Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

[Ray]

There's so much nonsense and noise of irrelevant stuff in your posts that I'll simply pick only one part in order to save time:



You should seriously check whether you've got what it takes to think about (geo)strategy, and you should begin the check at this quote. It's utter nonsense.


For starters, you are asserting a completely wrong figure.
The crude oil production of all Persian Gulf countries is much less than 30 % of world crude oil production. NOT 60%.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2173rank.html
Furthermore, not all of their oil production is being exported through the Gulf of Hormuz.

Next, the entire idea that a pipeline could lend control of a distant strait is total BS.


And that's how it goes on all the time in your replies. It's as if you were writing "I don't think clearly, but this is what I can dream up and what I picked up off some recent fashion." a hundred times.

Or, to be more gentle: You should seriously think about connecting dots instead of spraying them.

I don't see how any of that demonstrates anything but a penchant for verbosity... perhaps you'd care to break off just a single little piece of it for discussion? There's just too much volume there, and too much of it completely peripheral, to wade through and try to distill out the point,

How droll.

If a person does not understand the importance of the Straits of Hormuz, what can one say?

Bahrain is also home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a major logistics hub for the U.S. Navy ships. The island is located halfway down the Persian Gulf, just off the coast of Saudi Arabia, and is something of a rest stop for U.S. Navy ships cruising the waters of the Persian Gulf.

With about 30 ships (including two aircraft carriers) the Fifth Fleet patrols the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and the east coast of Africa.
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/166187.html

I presume the US has loose change to squander.

Fifth Fleet (30 ships including two aircraft carriers) are positioned in a narrow strip of water just to see some belly dancing (if it is permitted)!

It is so tricky for navigation that on January 10, 2007, the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, travelling submerged, struck M/V Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged very large crude tanker, south of the strait

And to imagine that 30 Ships and two Aircraft carriers are holed up there!!

The Fifth Fleet is Arab dhows, right?

BTW, I don't dream. Those who are on facing the flak, don't dream. They cannot afford to do so.

That is why I back my contentions with links.

I cannot afford the pomposity that some can.



***********

Of course, verbosity is the excuse to not go through the links at least.

And oh yes, everything is peripheral and bogus!

You alone are the custodian of the Gospel!

The point to note is that I don't act like a self opinionated knowall. I back it up with links.

Do you?

I can find the links pronto because I know the subject.

I wonder who is verbose and gerrymandering!

[Fuchs]

How droll.

If a person does not understand the importance of the Straits of Hormuz, what can one say?

I think this constitutes trolling.
Well, either that or you have a worse problem with logic than I assumed previously.

My reply wasn't even about the importance of the Strait of Hormuz.


One last attempt, in very simple terms:

A 9mm pistol is lethal.
You are still alive.
Reason: I didn't shoot you with the pistol.
The lethality of the pistol is utterly irrelevant for your survival.

Likewise, the importance of the Strait of Hormuz is irrelevant for the importance of Afghanistan and the pipeline project lends nobody control over the Strait or its approaches.

[Steve Blair]

This thread is starting to wander into the realm of personal attacks. Let's all keep it civil, shall we?

[Dayuhan]

That is why I back my contentions with links.

The problem here is that the links don't back the contentions... many of them seem to have no relevance at all to the contentions. Examples would be the above discourse on the straits of Hormuz and the prior excursions on the subject of Hugo Chavez and US-Russian relations, among others.

I've no objection to citing links, but one prefers them to be kept to a limited volume, and ideally they'd be related to the points under discussion. Most of us can use Google, and if we chose to we could post any number of links. Some of us prefer to make our own points.

Of course, verbosity is the excuse to not go through the links at least.

Actually yes, it is. There's just too much of it. 4-5 consecutive posts filled with extended digressions gives the impression of trying to achieve with quantity what is lacking in quality... possibly that impression is inaccurate, but it's still what voluminous sequential posting tends to communicate. Again, I'd suggest breaking off a specific subject and focusing on it, rather than piling on post after massive post stuffed full of material that often has little or no connection to the original subject. There's just no reasonable way to structure a response to that without spending more time and effort than any of us has available. Maintaining some degree of focus and brevity is a demonstration of courtesy toward other parties to the discussion.

The point to note is that I don't act like a self opinionated knowall.

Actually you do come across a bit that way. Unintentionally I'm sure, but you do. The links really don't matter that much... after all, "open source" is just a refined word for "stuff I saw on the innernet". The connection is what counts, and the connections here seem, frankly, a bit strained.

