Interesting peace by Richard Cohen this morning. Like myself, Cohen is fairly liberal on social matters but generally a hawk on foreign policy. He certainly supported going into Afghanistan initially to crush the Taliban initially. But now he's starting to realize that there may be simply no point in leaving ground troops there to get shot at ad infinitum. As I've said, we can hit them from the air when necessary; but it doesn't seem like we're going to create a stable democracy in that country so quickly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/10/cutting_our_losses_in_afghanistan.html
Support for the war in Afghanistan is ebbing; it is opposed by the left and increasingly by the center and what it would really take to achieve victory -- smash the Taliban -- are troop levels that now seem out of the question. If leaks from the White House mean anything, President Obama will opt for a mini-surge, doomed to be called Surge Light, which would mean an additional 10,000 to 20,000 troops and not the 40,000 or more that Gen. Stanley McChrystal would like.
Trouble is, the middling amount is also the muddling amount. It is neither here nor there -- not enough to win but more than enough to run the risk of provoking the ire of the locals. It is a strategy designed to do nothing much but look like a strategy designed to do a great deal. It fools no one and will lead to either an escalation or a huge reduction in forces. It would be best to get to the latter option as soon as possible. After all, lives are at stake.
The president of Afghanistan is corrupt. He recently won a corrupt re-election. His brother is allegedly involved in the country's vast, illicit drug trade without which Afghanistan would hardly have an economy at all. The country is often compared to Iraq where, for the time being, a surge did work. But Iraq is different. It always had a middle class and, in just one telling statistic, a literacy rate of 74.1 percent. Afghanistan's is a dismal 28.1. If there were such a thing as the Fourth World, Afghanistan would be in it.
Sooner or later, truly evil people either get talk shows or killed by pilotless drones. The latter will be the fate of Osama bin Laden and his band of monsters -- and the sooner the better. The Taliban may well take over Afghanistan -- a calamity for women and girls, among others -- but not really more morally dismal than the U.S. standing by in 1991 as Saddam Hussein slaughtered Iraqi Shiites because it did not affect our national security. The real concern here is Pakistan and its nukes. Should any of them go loose, we may learn the hard way what really caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.
There are many good reasons to put as much as we can in Afghanistan. But America has been at war there since 2001, at war in Iraq since 2003, and like Britain between the World Wars, is out of both treasure and patience. Leave Afghanistan to the drones and the Special Forces. It's no way to win, but it's a good way not to lose.
So, I guess the question is: If liberals never supported the war in the first place or were in favor of withdrawal a long time ago, and hawks are becoming more ambivalent about the situation and are starting to call for withdrawal, and most of the rest of Americans are apathetic and not paying attention to Afghanistan in any case, why is President Obama so insistent in keeping the Afghanistan ground mission alive?
Is it because Afghanistan was the cornerstone of the "hawkish" component of his foreign policy during the campaign and he's reluctant to open himself to criticism for being soft on national security?
Originally posted by sh76Why did you choose not to believe those who warned that invading Afghanistan wouldn't end happily?
Like myself, Cohen [...] certainly supported going into Afghanistan initially to crush the Taliban initially. But now he's starting to realize that there may be simply no point in leaving ground troops there to get shot at ad infinitum. As I've said, we can hit them from the air when necessary; but it doesn't seem like we're going to create a stable democracy in that country so quickly.
Originally posted by FMFI don't think it matters whether it ends happily or not. Well, it matters, but that's not the main thing.
Why did you choose not to believe those who warned that invading Afghanistan wouldn't end happily?
We went into Afghanistan, because the country was run by a government that knowingly harbored the terrorist leaders who plotted to attack us on 9/11. The invasion was justified and arguably necessary. For a while, the Taliban had been crushed and the terrorist leaders who plotted 9/11 were forced to go on the run and we were basically kept safe from them for a decade. Would we have been hit again since 9/11 would we not have attacked the Taliban? I don't know. Neither do you. No one really knows, save perhaps for OBL, and he isn't giving honest interviews last I checked. What I do know is that the Afghan operation did meet temporary success and that AQ has not struck American soil since 9/11.
The fact that it may now pay to withdraw doesn't mean it was never a good idea to go in in the first place.
Originally posted by sh76If the reason to attack Afganistan was to remove the talibans, then the war was a failure. The talibans is still there. The mighty USA has lost the war. And it was lost all from the beginning.
I don't think it matters whether it ends happily or not. Well, it matters, but that's not the main thing.
