Interchangeable Quagmires: Why Doesn't CAP Apply What It Wrote About Iraq To Afghanistan?

newshoggers.com:

It seems to me that you could make a case for all they said to be applicable to Afghanistan too, though. Yet again we have a multi-factional and violent scene; with national leaders jockeying for supremacy rather than working together while the U.S.-led occupation trains corrupt security forces with divided loyalties while insurgents sap American blood and treasure.

Read the whole story: newshoggers.com

Comments

[Palemoon]

You know, the Russians in 2009 are saying the exact same thing we were in 1989. That they were failing, the long occupation was doomed to fail. That eventually the insurgency would make the occupation too costly for the Russians to continue.

I think it's time to learn from history, because we are already repeating the long occupation, the failed economy in which our money value tumbled, along with regime change here at home that has opened us up to the rest of the world in a more friendly way.

Right now it feels like 1988.

[jeanrenoir]

It is incredibly dumb to compare the stupid Iraq War, fought by the neocons to "protect" Israel, to the war in Afghanistan. The neocons' folly in taking us to Iraq, and thus completely neglecting the Taliban and Bin Laden, may, indeed, have made Afghanistan unwinnable now, though we seem to have prevailed, with the Surge, even in Iraq. But if the neocons guaranteed that we would lose in Afghanistan, that will be an incredible national tragedy for us, because it will most likely mean the fall of Pakistan to the Taliban and Bin Laden too. And that will mean that Bin Laden will control Pakistan's hydrogen bombs, with no way whatsoever for us to do anything about that, since if we're too frightened to commit to a long war in Afghanistan, we'll be even more frightened of the much, much more difficult war we'd have to fight in Pakistan. If Bin Laden gets Pakistan's nukes, how in the world will we be able to stop him from vaporizing New York, since clearly delivery of the nukes to Manhattan would hardly require a missile. Why isn't this whole unfolding tragedy obvious to those who confuse what Obama has always rightly called "a war of necessity" (as important for our survival as World War II any day) with the greatest blunders in the history of American foreign policy: the wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq?

[Decipherer]

We did not invade and occupy Iraq on false pretenses and outright lies to protect Israel. The reason was far more psychologically pathological than that.

It was certainly neocon-fueled, but the call was made by George W. Bush to show his daddy that it could do something better than he did (since most neocons absolutely hated how Bush I handled the end of the Persian Gulf War, you may recall).

The neocons happily provided W all the pretext he needed for the invasion. That's pretty much it.

[Lauralics]

No, Clinton and his cronies provided all the reasons with numerous speeches on the dangers of Iraq and Saddam. We even ran a no-fly zone during that time period for billions of dollars, sort of like a big prison for Saddam where he was free to terrorize his people, trade on the black market and create more mass graves. The cherry on top of that strategy was numerous bases in Saudi Arabia which angered OBL as he considered the infidels had set up shop in the Holy Land! Bush Sr. should have removed Saddam, plain and simple, then we wouldn't have been in Saudi Arabia or spending billions of dollars on a moronic policy like the no-fly zone.

[thepoliticalcat]

Your comment is so full of misconceptions, I don't know where to start. Let's start with "prevailed, with the Surge, even in Iraq." What does "prevail" mean, in this context? We temporarily prevented a vicious and bloody civil war by the expedient of allowing the factions involved to kill American military instead of each other? We facilitated a violent ethnic cleansing? We assisted in the creation and walling off of ethnic and sectarian enclaves? Because that's what we achieved. We have now armed the various factions which, like Yugoslavia, were held together in a single nation under a ruthless and bloody-handed dictator who, nevertheless, managed to kill fewer of his people than us.

As for the war in Afghanistan, bin Laden is a smokescreen, and this "war" is not winnable. The Taliban are not our enemy, they are the accepted leaders of the insurgents. The real issue is nuclear weapons in a failed state. Pakistan is in the process of falling apart, and we continue to support a small, Western-educated elite against a majority of poor illiterates who are turning to violence and fundamentalism to right their wrongs.

[Lauralics]

The Taliban (of Afghanistan) fled into Pakistan in 2001, finding safe haven among like minded people as the Taliban already resides in Pakistan as well. Bush would have had to invade Pakistan in order to wipe out those that scattered, or had to become a dominant "occupier" along the border in order to play policeman for the Afghans. Instead NATO was placed in charge and we didn't try to rebuild their society for them as it's a money-pit. Yep, smaller elite forces were left in place at the border and "drone" hits became the strategy (the very same strategy Biden wants to go back too) and Obama is learning he can't "nation build" for Afghanistan either, coming to the same conclusions Bush did (that it was ridiculous to pour our money into a society that is tribal and that without Pakistan's help it would be a waste of our resources). Behold, that theory is right!

[Palemoon]

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have been a war. They've simply been occupations. You can win a war, but occupation doesn't have a win or lose option. With an occupation you simply have the yardstick of having a friendly installed government, or not.

[ancientmarinader]

Iraq was a war. Saddam lost. Then came the occupation.

[Palemoon]

Well, that's what I mean. Afghanistan was already won by the Northern Alliance. And we had long since won Iraq. Both have been occupations a good 7 and 6 years now respectively.

