Leave or Stay

[Dayuhan]

Relevant and worth a look...

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the...t-nor-a-strate

[Steve the Planner]

dayuhan:

Right.

Those advocating a robust COIN effort in 2009 behaved as if these events either didn’t happen or don’t matter. The reality is quite different; a decade’s worth of blunders and misrepresentations has exhausted the patience of the American people. For nearly a decade, American political elites insisted that our Afghan policy was succeeding. They did not ask the public to fight the war or pay for it, and did not tell the public of the deterioration in security on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. The plausibility of these policies collapsed at approximately the same time as the global economy. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, unemployment is the public’s top policy concern. Even more importantly, public trust in the U.S. Government has all but evaporated. Devoting hundreds of billions of dollars into an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan would have been difficult even in 2001. By 2009, such a policy was politically impossible.

The big issue: What happens after 2014, then work backwards to what we "should" be doing to prepare for that.

[Ray]

Steve,

I am sure that there were those who were against the US embarking on war against Iraq.

However, given the opinion that one gathers from a variety of sources including those who have lived in the US and those who are full-fledged and parochial Americans of other origins, the types of Sarah Palin (who could see Russia from her window) and Joe the Plumber are the national opinion index and the types of Obama are the intellectual dreamer, Sarah Palin, the dream girl and heart throb of US politics also endorses the same (Sarah Palin Thankfully Not On Same ‘Intellectual Stage’ As Obama ). I am sure the ‘real six pack, fast food guzzling real Americans’ would have drowned, what you may term as, any sane analysis.

It does not mean that there are not great brains in the US. There are. Or else how come, without fail, they get the Nobel Prize? It is a sad commentary that a country that is a pacesetter in intellect gloats over being an illiterate as equal to the love for the Ma’s American Apple Pie!

That apart, if we rewind, if indeed the US was against the Iraq War then there should have been indignation when the US ignored the UN. There wasn't. What could be the reason? I am sure there were good reasons, as was to invade Afghanistan. I wonder if invading either Iraq or Afghanistan were wrong decisions. At best, from a military stand point, it was as stupid as Hitler’s flouting the Principle of War in Op Barbarossa to deviate from the Selection and Maintenance of Aim.

Then, if the Americans were against the Iraq war, it is surprising that Bush won in the second term elections with 30 states and 279 electoral votes.

Nearly 120 million Americans voted, or about 60 per cent of those eligible, the highest number since 1968, according to the Associated Press.

With GOP candidates picking off a string of Democratic open seats, Republicans expanded their Senate caucus from 51 to 55 members.

In short, the majority of Americans were for Bush, even though the situation by then had deteriorated drastically.

In fact, the world 'liberal' became a sort of a cuss word or an equivalent for being treacherous.

Not to wear the US Flag as a lapel pin became unpatriotic.

It is fine to blame Bremmer, but then was Bremmer a defacto Pasha and not accountable to the US Administration?

It is easy to blame after the event or find plausible reasons for errors.

At that time, Bremmer was the apple of the eye.

Having bombed OBL out of Tora Bora and having installed a democratic govt of Karzai, the US should have pulled out. It didn't. What could be the reason?

On the issue that the US has lost the thread as to why they went to Afghanistan was lost both to the Republican Presidency as also to the Democratic Presidency. It does indicate that those in Govt do not subscribe to that point of view that the thread has been lost. And elected Govts in a democracy represent the country and not splinter groups of opinion. Therefore, one wonders if the US has lost the thread.

It is good that there are people who realise the mistake. But then, it does not show in the actions. The actions merely indicates a desperation to quit even if it means ‘losing face’ but couching it with all hyperbole and excuse that are being trotted out now.

The China – Gwadar rail link is as on the map which follows the road


It does not go through Afghanistan.

ISI controls instability in so far as the Pashtuns are concerned. They do not have control over the Northern Alliance tribes. Therefore, to have a rail link through Afghanistan, currently, is not feasible.

