilized and being rebuilt.
It is to easy to say the Taliban is somewhat primitive and therfore should be easy to defeat, but I agree with someone in the thread who mentioned that the U.S.A. is not prepared to use the extreme brutality that would requrie and that might not work anyway.
My preference, leave.
We cannot even provide humanitarian support, since aid workers were being murdered after the Bush withdrawal.
We send financial aid to Pakistan, much of it seems to end up in the Swiss bank accounts.
Pakistan is so politically unstable that without the Taliban/Afghanistan problems, they would very likely become active on the India Kashmir border, fighting with India seems to provide stability to whatever corrupt regime is running Pakistan.
So, domino? or rely on Pakistan to maintain stability in their nation.
The military. futility of the Vietnam war was a direct result of the corruption of the South Vietnam Government.
So here we have two corrupt governments, Afghanistan & Pakistan. Remember, about 1 1/2 years ago, it was suggested that officials in Pakistan were aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We can say this is not a war against the Afghanistan people, we failed at capturing Bin Laden, and get out.
I may be uninformed, but I don't see that the Afghanistan people are behind the U.S./NATO occupation.
I don't think U.S.A. lives and tons of money is worth "saving face."
I don't regret that President Obama tried the increase in troops. I don't think very many of us want to pile in more.
Another ref. map with a proposed oil pipeline through
Afghanistan/Pakistan, interestingly, east of the Iran border.
Proposed Pipeline
That is a real first on Gather for us to agree on anything. Our agreement may show that Americans are willing to look honestly at this war, without partisanship or ideology, and do what is best for our troops and the country.
Because it may turn out that the value of what we are doing is just as a holding action until something more important transpires to change things.
In many cases in the present day it is better to grasp the bull by the horns and attack than it is to wait and lured into a time and place of your enemy's choice.
It's hard to really say anything unconditionally without considering as many alternatives as you can.
I think Americans are agree, if things are presented the right way. Meaning that the partisans in the media are almost ensuring that no real discussion takes place over this because their owners do not want to have to justify themselves.
The problem is that there is not really enough of a crisis so that the government should have be able to explain what our agenda, that we are asking some people to die for it.
But it is hard to find a common language for discussion, just say the wrong word or a pattern someone else has heard before and assoiated with something they feel strongly about, right or left and there goes any hope of talking.
Then there is context too. Like oil. Some people think if oil is involved in anything that we are evil and wrong.
Outside threats tend to unify peoples of a culture or nation. Islam has a long history of unifying against outside threats from the West. We are playing right into that history to the great advantage of Al Qaeda.
You and I agree on the need to reevaluate.
I just do not see the country as being a massive threat to the American or European way of life.
I suggest it is time for them to decide their own style of living. Sounds to me like bandit tribes have always lived their and have kept the people of Afghanastan isolated. It is time we realize not everyone can be recued or modernized. In fact it is one less market to compete against.
Why would you think that, and what would lead you to think that.
Over and over it has been proven, or shown by experience that countries where women have more rights, and education, have lower birth rates, better economic development, more rule of law ... lots of things get better when women are empowered to live their own lives. To somehow try to blemish that idea by calling it "western style rights" ... well, maybe I don't get your point.
The main subject for discussion, When did the Taliban, Afghanistan, or Pakistan attack the United States?
Second question, Exactly what is the threat to our nation?
Third question, Is occupying Afghanistan (or Iraq) in the national interest.
I'm in favor of "nation building" and I can't believe more people aren't. There is nothing I want more than world peace. But before we can have world peace, everyone on the planet needs to be free from tyrrany and enjoy basic human rights.
I know. I think LBJ said, "Tyranny unopposed is a contageous disease." Or words to that affect. Radical Islamic beliefs spread like cancer and we need to surgically remove it before it comes to our continent.
People are too politically correct to point out that Islamic Fundamentalism is the problem in Sudan and Darfur. You shouldn't hate people because of who they are. But I don't see any reason with hating people for what they believe. And I don't mean hating liberals or conservatives. But we should all hate anyone who thinks its alright to stone a woman because she was raped.
beliefs like that need to be eradicated. And I've said before that I'm in favor of nation building. That means education, health care, hope and opportunities.
So what you are saying is that the United States should play doctor and remove all the ills of the world with bullets and bayonets?
That is not what the United States is all about. Our constitution establishes a military only for National Defence. It takes longer but the life style and freedoms we have here will spread of their own accord. With the new communications available those free ideas will travel a lot faster without killing several billion Muslims.
There was one "B" you left out, Colonel......"Blood".........
For instance the girl who was stoned to death for getting raped. In their culture that was the right thing to do. In ours it was horendous. You can't change a culture with a bomb. It takes influence in the society and learning. When you invade or force people you only create enemy soldiers.
