Does anyone care what the guy from Bones who played Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer cares about it?

Or we could declare victory and then stay like we did in Iraq. Then re-name the Combat Troops to Flower Girls and call our continued military operations "Peace Parades".... That would solve a lot of problems I'm sure.

Abstruse: Does anyone care what the guy from Bones who played Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer cares about it?

Sadly, yes.

Yes, let's pull out of the actual objective of 9/11 and maintain our presence in Bush's vanity country.

Bin Laden was not an Iraqi and was not hiding in the Iraqi wild.

But, lets forget about him and continue our Bush cavalry rush into the strangeland that "tried to hurt his daddy" and let's throw the blame at Obama now that Bush is out of office and beyond accountability and let's get Cheney to be a media darling now that he has lost his power.

Sounds epic.

That would be a good start. It's time we pulled our troops out of all foreign countries. We can't afford to be the world's bully police any more.

The problem in Afghanistan isn't military, it's political and economic. No matter how many troops you pour in, if you don't address the real reasons why people are turning to the Taliban and poppy cultivation then there's never going to be success. But that's typical thinking on our part- our fetishizing of the military continues on.

coco ebert: The problem in Afghanistan isn't military, it's political and economic. No matter how many troops you pour in, if you don't address the real reasons why people are turning to the Taliban and poppy cultivation then there's never going to be success. But that's typical thinking on our part- our fetishizing of the military continues on.

I thought it had more to do with our zero tolerance all-drugs-Merck-can't-patent-are-bad global policy stance.

I do believe Afghanistan is a waste of time.

The economy is too poor, the people are too primitive, and the country too isolated for any reform or modernization to occur.

Leave them to kill each other and let the natural social evolution take care of the place.

eyehate: Yes, let's pull out of the actual objective of 9/11 and maintain our presence in Bush's vanity country.

Bin Laden was not an Iraqi and was not hiding in the Iraqi wild.

But, lets forget about him and continue our Bush cavalry rush into the strangeland that "tried to hurt his daddy" and let's throw the blame at Obama now that Bush is out of office and beyond accountability and let's get Cheney to be a media darling now that he has lost his power.

Sounds epic.

Except the struggle against Islamic militants is focused on middle-east, and requires politicial reform there rather than in the mountains of central Asia.

How many times can you bomb a stack of mud bricks?

Swampthing in Korea: Except the struggle against Islamic militants is focused on middle-east, and requires politicial reform there rather than in the mountains of central Asia.

Actually, it's simply shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Middle East countries in general, even the most conservative ones, generally keep a fairly tight lid on domestic militancy, and there aren't serious questions as to whether they actually control their own territory and institutions. Not so in the case of Pakistan.

Here's assessments from Mullen and Holbrooke, from just the past day. And this represents only a tiny fraction of the concern that's been building over time.

Also telling is the fact that the worst terrorist attack so far this month has been in Pakistan, as opposed to Iraq or someplace else.

Remove all Republicans: Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude

He failed in his mission. I'm ok with Obama leaving and declaring victory in Afghanistan. It's a nice start to the Clinton Secretary of Stateship.

You're still trolling here with that name? Wow, must be lots of people who still bite the hook.

Also:

A president who rose to power on the clarity of his antiwar message is surely beginning to disappoint some of his supporters with his 19-month partial withdrawal plan for Iraq and his escalation in Afghanistan.

Was this guy watching the same election campaign that I was? Obama repeatedly made it clear that he would the US needed to do more in Afghanistan and he'd increase troop levels there, among other things.

Biological Ali: Also:

A president who rose to power on the clarity of his antiwar message is surely beginning to disappoint some of his supporters with his 19-month partial withdrawal plan for Iraq and his escalation in Afghanistan.

Was this guy watching the same election campaign that I was? Obama repeatedly made it clear that he would the US needed to do more in Afghanistan and he'd increase troop levels there, among other things.

Politico? Slant the truth to make it look bad for Obama? Never.

Biological Ali: Swampthing in Korea: Except the struggle against Islamic militants is focused on middle-east, and requires politicial reform there rather than in the mountains of central Asia.

Actually, it's simply shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Middle East countries in general, even the most conservative ones, generally keep a fairly tight lid on domestic militancy, and there aren't serious questions as to whether they actually control their own territory and institutions. Not so in the case of Pakistan.

Here's assessments from Mullen and Holbrooke, from just the past day. And this represents only a tiny fraction of the concern that's been building over time.

Also telling is the fact that the worst terrorist attack so far this month has been in Pakistan, as opposed to Iraq or someplace else.

Pakistan seems to becoming a failed state, with many ethnic and social issues, so labelling it as Islamic is a bit simplistic.

The middle-east is right now the focal point of Islamic militancy because:

A: Authoritarian governments stifle political freedom.

B: Islamic governments fund Islamic militant groups, or fund education at Madrassas via oil money.

C: All the primary philosophers, Wahhabists and political thinkers that militant Islam draws inspiriation from have originated in the middle-east.

Right now, it is the major source of the problem.

Swampthing in Korea: Pakistan seems to becoming a failed state, with many ethnic and social issues, so labelling it as Islamic is a bit simplistic.

Given that the current Pakistani administration has decided to impose sharia law on an entire region due to pressure from militants, I'd say that much of the problem is indeed Islamic in nature.

A: Authoritarian governments stifle political freedom.

Perhaps, but that's ultimately irrelevant. Islamist terrorism is generally not a response against domestic regimes (though this may be true in other cases of terrorist groups, such as the Tamil Tigers). It's an ideological struggle against liberal and western values, with the ultimate goal of establishing an authoritarian theocracy of their own.