Trade with Iran is already open for all countries, except the US since US does not want to trade with Iran. In fact, if the US reconcile with Iran (which I think is not feasible) it has the second logistic route open i.e. Chahbahar (Iran) to CAR via Afghanistan. That is the easier option in physical terms.

[Ray]

Applies purely to the domestic audience. Not likely to convince anyone who's paying attention, but most aren't, and most just want to get out of there.

Utter tripe as some may call that.

Domestic audience indeed! But then you maybe right when Joe the Plumber is America's hero index! Or Sarah Palin, who sees Russia through her window and knows a sausage about the world, is worthy to be thought to be a Presidential candidate!

Yet, I beg to disagree with you since American pride does not signature, inspite of a distaste for intellectual prowess, such a defeatist mentality!

It will be the day when the American domestic audience would be ecstatic to be known as a failure to every invasion they embarked on with all the fanfare and muscle flexing to portray as being the sole saviour of the world aka the Superman image they have been fed on from childhood and having to quit with their tails between the leg! No sir, Superman, Spiderman, Wonderwoman, Batman cannot go out of business!!

I have my serious doubt that American rejoice as being the big talk heroes but total losers!

Let me get this straight... we're on a course where vast sums are being spent in a place where no critical or even significant US interests are at stake, and you think we should "stay the course" because if we don't people will think we're ditherers? I say ad infierno with that nonsense. If changing what doesn't work is dithering, then by all means let us dither. The course we're on was set by a government no longer in power, one with a track record of poor decisions and of overestimation US capacities and underestimating risks and the potential for adverse unintended consequences. Obviously that course has to be reassessed on a regular basis: only a fool follows a course blindly without regular reality checks. If the course is not taking us where it's meant to go, or if cost clearly exceeds benefit, the course has to change. If somebody thinks that's dithering, that's their problem, not ours.

Let me also get it straight also.

You may opine that the Bush administration were a bunch of fools and more fools inherited the foolishness in the Obama administration, but then, given the course of events and opinions expressed in the US and elsewhere, I daresay they are fools and full of BS (to use your favourite phrase for all opinions but yours!) and you alone is the shining star - in fact, the sole Pole star of the universe!!

If indeed the Bush administration were of fools, then by your contention, the Obama administration following Bush’s way is also foolish, then in short, you want us to believe that all are fools in the US. If that is so, what can one say?

Fine, none is dithering. They are following the course and they are all fools! The US is full of fools and you say that, not me!

I think the US knows its onions and beans and they are not all that foolish. A thousand pardons for disagreeing with you!

You make my point rather well.

Neat way to circumvent the embarrassing with hyperbole and weak arguments acting intellectual.

National morale is produced by the perceived necessity of the conflict at hand. WW2 was perceived to be an existential battle, therefore national morale was high and the will to persist despite reverses was there. Vietnam was perceived - accurately, as it turned out - to be a war where no critical US interest was at stake, and where cost vastly exceeded any potential gain, therefore morale and political will were low.

How many years did it take to realise, to quote you, 'to be a war where no critical US interest was at stake, and where cost vastly exceeded any potential gain, therefore morale and political will were low.' ? It is easy to appear intelligent and intellectual on hindsight! I am amazed at the manner you can use hindsight to justify issues! Live the times and then comment!

Why attempt to fool people with such excuses that are trotted out in hindsight to cover up the American ego for an abject and unnecessary failure at the hands of some impoverished peasant Vietcong army?

Morale and political will are purely a function of the perceived necessity of the conflict. Nobody, anywhere, has demonstrated that any critical US interest is at stake in Afghanistan. No credible suggestion of strategic or economic value has been made: a few have been claimed, but they don't stand up to critical analysis. There's no existential threat and no significant gain at stake, therefore there is little political will to continue... and that makes perfect sense, given the costs involved. Remember, great powers are far more likely to fall because of overextension and wasting of wealth in pointless conflict than by failure to impose themselves in faraway places.

If Afghanistan was not critical to US interest then why go for it?

If Afghanistan is not critical to US interest, why hang around and trot out hyperbolic meanderings of no consequence? Why not cut and run?

