Leave or Stay

[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.

[davidbfpo]

Levi you cited:

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.

Minor point, I am British.

Yes bad things will happen in Afghanistan, a country that has had few periods of peace and national development in it's history. I have no "crystal ball" as to what will happen. Whether the Taliban coalition or the national government "wins" is unclear.

Anyway back to my view of British national strategic objectives. Afghanistan is nothing compared to Pakistan's importance for the UK, although I do concede heroin production in Afghanistan is a strategic issue for the UK. Yes, AQ-related terrorism needs to be defeated; it's just that I don't think there is much of a threat in Afghanistan from that and open sources indicate the problem is in Pakistan, not just the FATA either. Slowly I have become to doubt the value of our military role in Afghanistan, where history alone makes us an enemy of too many Afghans or Pathans. The UK has a limited strategic resources and they can be better used elsewhere.

Overwhelming my view is the simple fact that our paramount national strategic objective is to remain the USA's special friend.

If the USA goes we go, if you stay we stay. For sometime I have thought we may well be the only non-US ISAF partner at the end.

[Ken White]

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

I saw no venom. Irritation perhaps but we all get that way on occasion.

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.

That seems accurate to me.

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.

OTOH, that seems less accurate and perahps a touch hyperbolic...

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.

Allow me to again write I have not seen that written. What I have seen are comments that much of what emanate from the halls of government generally and the media -- in the US in particular -- is not as well informed or accurate as one might hope. Some is quite good, some is indeed BS -- the tricky part is sorting those poles from the items of value.

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

I agree -- though I will admit to occasionally wondering...

In the case of the US, it is not an issue of morons or only we knowing the way, it is a case of system design making rapid, consistent and coherent decisions with superb follow-through quite difficult unless there is extreme provocation. That can often be frustrating to all of us but is, for us in the US, beneficial more often than not.

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

Your call. You add valuable insights some of which I agree with and others with which I do not agree but you have every right to express your opinion and I hope you'll continue to do so.

[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.

[Levi]

RAY:I wasn't offended. It just seemed like you were saying we should leave, and then I thought you got mad. But I am a "face to face" person, without body language and voice clues, I get things wrong sometimes. The "deft touch of language" comment made me smile, in a good way.

Britain, and British it is. My two times through Heathrow haven't been enough to get me familiar with Britain. I got invited to Ireland, but the girl's family called me and told me she was crazy. So I didn't go.

Davidfpo, I am with you on the ISAF thing, although I read in "accidental guerilla" that there was a road built by India, by Indian contractors with Indian Aid money. That stuff never hits the news here.(BBC on netflix takes forever to load ) I guess I should not be surprised that country's in the region are involved "duh!" but I never hear about it. I wish I could go travel there (Afghanistan) a bit, I would learn things I can't learn otherwise. So far it seems no one on this forum is pushing for an eternal COIN. And that is what worries me. Not what other country's think, or even if we lose, not that I can tell what winning or losing would look like. I don't think we need a permanent base in Afghanistan.

TDB :

wait... where does "the prince of wales" live?? now I gotta google Welsh government.

[omarali50]

Levi,

.... The historical Afghan way has been to compromise and fight little.

The historical Afghan way no longer applies. The jihadists (and they do exist) have brought in a new and more lethal element. Certainly, non-jihadist Afghans (probably still a majority) will compromise rather than fight (and then fight again at some point in the future), but in the new scheme of things all the "compromising" will go in one direction. Their will be no compromise in which some westernized Afghans or some Shia Afghans will be permitted any kind of space. The executions in football stadiums will be extensive. If fact, you can go to paknationalist blogs (like rupeenews.com) and see frequent references to the day when so and so will be hanging from a lamppost in Kabul.
Get out by all means, but don't be under too many illusions about the wonderful compromises that will follow..

[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.

[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.

[Ray]

I wonder how anyone could feel that I was advocating that the US should leave.

I was categorically stating that the US Administration, much maligned out here, were not all that cavalier as is being suggested.

In fact, I was against the US and ISAF quitting for the simple reason that if the US quits, there will be a void and Afghanistan will go into a tailspin or may bring back the instability of the Taliban days.

The domestic backlash, aggravated by a 'collapsing' economy, job cuts etc may demand that the US quits. However, to believe that the US has no interest in these parts of the world starting from the CAR extending through Afghanistan to the East would be surprising. The rationale for this is that one does not hang around after one has accomplished their mission. The US mission, as I understand from this and other threads, was to teach OBL that he and his outfit could not trifle with the US (9/11). That mission was long achieved by keeping OBL on the run.

I agree that one cannot fathom what will happen, but then the situation that is current, does not suggest that the US quits since if it were just a reaction to 9/11, the punishment given was over long ago.

