The Afghanistan War: Absurdity or Necessity?
 

Source is "A War of Absurdity" by Robert Scheer in the current Nation

I say:
1. No to more troops.
2. Withdraw the ground forces already there.
3. If this is a proxy war with Afghanistan standing in for Pakistan, conduct it with drones.

What do you say?

I think that assessment is a little short sighted. Al Qaeda may not have a strong presence there right now, but the Taliban surely does and if the Taliban regains control you can bet Al Qaeda will be flooding right back in. Of course, they're surely setting up shop elsewhere as we speak, but I don't like the prospect of letting them reclaim their home turf where they'd be able to get back up to speed far faster than they'll be able to regroup elsewhere where they won't have the level of support that the Taliban lent them.

What GD said.

I also think we need to actually find bin Laden (or concrete proof that he died).

I am completely against the Iraq war over WMDs (wait, what are we fighting over there for again?) and completely support efforts in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) to dismantle Al Queda and the Taliban and find bin Laden (is that even a goal now? Surely there are more masterminds plotting to bring more terrorist acts to America).

There's supposed to be different varieties of Taliban. Some are more partial to Al Quaeda than others but the majority seem to be very, very, very conservative Muslim followers of Wahabi.

To me, this Taliban - Al Quaeda connection is a foreign policy unknown in 2009. I wish we did know more about it. The little that I've read indicates that the majority of the Taliban do not necessarily support the tactics of Al Quaeda. On the other hand, there's a minority that seems to support them.

And other than making Afghanistan the permanent 51st State of the U.S., how would you expect "us" to keep the Taliban out of there forever?

Considering we can't even get the Taliban out of there in the first place, are you (GD and BTD and any other Afghan war supporters), suggesting even a permanent U.S. presence would keep them out of there forever?

Didn't we help implement the Taliban to begin with?

I'm more concerned with finding the masterminds behind the terrorist plots. Finding out if bin Laden is really dead.

They are never going to be completely gone but I want to make it as hard as possible for them to make any sort of comeback in the terror industry.

No, can't keep it out forever. No more than winning World War II kept Nazi's out of Germany.

I do think it is possible to establish an infrastructure that would make it very difficult for the Taliban to achieve significant power again.

Ignoring the question of Al Qaeda (and I think I've been pretty consistent that "war" against Al Qaeda is a pretty meaningless concept), having displaced the Taliban from their position of power, accepting that their return to power would be a human rights catastrophe, what responsibility do we have to do our best to prevent that happening before leaving?

As Colin Powell said it, "you break it you buy it." Regardless of how justified the initial war was, and how successfully accomplished the initial goals have been I'd argue we have a responsibility to not say "ok, Taliban, it's all yours so long as you don't let Al Qaeda come back; enjoy the complete dehumanization of half your population!"

Would a return to Afghanistant 1999 be acceptable if we were in a direct position to try and prevent it?

To me? For the most part yes, even with the recognition that any equilibrium achieved is still going to be reasonably far from what we consider acceptable for the United States, so long as there seems to be a serious native desire for it as well.

Sort of. We provided them with arms when they were fighting the Soviets. But they were around long before that.

But are we fighting for human rights or fighting against terrorism?

I have a problem with how women are treated in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries. But I have an even bigger issue with us trying to implement our system of leadership all over the world (without being asked to help).

Just because it's right for us, and how we think it's how the world should work doesn't mean it's right for the world and it's not our place to go "oh, we don't like how you treat your [demographic] so we're going to go to war with you until you change your ways.

The goals of this war (and Iraq) have been lost. They both need to be redefined, and worked towards. Regardless, I don't think we should be pulling out of either place without some sort of stable government in place.