So, why hang around and bleed yourself?

Are you suggesting that the Bush and the Obama Administrations are a bunch of incompetent hallucinatory dolts? If so say it straight. Why use the power of the English language to be dexterous to be neither here nor there?

Choosing a foolish course is dumb, but it happens. Staying on it after it's proven itself foolish is folly: the pursuit of policy known to be contrary to self-interest. You'd think no nation would ever pursue policy contrary to self interest, but it happens all the time. The driver is typically ego, and a refusal to change course because one is afraid to admit a mistake. In the short run admitting a mistake and correcting it may be a transient ego blow, but in the long run that does less damage than staying with the sinking ship.

Of course, choosing foolish course is dumb and it happens. However, to make it a national signature, does make the US appear foolish….no, not to the international audience alone, but to the domestic audience too; unless the domestic audience gloats in being born loser time after time and it is ingrained to acceptance in their genes!

The orientation and focus change on a regular basis. That's both a strength and weakness: it diminishes continuity but it enhances the ability to adapt and to change courses that aren't working.

Of course changes are inherent to the changed situation. That is natural. But if it means a change to the basic aim, then there is something seriously wrong.

Some of what you fear makes little sense to me. Supposing the US moved out of Afghanistan and the Chinese moved in. How would that hurt the US? Chances are they'd find themselves exactly where we are... so what? Even if they succeeded in pacifying the place, set up a few mines, built a railway and pipeline to Gwadar... so what? What would be the threat to the US there? Even if one assumes that China is a threat to be confronted and contained - an assumption that has IMO very little merit - why choose ground for a confrontation that has so little at stake for the US and where the US operates at such a disadvantage?

Nothing will happen no matter who moves into Afghanistan.

All that will happen is that US will look silly, stupid and a loser nation that does not put their money where there is mouth is.

I can’t speak for the domestic audience of the US, but the US will be a laughing stock as it was after Vietnam and now having lost both Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be stamped to be an inconsequential bully who has no will to see their purpose through.

To the domestic audience, it may appear as a hosanna, but to the international audience, it will only be an indicator that the US is inconsequential and their opinion and ranting should be totally ignored. All gas and no go!

Strong words that I did not want to use, but the arrogance of your post to not look beyond your nose, forces me to tell you how others perceive, even though you claim to have lived beyond your shores for years and know how others perceive!

[Dayuhan]

the types of Sarah Palin (who could see Russia from her window)

From Wasilla to the nearest point in Russia is over 1000km. Must have one hell of a pair of eyes.

That apart, if we rewind, if indeed the US was against the Iraq War then there should have been indignation when the US ignored the UN. There wasn't. What could be the reason?

There was indignation and resistance, but it was dfrowned out in the post 9/11 fervor. There was a brief post 9/11 period in which the US populace would have bought into practically any military action aimed at Muslims who could be even vaguely and remotely connected to terrorism, anti-US sentiment, or just generally not being nice... an astonishing number of Americans actually believed that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11.

That sort of obsession is powerful, but it does wear off, and when it does people start asking questions... especially as casualties run up, expenses soar, and the domestic economy tanks. The first question asked is typically "what exactly are we in this for", and if no good answer is posed, popular opinion turns very quickly. So far, dobody has been able to give the American public a clear and acceptable reason why it is so necessary to keep Karzai in power. Certainly there's no significant strategic or economic motive, and "deny AQ" only goes so far, especially with AQ well established elsewhere and OBL gone.

I am sure there were good reasons, as was to invade Afghanistan.

There was a good reason to invade. The question is whether there was a good reason to stay. Nobody seems able to provide one.

Having bombed OBL out of Tora Bora and having installed a democratic govt of Karzai, the US should have pulled out. It didn't. What could be the reason?

Mission creep. Gradually and without effective assessment, the mission morphed into "keep Karzai in power". It's never been clear how that is supposed to benefit the US, and Americans are increasingly unconvinced that it's doing them any good.