Given the manner the events are panning out, I would definitely give more credence to what Bush or Obama has said than to opinions elsewhere since it is 'straight from the horse's mouth'. The events definitely suggest that the US intent 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.

In fact just today, the headlines around the world suggests that the ISAF is amassing troops on the Pakistan border.

http://theindependentbd.com/internat...an-border.html

It is obvious that there must be some 'method in the madness', if indeed, some feel this to be madness, which I don't think so since no leader of a country would put the lives of his countrymen on line for no good reasons.

On the issue of my quoting from the 'halls of govt' or the 'media', I am afraid since I am not in Govt, I can only rely on the official views and the media and at times, from those who are 'in the know'. But then, if the govt and the media are biased, what is the guarantee that those in the know are also not biased?

Catch 22.

One has to work around all that or visit the area. Even visiting the area gives a biased view.

Let us take an example.

Much has been said of the Taliban and their ways. How many of us have met and spoken to a Taliban chap? And even if we had spoken to them, do they represent their leadership's view or merely the brainwashed ooze?

Therefore, there is nothing that is black or white. It is all grey and it is all one's interpretation.

And so one has to make the best of what the Govts involves say, what the media (of a variety of nations) say, what the events indicate towards what is being said and one's personal experience in the field.

Even that is not perfect!

[Ray]

RAY:I wasn't offended. It just seemed like you were saying we should leave, and then I thought you got mad. But I am a "face to face" person, without body language and voice clues, I get things wrong sometimes. The "deft touch of language" comment made me smile, in a good way.

Britain, and British it is. My two times through Heathrow haven't been enough to get me familiar with Britain. I got invited to Ireland, but the girl's family called me and told me she was crazy. So I didn't go.

Davidfpo, I am with you on the ISAF thing, although I read in "accidental guerilla" that there was a road built by India, by Indian contractors with Indian Aid money. That stuff never hits the news here.(BBC on netflix takes forever to load ) I guess I should not be surprised that country's in the region are involved "duh!" but I never hear about it. I wish I could go travel there (Afghanistan) a bit, I would learn things I can't learn otherwise. So far it seems no one on this forum is pushing for an eternal COIN. And that is what worries me. Not what other country's think, or even if we lose, not that I can tell what winning or losing would look like. I don't think we need a permanent base in Afghanistan.

TDB :

wait... where does "the prince of wales" live?? now I gotta google Welsh government.

What happens in India is not important where you live and so it is not reported and so one cannot blame you.

India has built the Chahbahar port in Iran, it has built the road that connects the port to that road and then it goes into CAR through Shia country, not that it cannot be interdicted by the Sunni Taliban from bases in Pakistan or Eastern Afghanistan!

Like in Iraq, the US will maintain Baghram or so it is said. As they say, you don't lose precious lives to fight another day.

No matter what is the perception that the US came into Afghanistan merely to avenge 9/11, that would be too naive to believe, more so, when the US elections can be swayed by bodybags!! A gentleman and a war hero, John McCain would answer that best.

[Ray]

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.

I never said Bush or Obama were stupid.

In fact, I was saying they were/ are not and that they knew exactly what they were doing!

It is others who felt that the US administration were a Punch and Judy show!

I am aware that Bremmer was not an unguided Scud missile and that is why I asked if Bremmer was a Pasha to the contention that he messed up Iraq.

I don't understand why what I said is being turned on its head by quite a few and given interpretation that I have not said and instead have questioned.

[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!!

[Dayuhan]

In fact, I was against the US and ISAF quitting for the simple reason that if the US quits, there will be a void and Afghanistan will go into a tailspin or may bring back the instability of the Taliban days.

Look closely at that. Ten years, thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars... and if we leave it goes into a tailspin? What that says to me is that this isn't working. We're not protecting a growing government while it learns to govern, we're enabling the continued dependence of a government that has no reason to learn to govern. When we tell the Karzai government that we'll protect them and keep them on the gravy train until they can stand on their own feet, we create an enormous incentive for them to not stand on their feet. They won't govern until they have to, and as long as we're protecting and paying the bill, they don't have to: they can carry on taking care of business and stealing as much of our money as they can. Of course even if they have to govern they may not be able to; we don't know that. What we do know is that they won't even try unless they have to, and while we're there, they don't have to.

Certainly from an Indian perspective it's desirable to have the US there keeping things together. From a US perspective, though, what do we gain in Afghanistan, or what threat do we avert, that justifies this unending cost? How many more decades, how many more thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are we supposed to chuck down a black hole with no progress and no visible gain to us?

Is it not said that doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity? What we've done has not achieved the desired result. Why would doing more of it accomplish anything different?