I can find the links pronto because I know the subject.

Others may know the subject too, even those who don't agree with you. Shocking, I know, but true...

Like Fuchs, I'd point out that while we all recognize the importance of the Straits of Hormuz, the proposed connection between the Straits of Hormuz and the hypothetical strategic significance of Afghanistan remains undemonstrated. In deference to the legitimate concern of the moderator I shall refrain from introducing or pursuing the subject of pistols.

A specific item or two from the deluge, if only to demonstrate some minimal commitment to civility...

Your contention – In the project's original incarnation, in the Taliban years, the US interest was in using the project as a cash-generating carrot to try to bait more moderate elements in the Taliban into a more engaged stance, is rather youthful.

It is engaging to learn that the US was planning to go through such an extensive and time-consuming exercise of building a pipeline, pumping oil, the guarding the pipeline against terrorist forays and losing more American lives than already is being done, merely to organise a ‘cash generating carrot’!!!! I seriously cannot subscribe to such a thought since I hold the US policymakers in greater esteem than what such a thought would suggest.

You don't seem to have read the post you were responding to.

At the time of the project's original incarnation, the US was not engaged in any military adventure in Afghanistan. The US did not propose to "go through such an extensive and time-consuming exercise of building a pipeline, pumping oil, the guarding the pipeline against terrorist forays and losing more American lives than already is being done". The US only proposed to facilitate a deal whereby the Taliban would allow a consortium to build and operate the pipeline, which would have provided the Taliban with an ongoing revenue stream and (from the US perspective) the kind of connection to the global economy that is assumed to produce moderate behaviour. To put it bluntly, once the Taliban became dependent on pipeline revenues, they'd be far more vulnerable to sanctions.

At no point in this original incarnation of the project did the US Government propose to build, operate or secure the pipeline. It merely offered to facilitate a project, which is a very normal and common form of officially sanctioned state-to-state bribery. Happens all the time.

I am quite familiar with the history of the project, and none of the proposed structures or scenarios would have given the US any kind of "control" over the operation of the pipeline or the destination of the product. I have never seen any serious proposal aimed at bringing Caspian oil or gas to China via a southern route. There's no geographic logic to it, especially given the limited capacity of the proposed TAPI pipeline and the large sums the Chinese have already invested in the much more direct gas pipeline linking them with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and the oil pipeline to Kazakhstan.

[Ray]

What follows is a brief summary of why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why we will be there for quite some time.

1. Iraq: Strategic military bases needed to protect U.S. economic interests in the region, including military operations in Afghanistan. This is why the Iraq war took precedence over Afghanistan for years.

2. Afghanistan: We are in Afghanistan so that the major oil companies and infrastructure contractors can build pipelines, airports, highways, etc., without interference from the Taliban and other hostile forces, effectively keeping Iran, China and Russia from holding the United States an "energy hostage" so to speak.

3. Iran is bordered by Iraq on the left and Afghanistan on the right.

http://www.takingon.net/index.php?op...:war&Itemid=64

One may like to check the links in this article.

This link contained in the article indicates the importance of oil in the strategic thinking enunciated by successive US Presidents.

http://www.bloodandoilmovie.com/

Oil and gas are not the direct causes of the war in Afghanistan, but understanding the motives of long-term US policy is important.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213804

Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

[Fuchs]

What follows is a brief summary of why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why we will be there for quite some time.

I do not think that you can soothsay.

1. Iraq: Strategic military bases needed to protect U.S. economic interests in the region, including military operations in Afghanistan. This is why the Iraq war took precedence over Afghanistan for years.

Economic interests were marginal in comparison to war costs, or even in comparison to long-term presence costs. Economic interests are thus hardly a reason. Lobbyism and political corruption maybe.

The U.S. has military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the region. Iraq was not needed - contrary, military bases are much safer in Qatar than in Iraq.

2. Afghanistan: We are in Afghanistan so that the major oil companies and infrastructure contractors can build pipelines, airports, highways, etc., without interference from the Taliban and other hostile forces, effectively keeping Iran, China and Russia from holding the United States an "energy hostage" so to speak.

That's a mere fantasy. Again, at best the motivator is corruption, more likely it's a failure of logic. Those companies could easily invest elsewhere and it would not nearly cost as much.
Besides, the U.S. lacks a lot of capital investment at home. To support non-sales direct investments abroad is a near-suicidal stupidity of U.S. policymakers.