Americans are perfectly willing to fight when they perceive a threat to them. They are to a lesser extent willing to fight to gain something, though they are understandably reluctant to use public resources to fight for gains that would accrue mainly to oil or mining companies. In the absence of any convincing threat or prospect of gain, they are - quite sensibly - reluctant to get or stay involved.

If there's some compelling strategic or economic reason to be in Afghanistan, why is it being kept a secret?

Trade with Iran is already open for all countries, except the US since US does not want to trade with Iran. In fact, if the US reconcile with Iran (which I think is not feasible) it has the second logistic route open i.e. Chahbahar (Iran) to CAR via Afghanistan. That is the easier option in physical terms.

Trade, yes... but to hang an expeditionary force out in Afghanistan with Iran as the sole available route for support would be a very risky act, for anyone. The Iranians have their own interests, and there would be a quid pro quo, or more than one. Is Afghanistan important enough for anyone to put themselves in that position?

[Ray]

From Wasilla to the nearest point in Russia is over 1000km. Must have one hell of a pair of eyes.

Notwithstanding, you may have lived in the Orient and I cannot speak for the Orient, but in India, we look at the US as a storehouse of opportunity, but more importantly a huge store house of intellect and wisdom. Therefore, even if we may not be pro US as Dulles may have wanted us to be, we still think that US is a lodestar for democratic ideals, justice and a bank where we can hone our education and intelligence.

Maybe that may not be true, but then that is how we perceive the US.

Therefore, more than you, we hate that the US loses out to anyone and it has nothing to do with the China phobia.

There was indignation and resistance, but it was dfrowned out in the post 9/11 fervor. There was a brief post 9/11 period in which the US populace would have bought into practically any military action aimed at Muslims who could be even vaguely and remotely connected to terrorism, anti-US sentiment, or just generally not being nice... an astonishing number of Americans actually believed that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11.

That sort of obsession is powerful, but it does wear off, and when it does people start asking questions... especially as casualties run up, expenses soar, and the domestic economy tanks. The first question asked is typically "what exactly are we in this for", and if no good answer is posed, popular opinion turns very quickly. So far, dobody has been able to give the American public a clear and acceptable reason why it is so necessary to keep Karzai in power. Certainly there's no significant strategic or economic motive, and "deny AQ" only goes so far, especially with AQ well established elsewhere and OBL gone.

9/11 not only affected the US, but it affected the world. Indignation was there everywhere; maybe with the exception of the Muslim world or even the Muslims of India.

That there was no indignation when Afghanistan was attacked, proved the point that the international community realised that the US reaction was not only natural, but totally justified.

Iraq was a different issue. The American may have believed that Saddam was connected with terrorism, which should not have been the case if they were not Joe the Plumber types and were a little more educated and realised that Rumsfeld would not be shaking hands with Saddam or supporting him against Iran, but the world realised it was but a hoax being perpetuated as it was proved later.

In fact, Bush's fraud over WMD ruined the little credibility that the US had and that is the beginning of the US losing its credibility sheen that it had held so far, inspite of all the Machiavellian sleight of hand perpetuated elsewhere as in Bosnia and elsewhere.

It is a misconception that the world is anti US. No, they are not. It is only when the US thinks that others are fools and the others are blind and so the US can do what they want to do, that people get het up! Who likes to be treated as fools and dolts or the village idiot?

One must realise those days when the non western world were naked natives running in the bush is over. We also understand the realities of the world and are not totally illiterate.

If there was no reason for the US to be in Afghanistan, then why should Obama state that the US policy is …to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future?

To the rest of the world, Obama appears more sane than that evangelist Bush!!

Maybe you could explain so that we realise where we missed something.

There was a good reason to invade. The question is whether there was a good reason to stay. Nobody seems able to provide one.

But if one made a mistake as the only superpower of the world (as the US like to claim and impress) and stayed and not cut and run, why blame the world?

Cut and run. Become the butt of all jokes and incompetence and example of arrogance leading to abject failure and never to be trusted again for what the US says.