I don't know that I am a supporter. My point was more that the glib assessment of, 'Well, there's no Al Qaeda there NOW, mission accomplished!" is shortsighted and disingenuous. It's not a fair assessment of the risks of leaving. I might still support a path that has us leaving shortly, but not because I think we've solved the threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As the discussion turns away from exacting justice for the crime of 9/11 and more towards how to clean up the aftermath of justice, and therefore turns more towards the human rights question, I fell that puts it more into a NATO/UN scope. I have little confidence that the international community will step up to the plate on that, but I think the US position should be that the responsibility lies there. There will be the obvious pushback of, "Umm, but you created the mess, why should we clean it up," but I think the US needs to frame it as, "We legitimately displaced a human rights-violating regime, it's the international community's place to ensure a successful rebuild that doesn't return to the abusers we dislodged." A tough sell but it makes more sense that us playing nation-builders.

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.

What BTD said.

Your joke about killing millions of innocent people is hilarious.

I have to say that I don't have anything to add to the conversation either, mostly because it seems we can't "fight wars" and "win wars" anymore. They just aren't the same. You'd think that after 50 years of failing in wars on the other side of the world we'd have figured that out and not tried to do the same damn thing again.

Yes, I agree with GD, that we needed to invade Afg. after 9/11, but thinking about it now, if the goal was to rout Al Quaeda, did we think it would be the kind of war where they would surrender, peace would prevail, and we'd leave with a handshake?

I think we better come to grips with the fact that we as a nation can't do sh.t about what goes on in some other country without entering the now proverbial quagmire. And if that's the case, is it really worth all the damages, ie. dead Americans, dead foreign civilians, a disrupted country, and an angry public both in and outside of the US? (I'm not saying this isn't necessarily worth it in Afg, but if it IS, then we all have to shut up and face the burdens. It's much like relying on the "free market" to deal with financial bubbles but then crying when they burst. It's the nature of the free market.)

Or rather, as the pundits have been saying for 8 years and longer....what does victory look like? Do our leaders know? Did they know going in? If they changed the definition of victory in the middle of the conflict, then we've all been swindled, bait and switched, scam scam scam scam baked beans and scam.

Can, too. Only we need to do it 110%, which requires a lot of "boots on the ground", which requires a draft and for which there is no political will or popular support.

If a war is not worth a draft and the resulting flack from the general U.S. populace, then it's not worth fighting. No more wars on the cheap.

I was just reading about how many other wars that we have fought have been done "cheaply". The Revolutionary War and the Civil War had poor funding and the same wrangling over cost that our recent wars have.

I haven't read enough about WWII to find out whether it had the same problem but I think having a military attack by a foreign gov't on our soil plus oh yeah, Hitler, made that war (or rather, those wars) something no one would oppose.

I have to say I agree with you in a very broad way - if a war is not worth a draft, then it's not worth fighting. I'm sure there's gray area to be found there somewhere, but still...

Perhaps the gray area is a military which had enough troops when the war started, but as it dragged on personnel numbers began to shrink despite stop-losses and recalls as people stopped enlisting, re-enlisting. So now a war that began with sufficient manpower no longer has that man power.

Afghanistan started 8 years ago. The fresh 18 year old's who enlisted right after 9/11 are now 26, if they served out an 8 year contract. People who turn 18 this year were 10 when it began. They are no longer enlisting in a military that was more about life experience and college money with a chance of seeing combat and instead enlisting in a military where they will more than likely end up in a combat zone (somewhere) and life experience & college money come later.

I gave myself a deadline for finding a job. If I hadn't found one by my next birthday attempting OCS for the Air Force was at the top of the last of my options. I won't hide that the fact that we are at war, and live in the climate that we do ranked that option at the top of my last options.

I think a decent number of people thought that it was not our war.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, perhaps it's hair splitting, and I'm guessing, too, but I would think the emotional resonance came from the attack being on our military combined with the loss of life, rather than on "our soil." I don't know how attached we were then to a possession 3,000 miles west of a state that didn't even have a baseball team yet.

I'd agree if the military agreed that everyone who was fit to serve was fit to serve.