3. Iran is bordered by Iraq on the left and Afghanistan on the right.

http://www.takingon.net/index.php?op...:war&Itemid=64

One may like to check the links in this article.

This link contained in the article indicates the importance of oil in the strategic thinking enunciated by successive US Presidents.

http://www.bloodandoilmovie.com/

Oil and gas are not the direct causes of the war in Afghanistan, but understanding the motives of long-term US policy is important.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213804

Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

A healthy, logical mind can easily calculate that the U.S. has spent more on military and other adventures in the Mid East than it ever spent on imported oil. It's a losing adventure, a stupid idea.
You cannot steal oil any more as a state (big oil does it all the time by not paying properly for drilling concessions, though).
The U.S. could have reduced its oil dependency easily 1-2 decades ago by investing in such a structural change instead of spending on military for Mid East disaster adventures.
It would not need to bother about the Mid East at all any more if it was smart.

[Ray]

I never said a thing in the above post.

I merely reproduced the link.

Those who took a little trouble and saw the link would realise the same.

Also, it is the successive US President and other important (so I presume) Americans who have spoken on oil.

[Fuchs]

important ≠ wise

[Dayuhan]

We are in Afghanistan so that the major oil companies and infrastructure contractors can build pipelines, airports, highways, etc., without interference from the Taliban and other hostile forces, effectively keeping Iran, China and Russia from holding the United States an "energy hostage" so to speak.

You might want to enlarge on that a bit, because it really doesn't make much sense. How would presence in Afghanistan prevent the US from being held an "energy hostage? Afghanistan is neither an energy producer nor a significant corridor. The TAPI proposal would have been significant, though not in any way indispensable, to Turkmenistan. It would have been significant, though not in any way indispensable, to Pakistan and India. The biggest beneficiary would be the Afghan government: transhipment revenues would not be huge, but given the Afghan government's extreme paucity of revenue sources it would have been a major event. From the perspective of the US, or of global markets overall, the project was really pretty irrelevant, and it was barely noticed when it was shelved. Again, scale: the total designed capacity was just not that large, a small drop in a very large bucket. Impact on global energy markets would have been negligible, certainly nothing even remotely close to worth fighting a war over.

China competes with the US to purchase energy, but the effect of that is higher prices, not restricted availability. Russia could hold Europe hostage to some extent, but they'd suffer too: they need the money and the vast bulk of their transport grid runs to Europe, making it difficult for them to ship elsewhere (Russia depends on pipelines, which are a lot less flexible than tankers, to ship its product). Russia does not supply the US. The US is perfectly happy to see Central Asian oil flow to China, which reduces China's dependence on oil from the ME. There's nothing there to prevent anyone holding the US hostage. To the extent that a US military occupation of a Muslim country complicates US relations with the ME, Afghan operations could actually be said to have a negative impact on the US energy picture.

Oil and gas are not the direct causes of the war in Afghanistan, but understanding the motives of long-term US policy is important.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213804

The article in that link is absolutely stuffed with exaggerations and inaccuracies, often several per paragraph. Pointless. I'm also not sure why you'd link to an advertisement for a movie, other than to get a link or two into the post. Really doesn't provide much credibility.

We all know the importance of oil; you don't need to establish that. What's missing is the connection between oil and Afghanistan. We all know that connection has been claimed, but the claim is very shaky and does not stand up to scrutiny. The claims are similar in a way to the "new silk road" arguments... superficially compelling stories if you haven't the background to see the gaps, but examine them even a little more closely and they collapse.

Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

IMO it was time a long time ago. I don't think the US should ever have tried to "install" a government in Afghanistan, which inevitably puts us in the position of supporting a government that cannot stand, but that we believe we cannot allow to fall... though sooner or later we will have to.

It's worth noting that the US showed little or no interest in Afghanistan until 9/11, aside from episodic concern over AQ. Even that never lasted long; the US was too busy spending money and watching the Nasdaq.

9/11 made entry into Afghanistan arguably necessary, though it's about the last place the US wanted to be. Once there the great American delusion took over: once in a place, we have to justify our presence as something noble, requiring us to spread democracy and enlightenment. That invariably gets us into the $#!t.

As Fuchs points out, the cost vastly exceeds even the most hypothetical benefit. There is no economic logic to it, nor does there need to be: economics are a significant factor in foreign affairs, but not the only one. The pursuit of policy contrary to financial self-interest is not unusual.

