Afghanistan

[arcticturtle]

I know a lot of people who want to stop fighting in Afghanistan immediately. I'm actually very hazy about what they're suggesting. I assume it's not simply "withdraw everybody and let the dice fall where they may" - or is it? I can't tell. I haven't heard what the alternate suggestions are

Comments

[dr_tectonic]

I am pretty much in complete agreement with you.

(And the round 2 failure is why I would add "criminal negligence on the geopolitical scale" to the list of reasons why invading Iraq was so terribly wrong.)

[dpolicar]

I am particularly intrigued by the "we can't announce a drawdown date; the enemy will just sit tight until we leave" contingent.

I mean... OK, assume that's true... isn't that a good thing? We announce a date and immediately thereby buy ourselves several months of peace and quiet to accomplish whatever it is we're setting out to accomplish. Is good, no? Surely we don't think it's better to encourage "them" to keep shooting at us?

With you on the financing. I'm not necessarily a proponent of a dedicated war tax, but I prefer it to financing-by-deficit.

[arcticturtle]

I could understand the notion that it could boost Taliban morale to think that, if they keep fighting, the Americans will eventually be gone.

However, I think it's probably more than counterbalanced by signalling to the vast majority of Afghans that, if they don't like a foreign occupation (who would?), the most effective way to end it is to let it finish its job and leave. Otherwise, the U. S. and al-Qaeda are just two opposing gangs of pushy foreigners who both want to run the place forever, and playing them against each other almost makes sense.

[syphilis_jane]

There are two things about this issue that seem to get lost in coverage of it:

The first is that the proposal really isn't so much "let's just keep throwing more troops at the problem", but the fact that we never really sent enough in the first place. (My uncle served a few tours in Afghanistan and they were pretty much stuck on the base because they had no control outside.)

The second is that Gen. McChrystal has stated his intention to shift the policy focus of the war from fighting enemies to protecting civilians. The U.S. owes the people of Afghanistan a great deal for all it has done, and protecting civilians (assuming McChrystal's sincerity) working to protect civilians while Afghanistan is still destabilized would be the least we owe them.

[arcticturtle]

Very much agreed.

[arcticturtle]

& let me add: I think we have a "you broke it - you bought it" responsibility to Afghanistan that goes back to our initial sponsorship of the Mujahideen. Whatever you think of Soviet-dominated Afghanistan, it wasn't the hell that it's been since then.

NOTE TO SELF: Guerilla revolutionaries may make unpredictable & ungrateful proxies. DO NOT ERASE

[seraphimsigrist]

It is pleasing to see a continuity of policy
with the intention of being in the national interest.
always important to remember also what plato taught
us , the difference between the 'necessary and
the good' which Jesus expressed as 'there will be
wars and rumors of wars until the end.'