Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

the desired end state: to have a govt in place that can do the fighting and run the country without being or becoming a safe haven for those that will do us harm.

Five months shy of a decade and we still aren't there. If you include opium growers, heroin smugglers and their protectors among those that will do us harm, we're a very long way from achieving success as you've defined it.

[Presley Cannady]

Five months shy of a decade and we still aren't there. If you include opium growers, heroin smugglers and their protectors among those that will do us harm, we're a very long way from achieving success as you've defined it.

What are the alternatives? The West will not countenance waging war in ways that might considerably expedite pacifying the Afghan population. The enemy enters and exits Afghanistan with impunity, and the Coalition cannot hope to field enough strength to deny him access to the border or points of departure and entry in neighboring countries. Your choices are:

1. hand him back the base he used to strike at Americans ten years ago, or
2. to stand up whatever institution it takes to keep him out once and for all.

Am I missing anything?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

You are missing the Strategic Communications campaign that somebody must competently wage to convince the American voter to pay for standing up whatever institution it takes to keep the enemy out once and for all.

[Bob's World]

"Win" and "Lose" are terms that are necessary for warfare. To attempt to play a war to a tie or a mutually beneficial solution is a fast way to end up in the "lose" column.

But this is insurgency, which, doctrine be damned, is not war at all. It is a country dangerously out of balance with itself, where the populace feels compelled to adopt illegal, and often very violent, means to seek to force the government to a sustainable balance point. Far too often the government (that is often quite happy with the current imbalance of power opportunity) response is one of warfare against the populace. The presence of warfare does not make a situation war. (This is an equally important policy point for US leaders, just because they have put US forces into combat around the globe of late does not mean that we are a nation at war either.)

So, is it a "win" if the US achieves what we think we need in Afghanistan (recognizing that what we think is at least a little wrong, and is quite possibly very wrong in terms of what actually best serves our interests)?

Is a "win" establishing GIRoA control over the entire nation through an incredibly expensive program of violence and bribery against the populace, held in place through a massive foreign trained and funded national security force?

Or is a "win" finding a new balance point that allows all Afghans to have equitable opportunity in the political and economic environment of their own nation? Does a satisfied populace under a system not controlled by the US better serve US interests than a suppressed populace under a system of our own design? In the modern age the answer is increasingly the former rather than the latter. We will learn that, but we have not learned that quite yet.

We should have learned that in Vietnam, but we took away the wrong lessons learned. We should have learned that in Iraq, but again, we took away the wrong lessons learned. Now we apply those flawed lessons learned to the latest problem.

A win for the US will be if the PEOPLE of Afghanistan win. Karzai and Omar will both need to compromise for that to occur. So will the Coalition. This is why the reconciliation process is so important. It cannot be the sham that follows a military defeat, it must be the reality that makes further military action unnecessary.

[Presley Cannady]

You are missing the Strategic Communications campaign that somebody must competently wage to convince the American voter to pay for standing up whatever institution it takes to keep the enemy out once and for all.

Happens every year on September 11.

[Fuchs]

Sometime in the future maybe -just maybe- humanity will advance to a point where it's going to look back at people who got it right early on and increase its respect for them and their long-derided opinions.


In the case of AFG, there were people who saw that it's about time to get out of AFG as early as in 2002 ...


There was also a group of I think 33 intellectuals who sponsored an ad in the NYT against OIF. Only one of them (Walt) has become a kind of nation-wide known pundit. The old warmongers of 2002 on the other hand ... many of them are still in the business and have become rich(er) by producing a net damage to their society.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Happens every year on September 11.

Do you seriously believe that the 10th Anniversary of the start of what used to be called the Global War On Terror and has since been downgraded into an Overseas Contingency Operation is going to be spun in any way which might positively influence the American electorate to stay the course?

[Presley Cannady]

Do you seriously believe that the 10th Anniversary of the start of what used to be called the Global War On Terror and has since been downgraded into an Overseas Contingency Operation is going to be spun in any way which might positively influence the American electorate to stay the course?

I believe the Administration can't even close a next to empty detention camp in Cuba, let alone overcome the political and cultural pressure to fight the war. And it took ten years and the housing bubble popping to even get to the point where suggesting such a thing on the campaign trail was survivable.