Iraq of course is a little more complicated, and requires discussion of the Neocon delusion, which some found compelling in those days, though it has mercifully evaporated since. That would be a subject for another thread, and I'd rather not digress to that extent.

Of course there will always be people who believe that the US is in it for oil and economic advantage, because they "know" that the US never does anything except for oil and economic advantage. Starting with that assumption and assembling link-backed factoids to support it gets you a nice house of cards that will convince those predisposed to believe, but it gets you no closer to truth. Hell, I've had people tell me with an absolutely straight face that the US is in Mindanao to secure oil and protect trade routes. Of course Mindanao has neither oil nor access to any trade route of significance, but that doesn't bother those who have chosen to believe. We are a most peculiar species.

[Dayuhan]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...htm?csp=34news

Poll: With bin Laden dead, is it time to end war?

WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden's demise may have shifted not only the military prospects for al-Qaeda abroad, but also the political landscape for President Obama at home.

The death of the terror network's leader and an intensified debate about how to cut federal spending are fueling calls to accelerate the promised troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, declare victory and get out.

So with bin Laden finally gone, is it time for America's longest war to end?

Nearly six in 10 Americans think so, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend. Assessments of how the decade-long war is going have improved a bit, compared with six weeks ago, and a broad swath of Americans now agrees with the statement that the United States "has accomplished its mission in Afghanistan and should bring its troops home."

Just over one-third say instead that the USA "still has important work to do in Afghanistan and should maintain its troops there."

[jmm99]

From Monday, May 09, 2011, 56% Favor Bringing Troops Home From Afghanistan Within A Year:

A new Rasmussen Reports nation telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters now favor the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the highest level of support to date. Twenty-one percent (21%) more support the establishment of a firm timetable to bring the troops home within a year.

The combined total of 56% is up four points from the beginning of March, up 13 points from 43% last September, and up 19 points from September 2009.

Thirty percent (30%) of voters still oppose the creation of any kind of timetable for withdrawal and 15% remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This all gets more complex as one reads down through related polling data in the article.

and from Tuesday, May 10, 2011, Voters Express More Confidence About War in Afghanistan:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the situation in Afghanistan will get worse in the next six months. That's down nine points from a month ago and marks the first time the figure has fallen into the 20s in nearly two years of surveying. In prior surveys since July 2009, 33% to 57% of voters have predicted a worsening of things there.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters expect the situation in Afghanistan to improve over the next six months, up eight points from last month and the highest level of confidence measured since March of last year. Another 31% expect the situation to remain about the same. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This optimism can be a two-edged sword if the euphoria from OBL's death is followed in the next 6 months by what are perceived to be AQ or Taliban successes. Again, related polling data reveal a more complex situation.

Of personal interest to most here is a subsidiary result mentioned in the second article:

Ninety-one percent (91%) rate the performance of the U.S. military as good or excellent, including 63% who say the military is doing an excellent job. The latter finding is up from 48% in April and is the highest level of praise measured for the armed forces since regular tracking began in August of last year. Just two percent (2%) say the military is doing a poor job.

Frankly, the public is really without a clue as to "winning" or "losing" - Thursday, May 05, 2011, War on Terror Update, Confidence U.S. Winning War on Terror Jumps Following bin Laden Killing:

Who is Winning the War on Terror?

Dates: May 3-4; Apr 7-8

US/Allies: 55%; 32%

Terrorists: 11%; 24%

What a difference a month makes.

Cheers

Mike

[Fuchs]

What do these people think how terrorists could "win" this "War on Terror"?


This reminds me of remarks I've read about polling that basically asserted that you can get up to 30% agreement for just about any alternative in a two-choice poll question because of human 'characteristics'.

[Ray]

Appending a link should not in any manner indicate that every word/thought of that article is endorsed. At best, it indicates a viewpoint.



The issue in this thread is:

Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?


Therefore, to answer that, amongst other issues, the following flows out:

1. What are/were the compulsions that forced the US and allies to consider attacking Afghanistan?

2. Have those issues been solved?

3. If so, is quitting feasible?

4. If not, then can the US quit half way and still have achieved its aims?


A supplementary issue would be - Will quitting half way erode her position in the world, assiduously built up since WWII, and make her even more weaker than she is, to ‘guide’ the world events?



From some of the posts, it appears that:

1. It is futile to stay the course in Afghanistan.

2. There is a tiredness that has enveloped the West over all these wars (that were embarked with great gusto and excited anticipation [with us or against us, bring it on, dead or alive, Mission Accomplished etc etc]).

