One of the best of writers and observers of the war in Afghanistan, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, writes:
"The coming battle for control of this ancient crossroad city [Kandahar] will be the toughest challenge of the war in Afghanistan - not because it will be bloody, necessarily, but because it will require the hardest item for U. S. commanders to deliver, which is an improvement in governance."
Question: Are we to ask GIs to lay down their lives for "an improvement in governance?" Is this kind of war necessary? After eight years of trying?
I was "a hard charger" on the war in Vietnam. In fact, the motion for the last $500 million that went into the Vietnam War was made by me on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I thought the Vietnamese were willing to fight and die for democracy. Some were, but a lot more were willing to give up their lives over ten years for communism. Now I have learned that people want other types of government other than democracy. I've been to Hanoi; visited John McCain's prison, and the people of Vietnam are happy.
In 1966, I was off shore Hanoi on the aircraft carrier, Kitty Hawk - as our brave pilots bombed POL supplies in Hanoi, only to precariously land back on the carrier and be court-martialed if they strayed to other targets. I felt the strategy of "build and destroy" at the same time was wrong. In World War II we cleared the area and kept it cleared. In Vietnam, we cleared the area in the daytime and let the Viet Cong come in at night. Are we to spend another eight years force feeding democracy in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan didn't start the war on terror. Sixteen of the nineteen that attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden escaped Afghanistan with his supporters within weeks to Pakistan. We didn't make war with Pakistan. The drones fired on targets in Pakistan created more terrorists than they eliminated. Pakistan now puts on a show on the Afghanistan border for United States military and domestic aid. But Pakistan doesn't trust the United States because we are better friends with India. The one thing we learned in Charlie Wilson's War is that Afghans don't like or trust foreigners. President Karzai in the morning news is campaigning against the UN and all foreigners because he knows this makes him popular with the Afghans.
I don't know where we got the idea that Afghans want a democracy. I helped liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, sixty-seven years ago, and they have yet to opt for democracy. In the Muslim world, more important than freedom and democracy is tribe and religion. I don't think we can teach the warlords in Afghanistan to stop growing poppies and start growing wheat. In fact, the recent headlines indicate we've already given up on "stop growing poppies." Victory in Afghanistan, at best, will be a warlord narco-democracy with a corrupt president.
General McCrystal is a brave soldier with a flawed strategy. He has fine-tuned the policy of "build and destroy," to kill and make friends - all in countries where you can't tell who is the enemy. Marines are taught to fight and kill, not occupy.
Afghanistan and Pakistan were getting along well until the U. S. came along with our "war on terror." Neither country inflicted terror on the United States, and the peoples of both were enjoying a culture different than democracy. After eight years of putting their countries in turmoil with thousands of their neighbors killed, they resent and resist the foreign attempt to change their way of life.
A poll in both countries would show that they wished the U. S. "be gone." Our allies in Afghanistan have put us on notice that they're pulling out - Afghanistan is not necessary. With the President of Afghanistan campaigning against us, it is time we learn that Afghanistan is not necessary - that it's necessary to "be gone."
Learn about Senator Hollings and read more of his commentary at www.CitizensForACompetitiveAmerica.com.
Josh Mull: Humanity Missing From Afghanistan Debate
Respect for Afghans is sorely lacking on all sides of the Afghanistan debate. It's 2010, nine years into the war, and we're still talking about Afghanistan in orientalist terms. We don't want to think about them as human. This has to change now.
So we can correctly declare victory and start leaving. Maybe protecting the air bases or key area's for a few years, but with far fewer troops, and saving many billions.
I know Obama does not want to be labeled losing Afganistan, but if so it was lost years ago. It was badly handled except for the few months when our CIA killed many of the dangerous extremists. Taking over the entire country was even more dumb than what the Soviets did. At least they were close to it, it was somewhat relevant to them. To us it's very far away, incredibly expensive to try to take care of, and with corrupt and likely unreliable allies in the government.
We should leave as soon as possible, especially if the government is turning against us.
This is fallacious argument.
You're placing the proverbial cart in front of the horse.
Afghanistan business has been seriously mismanaged by Bush, and certainly it is harder to fix something once it is neglected. But Afghanistan occupation is manageable. We' re dealing with fairly small number of insurgents and far too few Western forces qualified and experienced in the ko9utna fight/ Afpak region needs more special ops forces and better cooperation with Russians dn Pakistanis. Both processes are on the way.