You'll know when you have gone senile when you start to accept this kind of logic as true. There are some things that are non-negotiable, and people who do not notice that, or stand up for it drag everyone else down.
They aren't fighting the Taliban and they aren't fighting Al-Qaeda, per se.
They're fighting freedom fighters, people like you and I, who would fight to the bitter end to prevent foreign forces from occupying and controlling their lands, just like you and I would fight right here in the US if Afghan forces were here occupying our lands.
It's very difficult if not impossible to win a war against freedom fighters. Ask the British. Look at S. Africa. Columbia, who has been fighting FARC for many, many years. Freedom fighters almost always win against occupying troops, even occupying American troops.
They say the Afghan is backward and ill equiped but they whiped the whole Russian Army and no nation has been able to beat them. We woln't either as long as they are fighting for their home land.
"They're fighting freedom fighters, people like you and I, who would fight to the bitter end to prevent foreign forces from occupying and controlling their lands, just like you and I would fight right here in the US if Afghan forces were here occupying our lands."
As someone who has served my country in war, I certainly don't take it lightly.
I have a problem with people who are selfish and all they care about is themselves. There's a social and moral disconnect to not care about your fellow man.
Who supposedly cares for people enough to bomb them all into submission, collateral damage be damned ...
Others who want to "take the gloves off" and be as brutal and fiendish as they are as if making the entire world fearful of us will solve all terrorist (freedom fighter) problems ...
Besides, it IS all about OIL (the greed involved and world control ambitions).
The fact is the 20%+ increase in troops in Iraq may have had the least effect on the results of several other possibilities.
The arming and paying of approximately 100,000 Sunnis to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq was extremely effective. That type of opportunity does not appear to be available in Afghanistan.
Secondly, Iran's pledge to provide more control of its border with Iraq as well as promising other positive steps appeared at the time to have had a significant impact on the improved conditions. In fact, the improvement was originally credited to Iran by both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker until the Bush administration apparently put a muzzle on the situation.
And thirdly, the cease fire entered into by the major Shiite faction in the Baghdad area also contributed greatly to the reduction in terrorist attacks and the eventual drop in U.S. casualties.
These factors and others came together at about the same time to result in what might have been an exaggerated degree of credit for the "surge," thus seeming to take those who created the fiasco, in the first place, somewhat off the hook, so to speak.
There does not appear to be any such combination of factors providing a positive impact on the situation in Afghanistan. In fact, all of the direct and extraneous influences seem to be negative, including the tide of the war itself, the local political situation, public opinion within Afghanistan, and international support.
Reality is ugly and playing the current political games DC is doing DOES endanger our people. We have to post smaller numbers of men to do the assorted missions of security,sweeps, and rebuilding making it more likely they will get hit. Until the President orders a stand down or return to the States, the mission is still ongoing. Stinting on the number of troops is willful ignorance of tactics and the situation over there. Consider the fact that most NATO non US/UK/Canadian troops are non combatants, the number may have increased but most are nothing more than capable (or willing) to do more than defend themselves. Those same men increase the logistics problems while adding little to the tactical solutions.
Using Katie Couric as an authority on what constitutes Taliban control and over how large a part of the nation is silly. The mass media has been wrong time and time again on both Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact the Taliban can move through much of the country does not mean anywhere near the definition of control. Facts like the Taliban having to force men and boys into their ranks does not argue they are riding any perceived wave of success either. The ICOS is an organization I'd never heard of before and given the shallowness of it's web site, one I'd take facts from with a grain of salt. For instance there is no explanation of what constitutes the heavy activity it colors its maps with. Some numbers would be useful with year comparisons.
Levin is another of those congressional "experts" who thinks by declaring it shall happen, it will. One of many things learned in Iraq is that increasing numbers of local troops means the potential of infiltration of the opposition into the defenders own ranks. Its a slow process, speeding it by just enlarging the numbers enlisted makes a nice paper figure but adds more uncertainty into the tactical picture. The effectiveness of the Afghani National Army and police forces varies from unit to unit and much of its effectiveness is based on how we are perceived. If it looks like we intend to fight it out as in Iraq, the troops are more inclined to fight thinking to be on the winning side. If the political direction from DC becomes more mixed as it is doing lately, morale in those same units suffers as does our own people's resentments. Ask many of those vets from Iraq what they thought of the congressional bickering while Iraq was tottering a few years ago. Extrapolate that to our enemy.
And vets, as much as we appreciate what they've been involved in, may not be the ultimate source for political conclusions. As a group, they are physically and mentally conditioned for what they are or have been facing. The mental conditioning does not include a chapter on free thinking. It didn't when I was in the Korean conflict and it doesn't today.