Mission creep. Gradually and without effective assessment, the mission morphed into "keep Karzai in power". It's never been clear how that is supposed to benefit the US, and Americans are increasingly unconvinced that it's doing them any good.

So, the US embarks on whim and fancies and totally rudderless in the final aim?

I don't think so.

Americans are perfectly willing to fight when they perceive a threat to them. They are to a lesser extent willing to fight to gain something, though they are understandably reluctant to use public resources to fight for gains that would accrue mainly to oil or mining companies. In the absence of any convincing threat or prospect of gain, they are - quite sensibly - reluctant to get or stay involved.

So Americans are the bully of the block till they meet their match, even if they are smaller chaps but who are more agile and dexterous?

And that they work only because of greed and not on moral philosophy except as a cover or smokescreen for their greed, like bringing Freedom and Democracy as the missionaries brought civilisation to harvest pagan souls,who required no harvesting?!

And the US follows in true copybook manner what Bishop Desmond Tutu said - “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

and then messes even this!

:rofl:

If there's some compelling strategic or economic reason to be in Afghanistan, why is it being kept a secret?

Search me.

I said what the world thinks, but you called it BS.

You tell us!

Trade, yes... but to hang an expeditionary force out in Afghanistan with Iran as the sole available route for support would be a very risky act, for anyone. The Iranians have their own interests, and there would be a quid pro quo, or more than one. Is Afghanistan important enough for anyone to put themselves in that position?

It is as good as the British nursery rhyme

Half a pound of tuppenny rice,
Half a pound of treacle.
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Notwithstanding, I believe the US knows what they are doing even if many feel that they are just blathering and foaming at the bit!

[Levi]

Davidfpo is for England (is it ok to call it that, or is it always Britain?) leaving on schedule, and he thinks bad things will happen when they do.

Ray, I was just curious about peoples thoughts on leaving. But that's a lot venom in your posts, and maybe THAT is why it is difficult to have a discussion about leaving, or why I don't see it come up much. I am hoping to see some others opinions on the issue. Thank you though.

Dayuhan also wants the US to leave, I think.

[Ray]

Davidfpo is for England (is it ok to call it that, or is it always Britain?) leaving on schedule, and he thinks bad things will happen when they do.

Ray, I was just curious about peoples thoughts on leaving. But that's a lot venom in your posts, and maybe THAT is why it is difficult to have a discussion about leaving, or why I don't see it come up much. I am hoping to see some others opinions on the issue. Thank you though.

Dayuhan also wants the US to leave, I think.

I apologise if I have offended anyone with 'venom'.

I thought I was giving my point of view, without ambiguity or political correctness that seems to be the fashion these days in the world.

Indeed, I would be delighted if any of my point raised could be rubbished. Education is my aim why I am here.

I would love a discussion but then it would be constructive if it were not couched with hyperbole or avoiding the reality with a deft touch of the language; being neither here nor there and if in a sticky place, obfuscate with the irrelevant.

For instance, I cannot reconcile to the fact that every media report with all types of divergent views/ all commentaries of respected and recognised think tanks/ every govt communique/ every opinion is rubbished as BS.

I seriously doubt that Western Govt is elected and also staffed by morons and we alone know what is the only way out.

It is this line of thought that has promoted what you feel is 'venom' emanating from me.

Once again, forgive me if I were too frank and not submissive!

Go ahead and have your ball. I will not comment on this thread any further.

[TDB]

Davidfpo is for England (is it ok to call it that, or is it always Britain?) leaving on schedule, and he thinks bad things will happen when they do.

Ray, I was just curious about peoples thoughts on leaving. But that's a lot venom in your posts, and maybe THAT is why it is difficult to have a discussion about leaving, or why I don't see it come up much. I am hoping to see some others opinions on the issue. Thank you though.

Dayuhan also wants the US to leave, I think.

Britain, though I'm saying this as a Welshman.

[Steve the Planner]

Levi:

I think the confusion comes from the fact that most of us on this board are asked to "do something" at lower levels after the big decisions were already made for us.