3. The realisation that the psychology of the ‘gung ho all guns blazing’ machismo being the all purpose cure prescription for world’s ill is a false idol, given that the West has no stomach, the patience or the will to ride out and defeat the poor man’s weapon – insurgency/ terrorism.

Hence, the best way out is – pack up and leave while the going is good.

The US and ISAF having realised that they cannot shape up and so they ship out!



Quitting half way is a solution. The escape route - the killing of Osama, which with ingenuous spin can be presented once again, this time to a grateful war weary, economically drawndown people as – Mission Accomplished!

However, there is every possibility that it will be only a ‘cosmetic’ illusion that the raison d’être for being in Afghanistan is over and it is a resounding victory.

That may please those who desperately desire to get out of a bad situation from which they find no solution and have been rudely jolted in the realisation that their 'gung ho, all guns blazing' machismo is passé!

Ask those who live in the neighbourhood and know the psyche. Iraq shall be repeated if US quits Afghanistan; and in a more devastating mode since the womb and protector of terrorism is just next door!!

Make no mistake about that!



To the world at large (yes, the world that actually props up the world with their insatiable economic, military and development wants that fuel to a great extent the economic health of the developed world), every halfway home endeavour indicates that the West is merely a bully, which exults when they win (which they are no longer winning) or bolts when they lose or are losing, leaving everyone in a mess, which they (those left with the mess) themselves have to clear or live in greater misery than ever before.

Such a predicament of those left with the mess, of course, would not be of concern for those that made the mess in the first place.

However, the trust deficit that the West will ‘accrue’ would be immense and would affect the US’ economic, military, political dealings, unilaterally or multilaterally with the countries of the world.

Given this, the ‘world’ will move towards those who do not interfere or impose their will forcibly by throwing their might. After all, the ‘world’ would still require their economic, military and development needs to be fulfilled.

Thereby because of the trust deficit, the West will have to give way to China and Russia, who do not appear to be ‘slim customers’ or international bullies. It requires no elaboration that US’ ‘sceptre and crown will tumble down’ (apologies to James Shirley ‘Death the Leveller’).



The result?

The West, economically will be in a worse state through loss of trade with the world and strategically becoming the world’s ‘nowhere men’ since none will enter into strategic equations with the US and allies, and those in strategic relationships or in the process of such a move, will seek fresh pastures where their interests are safeguarded and not ‘iffy’.



Who will benefit?

It will be China (already assuming that they are a superpower) or Russia (a ‘has been’ superpower and still no pushover).



Therefore:

1. To believe that the US went into Iraq or Afghanistan merely on philanthropic persuasion is a difficult pill to swallow, given the various policies and pronouncements available in the open sources.

2. To believe that the US had no strategic requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq and that it just ‘stumbled upon’ them while meandering through the maze of international politics and events in a lost manner, is also difficult to believe.

3. To believe that while oil may be a prime mover for policy, other factors like allied strategic interests, as boxing Iran in, is not interconnected is as good as stating that strategy and policy is merely chalked out on 'one point agendas'.

4. To believe that Oil does not affect policies (and thus control the world economy), and hence does not control the balance of power, belies the realities that one sees. If it did not, then the rise in oil prices would have not brought such burdens on the common man, especially in the developing world.

(If oil was not an important factor in world strategic thinking, then the Middle East, otherwise an expanse of useless sand (peopled by those with obscurantist ideas) would not have been a cynosure of the world; and where interests of the world (mostly, West) is protected, even if there is the requirement to go to war.)

5. To believe that every commentary, opinion, thesis, report is available in the open forum (not necessarily on the internet) is rubbish, is an unfortunate deduction.




The manner the cat jumps is material to many in this world.

It surely becomes a question of ‘us versus them’!

At least, to those who rather stay with the ‘us’?

That’s what strategy is all about!

Keeping nations with the 'us'!!!!

Oil and natural resources assists those who want nations to be with the ‘us’.

After all, as the Americans say - there is nothing called a ‘free lunch’!!




(the movie link was appended since every link was rubbished.
It was hoped that what the US Presidents have to say themselves, would at least be taken to be correct).

[Ray]

My profound apologies to all who have been trouble by my 'copious' posts and 'innumerable' links.

I may have been influenced by the Beatles Lyrics:

Open up your eyes now
Tell me what you see
It is no surprise now
What you see is me


Strategy is for self preservation.

