Reply With Quote
why don't we pay them not to kill us and call it a surge?
http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html
Obama's War
Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.
The triumph was total in the "splendid little war" that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.
So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before any Taliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.
With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?
How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?
We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were five years ago.
What are the long-term prospects for any such success?
Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.
Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.
U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan have inflamed the population there.
And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?
The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage.
Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundred of vehicles destroyed.
Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a "sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is ... nobody knows."
Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban.
But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god, democracy?
McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better. Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. "(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. ... The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years."
That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, "a long, hard slog."
America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure, indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.
What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaida depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?
What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S. troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year's offensive?
Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.
Would Dwight D. Eisenhower — who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage — commit his country to such an open-ended war? Would Richard Nixon? Would Ronald Reagan?
Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?
why don't we pay them not to kill us and call it a surge?
Instead of making fun, why not try taking it seriously for a second. It's a war. Our blood and treasure and national prestige are on the line.
Do we have a strategy? Are the objectives, supposing they are clear at all, achievable? Can we commit the resources necessary to do the job?
Just like Bush with the Iraq war, Obama seems to be waging war on the fly. Reconstruction has already failed, we don't have enough troops to beat the Taliban, the Afghans hate us, and the national interest in fighting this war now is totally murky.
WTF do we, the USA, stand to gain in Afghanistan besides another egregiously expensive fiasco, more dead troops and another hit to our national honor?
I would suggest -- like the NATO commanders and our own generals and secdef -- that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Our supply lines are threatened, our allies are dropping like flies, Kabul is encircled, and our enemies can convalesce and regroup more or less undisturbed in Pakistan. At best, a surge there portends only a slightly better bargaining position to make a deal with the Taliban. The alternative is a more or less endless occupation.
i'm not laughing. wait until we stop paying them not to kill us in iraq. , maliki just arrested 23 people in his own cabinet for conspiring to rebuild the Baath party. if it won't work in iraq, it certainly won't work in afghanistan.
strategy? objectives? when you grow tired of using 600K dollar smart bombs to blow up mud huts, you find a way to acquire more lucrative targets. (iraq)Do we have a strategy? Are the objectives, supposing they are clear at all, achievable? Can we commit the resources necessary to do the job?
you are giving obama too much credit for starting this . why are you doing that?Just like Bush with the Iraq war, Obama seems to be waging war on the fly.
what do you want the guy that's not even president yet to do?Reconstruction has already failed, we don't have enough troops to beat the Taliban, the Afghans hate us, and the national interest in fighting this war now is totally murky.
all that's left of our national honor is the fact the world gives us kudos for electing a smart guy. can't you at least wait until jan. 21 to grade him?WTF do we, the USA, stand to gain in Afghanistan besides another egregiously expensive fiasco, more dead troops and another hit to our national honor?
we've known this for years. the guy that ignored it is leaving office.I would suggest -- like the NATO commanders and our own generals and secdef -- that there is no military solution in Afghanistan.
are you feigning suprise or are you serious?Our supply lines are threatened, our allies are dropping like flies, Kabul is encircled, and our enemies can convalesce and regroup more or less undisturbed in Pakistan.
a troop or money surge is useless. it's a hole country. money doesn't mean jack to them. do you really think kabul has a chance?At best, a surge there portends only a slightly better bargaining position to make a deal with the Taliban. The alternative is a more or less endless occupation.
You mistake me. Obama's declared intention is to continue and expand this war. Without some clear strategic objective, I think this is a bad idea.
I assume he'll stand firm on what he's already said. Maybe I assume too much.
Just describing. You disagree?
In the short term, Awakening Council type payoffs could work, but this only kicks the can down the road.
Does Kabul have a chance? Possibly, if it can reach accomodation with the Taliban. Otherwise, Karzai is toast. Afghans hate his government even worse than they hate us.
karzai is toast when we leave.
taliban don't play any lasting "accommodations.
Why assume that we're leaving anytime soon? Sec'y Gates compared Afghanistan to Korea. Nearly 60 years later, we're still there.
should i assume we'll construct another "38th parallel"?
if you're going to compare it to korea, it's a fair question.
We spent all of that stuff in Iraq.Instead of making fun, why not try taking it seriously for a second. It's a war. Our blood and treasure and national prestige are on the line.
We're still spending it.
In Iraq.
And Afghanistan.
1/4 the amount spent in Iraq.
That's not chump change.
Compared to Iraq it is.
It's too bad we wasted all that money, life and international cooperation on Iraq -- but it's done.
why are we in Afghansitan again?
That's where the Islamic fundamentalists are. The only problem is they are in Pakistan too.
Afghan. is nothing like Iraq. The same tactics will not work.
and for the cheap heroin.
The money comes from Saudi Arabia, and so did the 9/11 hijackers. Why aren't we there? (Yeah, I know, oil.)
We'll never kill all of the fundamentalists, and we can't kill fundamentalism. Boots on the ground would seem to be the least effective, and costliest solution. We're playing whack a mole. They're always gonna pop up somewhere else.
They trained and plotted in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists would love to overthrow the House of Saud as well.
Someplace that's not Afghanistan would be a good start.We'll never kill all of the fundamentalists, and we can't kill fundamentalism. Boots on the ground would seem to be the least effective, and costliest solution. We're playing whack a mole. They're always gonna pop up somewhere else.
Mission accomplished. Al Qaeda's in Pakistan now. Should we start a war with them?
With them against fundamentalists?
Yes, that's what should have happened in 2003. Good thinking.
I don't disagree, but Pakistan's been our "key ally" all along. They don't have the nerve to take out Al Qaeda, or they would already have done it.
Eradicating fundamentalism in South Asia isn't realistic, no more than it would be here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