I thought invading Iraq was crazy, but I didn't get asked. When they said they wanted to leave, I felt compelled to help with that task.

Ray: I'm a little worried about the idea of thinking that the Bush folks were stupid. They absolutely were not, but they were focused on what they were focused on, not what we were, or the unintended consequences.

Like Westmoreland in Vietnam, he was the general the administration wanted, and served them well , if not their nation and troops. Bremer did as instructed in the same way, I believe.

Just like Colin Powell. Need a speech to the UN on WMD? Yessir. I hear and I obey.

Question: At what point does the balloon go up (or down) to say: Its over, get us out?

When that q is asked, the answer will not be half as easy as the getting in.

[Dayuhan]

in India, we look at the US as a storehouse of opportunity, but more importantly a huge store house of intellect and wisdom. Therefore, even if we may not be pro US as Dulles may have wanted us to be, we still think that US is a lodestar for democratic ideals, justice and a bank where we can hone our education and intelligence.

You must be disappointed a lot. I also suspect that some in India have a rather different impression of the US... with over a billion people you'd expect some variety of opinions!

The US is neither as ideal as you suggest nor as devious and self-serving as, say, the Chomsky left would suggest. Each view is a piece of the picture, and there's a whole lot in between. Like most nations and all democratic nations, the US is often pulled between conflicting agendas and conflicting ideals. The difference is that the inherent conflicts of the US system are far more visible and affect far more people than those of most countries.

Therefore, more than you, we hate that the US loses out to anyone and it has nothing to do with the China phobia.

The US typically "loses out" less to others than to its own failure to accurately evaluate its own interests and capacities. Emotion, ego, pandering to transient domestic political trends, and a variety of other factors are often involved. Like most countries, the US makes mistakes. The US system also provides a capacity to change course and correct mistakes, something that is occasionally interpreted as dithering.

That there was no indignation when Afghanistan was attacked, proved the point that the international community realised that the US reaction was not only natural, but totally justified.

Decisions after that justified reaction were made without accurate assessment of the challenges or of the costs and benefits involved. I don't doubt that removing the Taliban was appropriate. Committing ourselves to install and sustain an Afghan government is another story.

Iraq was a different issue. The American may have believed that Saddam was connected with terrorism, which should not have been the case if they were not Joe the Plumber types and were a little more educated and realised that Rumsfeld would not be shaking hands with Saddam or supporting him against Iran, but the world realised it was but a hoax being perpetuated as it was proved later.

In fact, Bush's fraud over WMD ruined the little credibility that the US had and that is the beginning of the US losing its credibility sheen that it had held so far, inspite of all the Machiavellian sleight of hand perpetuated elsewhere as in Bosnia and elsewhere.

Yes, a very different issue, about which I could say a good deal... but that would be digression. Again enormous miscalculations were made, though often not for the reasons that have been widely assumed.

It is a misconception that the world is anti US.

Some are. Some aren't. Most are somewhere in between. "The world" generally doesn't have consistent opinions.

If there was no reason for the US to be in Afghanistan, then why should Obama state that the US policy is …to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future?

There was a reason, and that's pretty much what it was. The problem is that once that was largely accomplished, we convinced ourselves that we had to stick around and install and sustain a government. That's another mission altogether and a substantially less justifiable one, at least in terms of costs and benefits to the US.

But if one made a mistake as the only superpower of the world (as the US like to claim and impress) and stayed and not cut and run, why blame the world?

Who blamed the world? The question is solely whether the cost/benefit/risk to the US justifies a continued presence. That has to be continuously reassessed and the course re-plotted on the basis of those assessments.

Cut and run. Become the butt of all jokes and incompetence and example of arrogance leading to abject failure and never to be trusted again for what the US says.

Persisting on an ineffective course because you're afraid of what others might think if you changed it is the height of folly. Again, the US needs to make decisions based on its own assessment of the costs, benefits, and risks, of the probability of success and of the demonstrated effectiveness - or lack thereof - of existing strategy. If it ain't working, change it. People can think whatever they want. They'll get over it.