Oil is part of it. That's one part and important indeed since it powers the world.

And along with it is to ensure areas (nations) that keeps the resources with 'us' are actually with 'us'.

Therefore, the world beyond Russia, China and the US is the real 'me'.

To have the 'me' with the 'us' and their resources and not letting the adversaries have it and ensuring that they are sanitised, boxed in or put to trouble, is what strategy is all about.

So, you may well like to look beyond and see how those that constitute the 'me' feel about the whole show.

If you lose the nations which constitute the 'me', you have lost the game!!

It that makes people happy, so be it.

The 'me' will move to fresh pastures!!

[Fuchs]

Simple litmus test that takes a whole lot of subjective influences out of the question :

Would we go into AFG if we weren't already in there?

The very idea is laughable.

[Dayuhan]

Therefore, to answer that, amongst other issues, the following flows out:

1. What are/were the compulsions that forced the US and allies to consider attacking Afghanistan?

Since you like links, here's an explanation from the core of the US foreign policy establishment:

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/long-...cations/p24938

Excerpted:

I argue below that core American interests in Afghanistan are real but narrow, and center on the security requirements of denying Afghan territory to terrorists as a base for attacking us or destabilizing Afghanistan’s neighbors. These limited interests can be realized via a range of possible Afghan end states – we need not hold out for the highly ambitious political and economic development aims that the United States adopted in 2001. While desirable, these are not strictly necessary to meet our core requirements...


...of the various interests we have at stake in south Asia, its unique terrorist potential is the only one that might merit conducting or continuing a war.

If not, then can the US quit half way and still have achieved its aims?

Halfway to what? The core goal of disrupting and denying sanctuary to AQ is more than halfway done. The mission-creep goal of trying to bring western-style democracy to Afghanistan is nowhere near half done and is probably not achievable.

A supplementary issue would be - Will quitting half way erode her position in the world, assiduously built up since WWII, and make her even more weaker than she is, to ‘guide’ the world events?

Again, half way to what? How does chucking resources down a black hole and pursuing goals we don't have the capacity to achieve - like remaking Afghan governance in a Western image - enhance America's standing or influence?

Ask those who live in the neighbourhood and know the psyche. Iraq shall be repeated if US quits Afghanistan; and in a more devastating mode since the womb and protector of terrorism is just next door!!

Make no mistake about that!

I'm not sure what that prediction is supposed to mean... Iraq shall be repeated? How?

To the world at large (yes, the world that actually props up the world with their insatiable economic, military and development wants that fuel to a great extent the economic health of the developed world), every halfway home endeavour indicates that the West is merely a bully, which exults when they win (which they are no longer winning) or bolts when they lose or are losing, leaving everyone in a mess, which they (those left with the mess) themselves have to clear or live in greater misery than ever before.

Maybe it would tell the world that there are limits to the support the US is willing to provide to "allies" who steal our money and that of their own people, appoint their cronies to important post, oppress their people, etc, ad infinitum. All we communicate by standing by those who fleece us is that we're suckers. Everybody already knows that, no need to remind them.

However, the trust deficit that the West will ‘accrue’ would be immense and would affect the US’ economic, military, political dealings, unilaterally or multilaterally with the countries of the world.

Why would there be any trust deficit? Our will and capacity to support an ally depends on what that ally is willing to do to support itself. Nothing terribly arcane about that.

Thereby because of the trust deficit, the West will have to give way to China and Russia, who do not appear to be ‘slim customers’ or international bullies. It requires no elaboration that US’ ‘sceptre and crown will tumble down’ (apologies to James Shirley ‘Death the Leveller’).

Yes, everybody trusts the courtesy and altruism of the Russians and Chinese... yeah right.

The result?

The West, economically will be in a worse state through loss of trade with the world and strategically becoming the world’s ‘nowhere men’ since none will enter into strategic equations with the US and allies, and those in strategic relationships or in the process of such a move, will seek fresh pastures where their interests are safeguarded and not ‘iffy’.

Sounds a load of bollocks, really. How would withdrawal from Afghanistan cause "loss of trade with the world"? You think the world would cease to sell the US stuff - you are presumably aware of the US trade deficit with the world - because the US leaves Afghanistan? Not much sense there.

Who will benefit?

It will be China (already assuming that they are a superpower) or Russia (a ‘has been’ superpower and still no pushover).

I can't see any benefit accruing to China or Russia from a US withdrawal from Afghanistan... in fact I doubt that it would change much of anything.