However, to believe that the US has no interest in these parts of the world starting from the CAR extending through Afghanistan to the East would be surprising.

Nobody has said that there is no interest. The question is whether the interests are advanced by our presence in Afghanistan, and whether they justify the cost. I see few credible reasons to answer either question in the affirmative.

The rationale for this is that one does not hang around after one has accomplished their mission. The US mission, as I understand from this and other threads, was to teach OBL that he and his outfit could not trifle with the US (9/11). That mission was long achieved by keeping OBL on the run.

I agree that one cannot fathom what will happen, but then the situation that is current, does not suggest that the US quits since if it were just a reaction to 9/11, the punishment given was over long ago.

Exactly. So what credible reason is there to continue a conflict that serves no purpose that anyone is able to justify? There's vague talk about economic or strategic gains, but when you get down to specifics there's nothing there that anyone seems able to quantify in terms that come anywhere remotely close to justifying the cost.

I would definitely give more credence to what Bush or Obama has said than to opinions elsewhere since it is 'straight from the horse's mouth'. The events definitely suggest that the US intent 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.

Bush, Obama, and those who work for them will say whatever they think will cover their derrieres and sound good to the electorate... but yes, I think that was the initial intent. It was a reasonable intent that was corrupted by the subsequent assumption that this intent required the installation of a government recognizable to Americans as "democracy".

It is obvious that there must be some 'method in the madness', if indeed, some feel this to be madness, which I don't think so since no leader of a country would put the lives of his countrymen on line for no good reasons.

Reasons or methods that seem good at one point may seem less good at a subsequent point, and reasons - and performance - must be continuously reassessed.

On the issue of my quoting from the 'halls of govt' or the 'media', I am afraid since I am not in Govt, I can only rely on the official views and the media and at times, from those who are 'in the know'. But then, if the govt and the media are biased, what is the guarantee that those in the know are also not biased?

Everyone is biased, and everything anyone says has to be critically examined.

[TDB]

TDB :

wait... where does "the prince of wales" live?? now I gotta google Welsh government.

HRH The Prince of Wales, please now lets have some decorum here! Well he lives with his mum, in London, the capitol city of Britain and England. This has nothing to do with national identity, nothing to do with political correctness, just being correct. This is all very off topic anyway.

[Ray]

Hundreds of the US troops deployed in Khost, a town in Afghanistan’s North Eastern Paktia province that borders Pakistan’s North Waziristan, during last couple of days, are tasked to identify the militant targets in the NWA areas that are to be taken on with drones and aerial strikes, according to intelligence sources.
Contrary to the growing speculations that the US forces might intrude into Pakistani territory to act against Haqqani Network, these troops, the sources say, would stay at the Afghan side of the border where they have reportedly installed sophisticated equipment for the identification of militant targets.
Despite the exchange of ‘warm’ statements that stressed an enhanced Pak-US strategic cooperation after the tensions between the two states culminated to peak over Haqqani Network row, the latest development concerning troops deployment comes as a vivid expression of the US mistrust on Pakistan’s intelligence and security agencies that had been assisting the US and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) forces in hunting down the militants in Waziristan region. The US reliance on its own troops for the target identification of the militants instead of exchanging information with Pakistan’s security and intelligence set-up is deciphered in the backdrop of the speculations from the US side that Pakistan was aiding Haqqanis and it would not cooperate with the US in hunting down the militant network.

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-n...t-cross-border

[Ray]

Pakistan offers to hold peace talks with militants

By Maaz Khan (AFP) – 5 hours ago

QUETTA, Pakistan — Pakistan is willing to hold peace talks with Islamist militants if they surrender their weapons first, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Tuesday.

"We have received messages from banned outfits and militant organisations for reconciliation and we have conveyed these messages to our leadership," Malik told reporters in Quetta, the capital of troubled Baluchistan province.

Pakistan plays host to myriad Islamist militant groups, principally a Taliban-led insurgency in its northwest on the border with Afghanistan, but also a regional insurgency with separatist aspirations in Baluchistan.

Malik refused to disclose which militants he was talking about. Asked whether these reconciliation messages were coming from the Taliban or Baluch rebels, he replied: "It is purely confidential."

"The prime minister has also clearly stated that reconciliation is possible only with those who lay down their arms," he added.

"Reconciliation and talks are not possible when there is Kalashnikov in one hand. There is clear government policy that talks or dialogue would be held only with those who surrender their weapons," Malik said.

Pakistan is under mounting US pressure to eliminate Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked safe havens, in particular to launch an offensive against the Haqqani network considered the primary US foe in eastern Afghanistan.

Closing ranks against the US pressure at a conference uniting political and military leaders on September 29, Pakistan called for a new emphasis on reconciliation, saying "'give peace a chance' must be the guiding principle".