Same as in Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, and next, Iran? Why must we impose our Hollywood, "fizzy drinks", disgusting sausages, and sickly (corn) sweetened confectionery on other people, who have their own, locally-produced delicacies, and entertainment of their own choosing?
U.N. Security Council Resolutions
1267-"demands the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden, poses a series sanctions against Taliban-controlled territory.
Still waiting...
1333- "Repeats demand that the Taliban turn over bin Laden and imposes further measures on their territory pending concurrence with the demand."
Still waiting...
1386- "Determining that the situation in Afghanistan constitutes a threat to international peace and security, Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfill its mandate."
U.N. Security Resolution 1386 has not been fulfilled. Yet. Mainly due to Bush failures.
When the resolution is fulfilled, all NATO troops should leave.
today are either making money from the military operations there, or are cowards without a day in uniform, like Cheney.
The author sets up his argument by asking a question of marginal merit, and then proceeds to answer it to his own satisfaction. It's an rhetorical device of dubious benefit.
One would hope that this extremely serious strategic matter would attract opinions founded on thoughtful and coherent analysis. Hope springs eternal.
No.
NATO forces went into Afghanistan for multiplicity of reasons. To name a few:
1.To fulfill U.N. mandate and remove the government which protected and collaborated with a terrorist groups who are a direct and explicit threat to global security.
2. To provide security and allow non-Taliban Afghans and international organizations to build Afghan infrastructure.
3. To prevent Taliban, Al Qaeda and multitude of otehr extremist Islamic militants from re-taking control of Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan too.
Leaving Afghanistan and Pakistan region to tender mercies of Afpak Taliban and the chaos of various Jihadist militants is out of question.
The West betrayed Afghanistan in the 90s to warlords.. And it seems that gentlemen who were running that policy then , even now refuse to take responsibility for that betrayal. Doesn't ,Senator?
We owe Afghans not to do it again.
Rethink your position.
Do the Afghans "yearning to be free" not have access to weapons? It seems we are far more interested in their "freedom" (as we define the word) that they themselves are. Why to we send our young men to die in foreign wars for people that do not want us there?
It is our ends we serve, not that of Afghans. We bring to Afghanistan what we want them to have not what they themselves want.
I'm wrong? Put it to a poll. "Do you want the Americans to leave Afghanistan?"
That is exactly what English and French believed 100 years ago.
This is Mr. Obama's war. He campaigned to escalate it and he did! It is a loser and will only get worse. I have to laugh at the Dems who disparaged Bush without mercy for thinking that there could ever be a stable political base in Iraq... well, it happened and now the Obama Administration want to take credit for the success in Iraq while hoping the continuing failure in Afghanistan will be ignored.
BUT IRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN!
The main stream media is helping to keep the lid on Afghanistan problems beacuse of their fealty for Obama... but that swamp of corruption and lawlessness will take untold thousands of more American and civilian lives and eventually they will have to report the truth.
Obama has killed more people with Drones in one year than Bush did in 8 years. Civilian casulties are no longer an issued with the press or the Left.. hmmm I wonder why??
meanwhile Code Pink protests Carl Rove... yup.. that is right on target...
The population there is approx 25 million people. If only 10% of the population want to fight against the U.S. then we will be facing 2.5 million fighters.
Maybe we think 5% will fight....that is 1.25 million fighters.
Do the math....it doesn't add up.
Any country that can’t win a struggle with the full force of the U.S. military on their side is not committed to winning.
Our goals, no matter how laudable we may consider them to be, are not necessarily consistent with those of other nations and other peoples. Our fantasies and desires are not automatically their goals.
You can’t win a war on foreign soil if the populous is sympathetic to your enemies or ambivalent about your goals (unless you are willing to eliminate all resistance as did the Nazis, which we are not). If you want to help them get what they want, that is one thing. If you want to help them get want you want, that is quite an another thing.
You won’t get the support of population if you kill innocent people, no matter if you consider those deaths to be “collateral damage” and unavoidable. Your “collateral damage” is their mother, father, sister or brother. If you can’t prosecute the war without killing indigenous noncombatants, you can’t win.
I always thought there was one positive result of the Viet Nam war, “At least we learned a lesson and won’t do that again”. It turns out we didn’t even learn that simple lesson.
Not any more. It must be hard to represent the U.S. military abroad today, outside of (and within) the "war fronts".
A recent blog article by the entertainer, Sting, advocated for the decriminalization of drugs (substituting drug treatment in its place). If there wasn't a "war on drugs," the Poppy culture of Afghanistan would change for the better.
Now which is harder to do? Leaving Afghanistan or legalizing drugs?