There was nothing philanthropic at all about the US entry into Afghanistan. We went there to take revenge, kick AQ ass, and prevent AQ from taking further action against us. That was the strategic goal, and it made sense. Then mission creep set in, and we made a mess. We're good at that; we've lot's of practice.

Surely you note that from the Soviet withdrawal to the point where AQ settled and created a bother, the US paid no attention whatsoever to Afghanistan. If all of these interests you propose are real, why would that have been the case?

The importance of oil is undisputed. Since Afghanistan has no oil and is not a significant conduit for oil, it is also irrelevant to this discussion.

It surely becomes a question of ‘us versus them’!

At least, to those who rather stay with the ‘us’?

That’s what strategy is all about!

Keeping nations with the 'us'!!!!

Oil and natural resources assists those who want nations to be with the ‘us’.

After all, as the Americans say - there is nothing called a ‘free lunch’!!

I'm not sure who's meant to be "us" or "them" in this picture, but since our presence in Afghanistan isn't keeping anyone with "us" and it certainly getting us any oil or natural resources, I don't see how these assertions are relevant to the matter under discussion.

[omarali50]

My 3 cents:
1. MOST "strategic thinking" is bullcrap or corruption or both. In a more rational world, Fuchs (or his equivalent in some other country) would suggest strategy and his government would follow it. We do not live in that world.
2. Even in THIS world, it makes no economic or strategic sense for the US to spend trillions to make billions. As an American, I think the sooner we get out the better.
3. IF the US does get out quickly, the whole region will get worse than it is because nothing has been settled and because the US and its partners are a major source of elite income in that region and the loss of that income will trigger a search for loot closer to home. As a Pakistani, my interest is almost opposite to my interest as an American. I want the US to spend more men and money to save us from ourselves. At times I am very pessimistic about the ability of the US to do any good in this regard, but at other times, I think they can still help if they can only figure out what they are trying to do.
It may be that my "Eurocentric" view of the world blinds me to the possibility that the great Chinese nation will turn out to be a far more enlightened imperialist power than the US ever could be. But the auguries are not good.
Does that make any sense?

[Dayuhan]

I think they can still help if they can only figure out what they are trying to do.

Agreed, but that "if" should be written more like... IF.

It's a big damned word.

[omarali50]

Sadly, I agree.

[Ray]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Dayuhan;120899]Since you like links, here's an explanation from the core of the US foreign policy establishment:

http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/long-...cations/p24938

I argue below that core American interests in Afghanistan are real but narrow, and center on the security requirements of denying Afghan territory to terrorists as a base for attacking us or destabilizing Afghanistan’s neighbors . These limited interests can be realized via a range of possible Afghan end states – we need not hold out for the highly ambitious political and economic development aims that the United States adopted in 2001. While desirable, these are not strictly necessary to meet our core requirements...


...of the various interests we have at stake in south Asia, its unique terrorist potential is the only one that might merit conducting or continuing a war.

Thank you.

I do like links. It transcends merely personal opinion. Adds universality and credibility to opinions.

Links are not read by those who are busy or incensed; an example was here itself! Not reading links veers to other issues, which maybe relevant, but has attendant fallout.

The "core American interest is denying Afghan territory to terrorists as a base for attacking us or destabilizing Afghanistan’s neighbors."

Has the Afghanistan been denied to the terrorists?

Is Afghanistan destabilising its neighbours? Or is it the other way around?

In fact, the US forays into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Drone attacks, CIA operatives are what's destabilising Pakistan, the neighbour (I am not saying it is wrong; in fact, it is correct given the aim for the operations) and in return, they are more resolved to destabilise Afghanistan by relentlessly attacking the ISAF and returning to safety of Pakistan.

The statement of Mr Biddle quoted is on “Steps Needed for a Successful 2014 Transition in Afghanistan” i.e. Transition. Action after the Fact.

Are they the reasons why the US went to war in Afghanistan?

Halfway to what? The core goal of disrupting and denying sanctuary to AQ is more than halfway done. The mission-creep goal of trying to bring western-style democracy to Afghanistan is nowhere near half done and is probably not achievable.

Half way to completing for what the US attacked Afghanistan, even if for discussion’s sake, the core goal was ‘disrupting and denying sanctuary to AQ’.

Accepting that as true, it is evident that the terrorists have not been disrupted, nor have they been denied their sanctuaries .