So, the US embarks on whim and fancies and totally rudderless in the final aim?

Rudderless? Hardly... the whole point of a rudder is that it allows you to change course when you want to. Persisting blindly on an ineffective course that costs more than it can possibly gain is rudderless.

So Americans are the bully of the block till they meet their match, even if they are smaller chaps but who are more agile and dexterous?

Does "meet their match" encompass a situation in which one changes course because the existing course is ineffective and unjustifiably expensive?

And the US follows in true copybook manner what Bishop Desmond Tutu said - “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

If the US followed that copybook they'd have acquired land all over the world, and then run themselves into exhaustion trying to hold onto it. That was more a European program.

I said what the world thinks, but you called it BS.

You tell us!

You said what you think. The world thinks a whole lot of stuff.

Lots of people have tried, for reasons of their own, to suggest that the US presence in Afghanistan is not really about suppressing AQ, and that there's some hidden strategic or economic gain being pursued. I merely point out that these claims do not stand up well to critical examination, and that the extremely hypothetical gains that are proposed wouldn't begin to justify the cost and liability of sustaining an Afghan occupation.

I believe the US knows what they are doing even if many feel that they are just blathering and foaming at the bit!

Of course they know what they're doing. They're trying to figure a way to get out with the least possible damage. Would have been better IMO if we hadn't stayed in the first place, but that's water under the bridge. Better late than never.

[Ray]

You must be disappointed a lot. I also suspect that some in India have a rather different impression of the US... with over a billion people you'd expect some variety of opinions!

You are right.

The Communists think the US is the scum!

But the vast majority don't think so!

As you have correctly analysed, in a democracy there are conflicting interests.

However, in a democracy because of the voting system, the Govt assumes that Vox Populi is Vox Dei!

And that is how the Pennies fall!

The US is neither as ideal as you suggest nor as devious and self-serving as, say, the Chomsky left would suggest. Each view is a piece of the picture, and there's a whole lot in between. Like most nations and all democratic nations, the US is often pulled between conflicting agendas and conflicting ideals. The difference is that the inherent conflicts of the US system are far more visible and affect far more people than those of most countries.

Chomsky, even to us, talks through his hat!

Some think out here that he is senile but a loveable comic break!

Indeed, if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. No denying that.

Therefore, it is in the interest of all, to ensure that the US is healthy, wealthy and wise!

The US typically "loses out" less to others than to its own failure to accurately evaluate its own interests and capacities. Emotion, ego, pandering to transient domestic political trends, and a variety of other factors are often involved. Like most countries, the US makes mistakes. The US system also provides a capacity to change course and correct mistakes, something that is occasionally interpreted as dithering.

What you may say is true.

However, to the world, if you remember there is this phrase - The King Can Do No Wrong.

Britain may not be an imperial power any longer, but the Queen is still revered in the Commonwealth. Why? She does no wrong nor does she act on impulse. Every action is weighed and then she acts.

The US though the King of the world, acts impulsively and, if all Americans here forgive me, very arrogantly. The US, as it appears, does not think through the consequences and feel that they will come out the winner! And when she doesn't, there are apologists running in circles to throw smokescreens to obfuscate the issue.

Compare the same with China. They are majestically aloof and when they act, they actually sneer with high morality to make the others feel violated! and they get their way! It is not the economy that speaks, it is their 'Chinese way of doing things'!

Decisions after that justified reaction were made without accurate assessment of the challenges or of the costs and benefits involved. I don't doubt that removing the Taliban was appropriate. Committing ourselves to install and sustain an Afghan government is another story.

How does one sort out the Taliban without filling the vacuum with someone who is pliable?

Yes, a very different issue, about which I could say a good deal... but that would be digression. Again enormous miscalculations were made, though often not for the reasons that have been widely assumed.

Bush's justification was fraudulent, but not his strategic requirement.

Iraq was an important cog in US strategy. It translated Cheney's energy and strategic vision that he penned when he was the Secretary of Defence.