Washington says eliminating militant sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal belt are vital to ending the 10-year war in Afghanistan and defeating Al-Qaeda.

But Pakistan has refused to open a new front against the Haqqanis and denies US accusations of support for the Al-Qaeda-linked network.....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...f0031f2bf4.6e1

[Ray]

My experience with insurgency and terrorist is that unless you eliminate their base or ensure that their base is isolated, you cannot control the terrorists.

They are making forays from KP and it requires to be isolated or eliminated.

If it can be done, then the US and ISAF can wind up and leave with the band playing!

[taabistan]

Leave.

The American and British governments haven't provided any persuasive arguments for staying in Afghanistan. They have confused state-building, development, defeating the Taliban and defeating al-Qaeda. In fact, there are so many reasons being provided, I'm beginning to think their answer is 'We're there' and they are almost inventing reasons to justify their presence.

We are going to look back at the post-9/11 decade with despair. What the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan was a humiliating mess. To be spending 145 billion dollars a year and keeping 150,000 troops in a country that is historically hostile to foreigners, and incurring heavy casualties while claiming successes, is downright insanity.

What is most baffling are the words being used to describe these two countries: failed states, governance, neo-Taliban, warlordism, tribalism, ISI-inspired terror. These are all buzzwords, hypnotizing jargon that is misleading and creates the very problems we claim we're trying to solve.

I think Afghanistan is a wonderful country, filled with energy and intelligence. But it's a country that requires 30-40 years of patient rebuilding, and is a job that will have to be done by Afghans themselves. The US and International community simply do not have the resources, the time, the cultural and linguistic expertise and, most importantly, the consent of the local population to accomplish the grand goals they had set out to achieve.

[Dayuhan]

there are so many reasons being provided, I'm beginning to think their answer is 'We're there' and they are almost inventing reasons to justify their presence.

Inertia is a potent force in human affairs...

[Dayuhan]

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

True, and that makes continuity difficult, if not impossible.

It would be a mistake to think of the US populace as ditherers. They (we) are understandably reluctant to grant government a blank check or an infinite timeline for any enterprise that is not deemed critical to our interests (not all interests are critical or existential). If an enterprise does not produce results or if costs are clearly exceeding any possible benefit, the support of the populace is lost, the bastards who support the enterprise gets voted out, and a new set of bastards with a new set of policies comes in.

What that means in practice is that the US commitment to any enterprise not involving necessity is limited. That may seem like dithering, but in fact it's an important self-defense mechanism limiting the known tendency of great powers to burn their resources in unproductive engagements abroad, and to let pride keep them in places when common sense demands withdrawal.

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!

If the king can do no wrong, how did George III misplace his American colony? If kings could do no wrong, there would be a lot more of them around. The Queen appears to do no wrong because she has no power and nothing she does matters.

American leaders often fail to accurately assess the potential consequences and outcomes of their actions. That's why the populace sometimes has to pull the plug on things they get involved in. The government's people will scramble around trying to convince the populace that there is really an existential threat that must be averted, or something to be gained that's worth the cost, but if those arguments don't stand up the populace will pull the plug anyway.

The US isn't king of anything.

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'!

Give them time, they will step on their dicks.

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

One doesn't need to fill the vacuum with somebody pliable. One needs to be sure that whoever fills the vacuum knows that messing with the US has immediate and horrible consequences.

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!

I do not agree, but that's a subject for another thread.

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.

I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation of what those good reasons are and how they justify the costs and liabilities we've incurred.

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!

If the superpower is a democracy, it does what its people want and demand. That will necessarily give some people the impression of confusion. So be it.

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!

In order to get permission for a war, a US government has to convince the US populace that the war is both functional and noble. This is often not that hard to do, but if results are not forthcoming the permission can be withdrawn. Maintaining that belief is often harder than creating it, especially when results are not forthcoming.

The continuing negotiations between a US government and the US electorate over foreign policy adventures are often desperately confusing to non-Americans, and often produce extremely inaccurate impressions. Again, this is a function of democracy and I don't see how it can be changed.

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!

Let them crop up, they did no lasting damage. The penalty for continuing on a non-productive course is higher than the penalty for sustaining it.

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.

Absolutely true. Mistakes were made. If you make a mistake you act to correct it. If you're walking down a road that goes nowhere you want to go, change direction. if a government commits itself to a course it can't achieve with the resources the populace is willing to commit to the effort, a subsequent government will write off the effort.

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

Complaining is pointless. Acting to correct an unsatisfactory course is not.

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.

Pride makes a poor basis for policy, and it's a poor captain that would run his ship on the rocks rather than admit he (or his predecessor) chose the wrong course and turn it around.