The sanctuaries are not in Afghanistan. It is in Pakistan. The statements emanating from the US before and consequent to the OBL episode indicates that the sanctuaries are in Pakistan. The Drone attacks indicate the same.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11and OBL, amongst others, found sanctuary there.

Mr Stephen Biddel’s statement also corroborate this:

In fact, the central U.S. interest in the region is its nearly unique potential for terrorist violence against Americans. This threat emanates chiefly from Pakistan. Its combination... a diverse range of Islamist militant groups including the global headquarters of al Qaeda, ….. give Pakistan a well deserved reputation as “the most dangerous place in the world”.

Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong to conclude that, even if the aim behind attacking Afghanistan was ‘disrupting and denying sanctuary to AQ’, it has not even been half way accomplished.

Again, half way to what? How does chucking resources down a black hole and pursuing goals we don't have the capacity to achieve - like remaking Afghan governance in a Western image - enhance America's standing or influence?

Valid point.

One cannot chuck resources down a black hole. This should have been realised when embarking into Afghanistan.

On the issue of the capacity of achieving in Afghanistan not being there, the capacity was possibly there when Afghanistan War started or else the US would not have embarked on this course.

The US resources were frittered away by attacking Iraq in 2003 without even accomplishing the mission in Afghanistan! This violated many Principles of War, mainly Selection and Maintenance of Aim and Concentration of Force. Hence, the present state!

If the US quits, this is what Mr Stephen Biddel has to say:

If U.S. troops, money, and advisors were withdrawn the Karzai government would be unlikely to survive for long……. many in the region now believe that this U.S. role, though necessary, is unlikely to be sustained until a stable outcome is obtained, and that this will lead to an eventual collapse of the government and either a Taliban takeover or an extended civil war.

He goes on to state:

…. assure South Asians that a post-2014 U.S. troop drawdown will not leave Afghanistan abandoned and at the mercy of an empowered Taliban….. But it would need to make it clear that the United States does not intend to repeat its policies of the 1990s, in which we left Afghanistan to its own devices after the Soviet withdrawal and did little to avert open civil warfare……

Now slips in the real reason for War in Afghanistan:

….For now, though, it is worth noting that Afghanistan is far from an ideal base for regional power projection….

So, power projection was the aim and Afghanistan was the base?

I'm not sure what that prediction is supposed to mean... Iraq shall be repeated? How?

It means a similar, and if not worse, chaos and mayhem that followed in Iraq consequent to the Mission being declared Accomplished. Stephen Biddle says so too!

Maybe it would tell the world that there are limits to the support the US is willing to provide to "allies" who steal our money and that of their own people, appoint their cronies to important post, oppress their people, etc, ad infinitum. All we communicate by standing by those who fleece us is that we're suckers. Everybody already knows that, no need to remind them.

One cannot deny what you say. Very valid.

However, if one decides that one is to be the Leader of the Pack, then one has to accept whatever is available and try to do the best one can. That is why the US has tolerated dictators, Sultans, military jackasses of quasi democracies, quasi democrats. Contrary to the the US claims to be the bastion of modern democracy and human rights. Contradictions? Yes, but that’s realpolitik!

China is clever as usual. They do the same thing, and worse. However, unlike the US, they spout pious platitudes that their policy is ‘non interference in the internal affairs’ of another country! A ‘catch all’ term, but adroitly used to cover same sins!

Why would there be any trust deficit? Our will and capacity to support an ally depends on what that ally is willing to do to support itself. Nothing terribly arcane about that.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. When abandoned and left with a mess, it promotes a trust deficit. Those who see it happening will also become wary.

One would like to trade with Nations that are reliable. It is natural that one would be edgy to trade with a country that leaves issues halfway.

Yes, everybody trusts the courtesy and altruism of the Russians and Chinese... yeah right.

Russia and China are no great paragons of virtue. They, however, do their ‘business’ subtly and cleverly.

Don’t take my word for it.

Eugene Burdick and William Lederer’s book ‘The Ugly American’ explains it better. Historically the US has being the ‘suckers’ (as you put it)! Because of unresolved contradictions between a moral high ground adopted and the propping up of thugs and discredited regimes!!

Take the case of Pakistan. The US has historically poured money and military aid. Yet, the anti-American sentiment is legend. Agreed that Pakistan may have reasons now, but it was there earlier too. Even for OBL or for the state Afghanistan is, they blame the US. Possibly, they expected the US to clear the mess that they themselves created and then nurtured.