Now then, as I said, you can't really win an "occupation" in the same way you can win a war.

[jws2346]

Unbelievable how a position can change according to who's in power. I was kinda' hopin' our fearless lawmakers would get off their pious, hypocrite, behinds, realize they ain't runnin' everybody's business, offer to help, but not with our brave troops, clam up and do the job they were elected to do. You know, like help the United States of America. Nahh..., I was expecting too much

[Antifascist-08]

is the entire Pentagon budget for 2010 posted anywhere?

[Bloggerrogr]

It's classified. We, the taxpayers are not allowed to see it.

FWIW

[oldgeek1]

Respectfully they are both internal conflicts, with perhaps different factions but nevertheless internal.

We are engaged in nation building under the guise of a war on terrorism.

The bloated Neo Conservatives would rather see our kids die than admit that we are engaged in a futile effort and lose the political ability to paint Democrats as soft on Defense. We went through the same thing in Vietnam.

[Antifascist-08]

And iraq

[Bloggerrogr]

Iraq and Afghanistan are two different conflicts. Afghanistan was host to al Qaeda when it launched it's attack on the U.S. on 9/11. At that time, the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan. They did not like al Qaeda, sort of like the owner of a hotel does not like certain guests; but they were not causing trouble up until 2001.
Iraq, on the other hand, controlled vast oil reserves and access to the ports at Basra. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. from a military standpoint.

FWIW

[Antifascist-08]

Afghanistan did not attack us either.

Al Qaeda can do its dirty work anywhere they want.

Its time to declare victory and get out of this mess.

[ancientmarinader]

Afghanistan certainly did shelter Al Qaeda, even Bill Clinton bombed the camps there. The Taliban are not friendly moderate people and they were on the kooky radar even before 9/11.

[Richard729]

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Obama is making some bad decisions on Afghanistan. If we send too many troops, as General Stanely McChrystal has requested (around 60,000), then Obama risks escalating the numbers of casualties. If we send too few Obama will be criticize by people like John McCain who has all but ordered Obama to give the general whatever he wants.

Interestingly enough, General David Petraeus stated that given the size and population of Afghanistan we would need about 650,000 troops on the ground for years in order to stabilize that country.

Then, of course, there's the matter of corruption which is rife in Afghanistan including Hamid Karzai and his close relaives and advisers who are all on the take with the opium profits that the Taliban are using to buy weapons to kill U.S. troops and any opponents.

I wrote an article last week which I think sums up this quagmire.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24602

[Decipherer]

What "bad decisions" (plural) are you talking about? Please be specific, and don't include something about no withdrawing which any sane person can see is not an option at the moment.

Last time I checked, neither the high-profile Gen. McChrystal or everyone's favorite curmudgeon John McCain were elected president. If the general doesn't like or agree with what the president decides after taking his counsel, he can do the right thing and quit, along with keeping his mouth shut. No one should care anymore what McCain says, although he remains the darling of the Sunday morning gasbag shows. His judgment is so tarnished that it cannot be taken seriously.

Gen. Petraeus's prescription for the troop to guerilla ratio required to defeat an insurgency is a total non-starter -- there is no way we can afford much less obtain popular support for a deployment of 650,000 soldiers for an indefinite period of time, making Vietnam look like a picnic.

Afghanistan is a basket case and whether we are there or not, that fact remains. That decision to stay or go must rest first and foremost on a determination of our national interests in either action.

[research]

War is good for business.

War is the USA's largest business.

The USA spend more on war than the rest of the world combined.

Can you imagine what would happen if we stopped all our wars, and close most of our bases?

Massive unemployment and business bankruptcies

During this recession? You want that?

War is fear is easy to sell,

Stimulus for green energy that would make most of the war unnecessary, is harder to get citizens to support. And the War Profiteers have bought our governmnet.

So stop your whining and join Blackwater, be a real American.

Or you could send the one FRD like politicians we have:

Kucinich.

http://kucinich.us/

Imagine if all the individuals contributors money that has gone to the other "more viable" politicans, suddenly altered its course to someone who actually cares about us, and has the plans to we want: Kucinich?

[RTIII]

I think you meant FDR.
.

[research]

yes.

[Bloggerrogr]

Yes.
"Love is Hate" "Black is White" "War is Peace" - George Orwell, "1984"

In February of 1961, in his farewell address to the nation, Dwight Eisenhower warned of a "Military - Industrial Complex". We didn't listen.

FWIW

[Antifascist-08]

Bingo!

[plages]

We have a different feeling about US not listening. The so called upper echelon did hear what President Eisenhower spoke, and they went right out bought all available stocks in war products, because war is so profitable, and screw US, and our children!

[TheHandyman]

It was the military/i­ndustrial/­congressio­nal complex. Without Congress constantly approving these little police actions, and non-wars like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Nicarugua, Boliva, Agentina, Iraq, you name it and we've had something to do with it the defense industry would not be what it is today. We are not only the most aggressive country in the world when it comes to using force, we also sell our weapons of mass destruction to other countrries like Israel who want to attack their neighbors too!

And you are right, the People didn't listen because the People really like winning wars. What they abhor is losing them.