In fact, the action to go into Iraq was, from the US strategic point of view, a masterstroke!

Some are. Some aren't. Most are somewhere in between. "The world" generally doesn't have consistent opinions.

Maybe.

But to believe all are anti US is an exaggerated view!

There was a reason, and that's pretty much what it was. The problem is that once that was largely accomplished, we convinced ourselves that we had to stick around and install and sustain a government. That's another mission altogether and a substantially less justifiable one, at least in terms of costs and benefits to the US.

Like Iraq, Afghanistan is not one off keeping the AQ at bay.

The events in Central and South Asia that are unfolding as also the state of economy suggests that there are good reasons to do what the US is doing.

Who blamed the world? The question is solely whether the cost/benefit/risk to the US justifies a continued presence. That has to be continuously reassessed and the course re-plotted on the basis of those assessments.

Indeed, but a superpower does not quit as if confused, confounded and beaten to the draw and hopeless in all departments.

A superpower cannot project itself to be a confused entity!

Persisting on an ineffective course because you're afraid of what others might think if you changed it is the height of folly. Again, the US needs to make decisions based on its own assessment of the costs, benefits, and risks, of the probability of success and of the demonstrated effectiveness - or lack thereof - of existing strategy. If it ain't working, change it. People can think whatever they want. They'll get over it.

I agree a nation should not be afraid what others think.

But then a nation should embark on a war to do 'business' and not descend on war as Gabriel the Archangel or evangelist missionaries to save the world! For if they do, then they have to prove that they are what they claim to be!

It may be a consolation to feel that 'people will get over it'. No, they don't. They remember it till Kingdom Come. Notice how Vietnam keeps cropping up or the Iranian failure over the hostages!

Uneasy like the head that wears the Crown.

Rudderless? Hardly... the whole point of a rudder is that it allows you to change course when you want to. Persisting blindly on an ineffective course that costs more than it can possibly gain is rudderless.

I am not quite 'un-conversant' with sailing.

You change tack and then you have to change tack to be 'on course' by deft use of the wind. You don't change tack to go blind to lose the race!

Does "meet their match" encompass a situation in which one changes course because the existing course is ineffective and unjustifiably expensive?

It is the US' call.

They should have thought about it before they bit more than what they could have chewed! Afghanistan and then without completing the agenda in Afghanistan switching to Iraq.

You voted in Bush on that scenario, so why complain?

If the US followed that copybook they'd have acquired land all over the world, and then run themselves into exhaustion trying to hold onto it. That was more a European program.

The Europeans may have run themselves into exhaustion, but they haven't done that badly either.

I cannot speak for other imperialist powers in the Orient, but I can say about India, that has British, French and Portuguese imperialistics in their regions.

We still continue British traditions, in Puducherry (Pondicherry) French is also official language of Pondicherry Union territory. Though it was official language of French India (1673-1954), its official language status was preserved by Trait de Cession (Treaty of Cession) signed by India and France on 28 May 1956 and Portuguese culture is preserved in Goa.

That speaks volumes about the way the Europeans did 'business'.

You said what you think. The world thinks a whole lot of stuff.

Lots of people have tried, for reasons of their own, to suggest that the US presence in Afghanistan is not really about suppressing AQ, and that there's some hidden strategic or economic gain being pursued. I merely point out that these claims do not stand up well to critical examination, and that the extremely hypothetical gains that are proposed wouldn't begin to justify the cost and liability of sustaining an Afghan occupation.

There is no doubt that AQ is a menace and the US is at it.

However, if additional benefits are there, why not pursue it, more so when lives and money is being squandered

Of course they know what they're doing. They're trying to figure a way to get out with the least possible damage. Would have been better IMO if we hadn't stayed in the first place, but that's water under the bridge. Better late than never.

Better late than never.

But not with tails between......

Americans that I know are very proud and more proud than necessary!

Maybe I have met Americans who are not ready to give up the ship and look sheepish.

But then, I agree, it makes all types to make the US!!