I would argue we have shifted, and for better reasons that our justifications shifted in Iraq (which was mainly to cover the fact that the initial justifications proved unfounded).

We were justified in invading Afghanistan because its government was openly harboring an organization that very violently attacked our country and showed no inclination towards changing that.

I agree that we've mostly destroyed Al Qaeda as a threat based in Afghanistan. I am willing to concede that if we leave now they are unlikely to quickly regain the position they had there before (if nothing else the Taliban knows what that would eventually mean).

I do too. And if it were 1999 I would not advocate invading Afghanistan simply to displace the Taliban because of the way it treats women or anything else.

However, that's not the situation we face. The situation we now face is that our quick departure has a high probability of returning Afghanistan to 1999. Our position of responsibility is different now than it was then.

And in terms of asking for our help I'm pretty sure the general population is not opposed to our presence in the way that the average Iraqi was to our presence there. The general population does not want the Taliban to return power.

The argument being made here is that the original goals of the war in Afghanistan have been achieved. And I mostly agree with that position. I just think we've incurred new responsibilities towards the region along the way.

By that region, do you happen to mean the one that has brought every military campaign by the last three centuries' most powerful empires to complete ruin?


I understand the rationale about our "broke it, bought it" responsibilities. But it's folly to think we can meet them. Cut.Our.Losses.And.Run.

Yes, just do it now. We WILL be doing it eventually.

I disagree about that inevitability, as well as on whether our responsibilities cease simply because we decide that they're really hard to fulfill.

Let me caveat what is to follow with a clear statement that I'm not saying anybody here has done this, we haven't talked about Afghanistan enough in the past for me to have a sense of it. but I have also noticed a certain predictable behavior from a segment of the anti-war movements.

When Iraq was going poorly (well, much more poorly than it is going now anyway) they used their support of the war in Afghanistan to burnish their credentials of not being anti-all-wars. In fact they frequently said that Iraq was distracting us from the appropriate war in Afghanistan and that is the one we should be fighting.

Now that we have a reasonably solid exit plan for Iraq and the move is to focus on Afghanistan, the goalposts have moved and they are against that war as well.

I think this is a cause of some suprise for Obama since he said all along that Afghanistan is the war we should have been fighting, Iraq was a distraction from that, and he'd put an end to Iraq and focus on Afghanistan.

It appears that was a serious set of policy beliefs on his part and the sand is shifting beneath him since it was apparently just a cynical expedient position for several segments (again by no means all, there were plenty of anti-war people were very clear about being against any and all wars) of his base.

This is a story about soldiers going to Iraq but the picture moved me so I thought I'd post it.


Source

After I finish dabbing my eyes,



I'd like to point out to Alex that it's politicians who want to walk that fine line of not-being-against-all-wars, likely because its considered to be political suicide.


But many of us in the anti-war movement are, well, ANTI-WAR.


It would be "nice" if we'd had a war I could support as a necessary evil during my lifetime. Of course, I don't mean "nice," but I'd have a hard time being anti-WWII.

But Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan are a series of morally-repugnant quagmires. They have been the only U.S. wars of my 50 years, and they paint a grim, stupid, and soul-sucking picture.

I'm one who has consistently from the beginning felt that we were fully justified to take action against al Qaeda/the Taliban in Afghanistan while fully unjustified in taking action against Saddam in Iraq, and my stance has not changed on that. I still believe we had a valid reason to start sh*t in Afghanistan, and therefore have a valid responsibility to finish it "correctly".

Of course one's definition of "correctly" can be debated. And I do still reserve the right to oppose continued action there without considering myself a hypocrite if said continued action is not either in service of the original valid purpose for instigating (i.e., seeking justice against Al Qaeda who perpetrated an attack on the U.S. and against the Taliban for facilitating Al Qaeda), or part of our responsibility to exit as cleanly as possible, not just step in, blow sh*t up and leave the people to clean up our mess.

If, for example, the justification for remaining in Afghanistan morphs, as it slowly seems to be, into, "We need to keep fighting the greater war on terror!" I would oppose it. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. That's a separate action from the original purpose for being there and one I do not support.

We fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio

I say pull our troops out and nuke the joint.

Thank you for pointing out to me what I said.

What he said.