We went into Afghanistan, because the country was run by a government that knowingly harbored the terrorist leaders who plotted to attack us on 9/11. The invasion was justified and arguably necessary. For a while, the Taliban had been crushed and the ter ...[text shortened]... may now pay to withdraw doesn't mean it was never a good idea to go in in the first place.
What USA should have done was to go in Afganistan, take bin Ladin, and get out again. No more.
Afganistan would have been ruled by talibans today, but, heck, they do that anyway.
Try to remove talibans from the surface of the world was impossible then, is impossible today, will always be impossible unless the moslem world wants the talibans to go away. And they will do that if they are not threattened by the west. They are, therfore the talibans will still be there.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf it was impossible from the start, how is it a "loss"? A "loss" is only a relevant concept when there were two possibilities at the outset of the event.
If the reason to attack Afganistan was to remove the talibans, then the war was a failure. The talibans is still there. The mighty USA has lost the war. And it was lost all from the beginning.
What USA should have done was to go in Afganistan, take bin Ladin, and get out again. No more.
Afganistan would have been ruled by talibans today, but, heck, ...[text shortened]... at if they are not threattened by the west. They are, therfore the talibans will still be there.
In any case, describing an operation like Afghanistan as a "loss" or a "win" is a gross oversimplification and a one-dimensional irrelevancy. If you start an operation with 100 goals and you achieve 99 of them, is that a loss? I'm not saying that we achieved 99% of our goals, but you can't look at this type of operation and sum it up as a "loss," no matter how much you love ragging on the United States.
What USA should have done was to go in Afganistan, take bin Ladin, and get out again
LOL. that's all, huh? Don't you think they tried to do that?
Originally posted by sh76Goal #1 - find capture bin Ladin. they faild. USA - bin Ladin 0-1
If it was impossible from the start, how is it a "loss"? A "loss" is only a relevant concept when there were two possibilities at the outset of the event.
In any case, describing an operation like Afghanistan as a "loss" or a "win" is a gross oversimplification and a one-dimensional irrelevancy. If you start an operation with 100 goals and you achieve 99 of ...[text shortened]... , and get out again"
LOL. that's all, huh? Don't you think they tried to do that?
Goal #2 - overthrow talibans. They are still there. USA - Talibans 0-1
Can you give me more goals?
I love ragging on USA? No way, how would the world look like without USA?
"Don't you think they tried to do that?" Yes, tried, and failed. They lost that goal.
Originally posted by FMFYes, by inserting the word "mainland" you neatly glossed over the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings. Nicely done.
How was it that Clinton kept mainland USA safe from 1993 to 2001 despite the Taliban being in power in Afghanistan?
But, in any case, it stands to reason that once they had the infrastructure to carry out the 9/11 attack, left to their own devices, they may very well have attacked again.
Let me turn it around to you: Do you think AQ intended 9/11 to be a one time deal? Their intent was "We're going to attack you for supporting Israel and stationing troops in our holy areas and being imperialists. But hey, after one attack, after which your behavior did not change one iota, we still think you've had enough. You've learned your lesson. Now have a nice eternity."?
Originally posted by sh76You yourself say that you are starting to realize that there may be simply no point in leaving ground troops there to get shot at ad infinitum.
If you start an operation with 100 goals and you achieve 99 of them, is that a loss? I'm not saying that we achieved 99% of our goals
The Taliban are resurgent.
You're talking about hitting "them from the air when necessary"
You concede that it doesn't seem like the USA's going to create a stable democracy in that country so quickly.
The one you installed was a crook who just won an election promising to legalize marital rape.
Run the "100" and the "99" thing past me again. It didn't make any sense.
Originally posted by sh76So you're saying that the terrorists have been inactive since the USA invaded Afghanistan?
Yes, by inserting the word "mainland" you neatly glossed over the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings. Nicely done.
Have we been watching the same "Global War On Terror"?
Originally posted by FMFI said 99 doesn't apply.
You yourself say that you are starting to realize that there may be simply no point in leaving ground troops there to get shot at ad infinitum.
The Taliban are resurgent.
You're talking about hitting "them from the air when necessary"
You concede that it doesn't seem like the USA's going to create a stable democracy in that country so quickly.
The ...[text shortened]... tal rape.
Run the "100" and the "99" thing past me again. It didn't make any sense.
I'd say more like 60 out of 100. The main point of going into Afghanistan was to neutralize AQ's ability to strike at us. Establishing a stable democracy in the country was a secondary goal. Capturing OBL would have been icing on the cake.