B: Islamic governments fund Islamic militant groups, or fund education at Madrassas via oil money.


Closer to the point, but not in the way you might think. Middle Eastern countries have very tightly regulated religious systems which, though they may promote an extremely regressive brand of Islam, don't necessarily promote militancy or terrorism. In Pakistan, however, the state has very little control over the madrassa system, and when you have entire classrooms of students graduated having been trained in terrorist ideologies, that creates a problem. Here's a general overview of the problem: Link (new window), Link (new window).

C: All the primary philosophers, Wahhabists and political thinkers that militant Islam draws inspiriation from have originated in the middle-east.


Perhaps, but where it first originated from is not necessarily related to where the most pressing problem is now.


Right now, it is the major source of the problem.

You're right, it is something that needs to be dealt with, but it's a more long-term goal. Crucially, it's important to realize that it's not an either/or situation. Pakistan/Afghanistan is something that needs to be dealt with now, while the situation in the Middle East can only be tackled over time, if at all.

Swampthing in Korea: Pakistan seems to becoming a failed state, with many ethnic and social issues, so labelling it as Islamic is a bit simplistic.

Also, when you have a nuclear-armed nation of over 165 million people, letting it become a "failed state" just isn't an option. To put it simply, Pakistan is "too big to fail".

That said, I do disagree with most of the alarmist predictions about Pakistan facing imminent disintegration, though I still think it should be addressed before the problem does get out of hand.

Maybe it's time to give up on most of Afghanistan, to stop trying to make that a whole country. Maybe we should take a much smaller part of that place and concentrate on that. Basically wall that smaller part off and improve their lives and let those on the outside eat sand. Maybe when those on the outside see that life is so much better for those allied with us, they'll change their minds. I don't think we'll ever tame the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as those people are just too insane.

Can democracy come about in a country when there's no order? It's seems like before democracy there has to be someone who takes control in a Saddam-like fashion and fixes the mess. Then after 20-30 years of sanity and stability, hopefully a democratic government can take over. Maybe Afghanistan needs a quasi-dictator for now, something UN sanctioned for limited amount of time to bring about order. Trying to make a democracy out of chaos seems like it just makes for massive corruption and people looking for payback for past wrongs.

Befuddled:
Can democracy come about in a country when there's no order? It's seems like before democracy there has to be someone who takes control in a Saddam-like fashion and fixes the mess.

And then the US can invade and liberate them all over again!

/the circle of life

Befuddled: Maybe it's time to give up on most of Afghanistan, to stop trying to make that a whole country. Maybe we should take a much smaller part of that place and concentrate on that. Basically wall that smaller part off and improve their lives and let those on the outside eat sand. Maybe when those on the outside see that life is so much better for those allied with us, they'll change their minds. I don't think we'll ever tame the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as those people are just too insane.

Can democracy come about in a country when there's no order? It's seems like before democracy there has to be someone who takes control in a Saddam-like fashion and fixes the mess. Then after 20-30 years of sanity and stability, hopefully a democratic government can take over. Maybe Afghanistan needs a quasi-dictator for now, something UN sanctioned for limited amount of time to bring about order. Trying to make a democracy out of chaos seems like it just makes for massive corruption and people looking for payback for past wrongs.


What we need is a superhero with a powerful suit of metal armor who can instantly appear at any Afghan village at will and dispense justice to the Taliban.

You can't impose democracy on people who are incapable of self-rule.

You know, if this mentality catches on maybe we can declare victory on the war on drugs and send our troops home. This has the potential of lowering government spending, as we reduce our law enforcement budgets and could cause a drop in raw opium prices that the Taliban uses to buy weapons.

As this strategy has such a potential for success, we might also give consideration to declaring World War One a victory (actually, I think we already did that) and disband our military, because we won the war to end all wars - hence no need for a military.

Next up, the war on illiteracy. We 1! See that was easy. How about declaring the war of poverty a win too, seeing as our conservative friends like to remind us that even our poor are fat - which in a strange sort of way does make them equal to Rush Limbaugh, a man great in girth, if nothing else.

Pretty soon we will have dismissed all of the world's problems and can get on with our lives, delusional as they may be.

Boaz makes sense.

If we drop 17K more troops into Afghanistan to plus up to around 50K, we'd still be 1/2 - 1/3rd the size of what we had Iraq and Iraq had fewer people, was smaller in size, was more civilized and easier to move around in.

Our NATO allies are calling it a day. We should join them in getting out of Dodge. If OBL pokes his head out of his cave or the Taliban re-take Kabul and start up their shtick again we can always schwack them with B-52s from Diego at a later date.

Our involvement in Afghanistan at this point has absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan itself, but rather maintaining a foothold in the region so that we can quickly intervene in the upcoming Pakistan Civil War as necessary. If Pakistan were still a stable state, and didn't potentially have nuclear weapons in the hands of Anarchy, we would be out of there. If shiat goes to hell there, we will have troops at the ready to aid India in establishing order in the region.

67 Beetle: If we drop 17K more troops into Afghanistan to plus up to around 50K, we'd still be 1/2 - 1/3rd the size of what we had Iraq and Iraq had fewer people, was smaller in size, was more civilized and easier to move around in.

Your numbers are way off.
Now factor in the contractors.

Swampthing in Korea: I do believe Afghanistan is a waste of time.

The economy is too poor, the people are too primitive, and the country too isolated for any reform or modernization to occur.

Leave them to kill each other and let the natural social evolution take care of the place.

Fine. So how do you deal with the people in that region who want to blow stuff up in the West?

lhinds: Fine. So how do you deal with the people in that region who want to blow stuff up in the West?

Take away their passports and visas?

coco ebert: The problem in Afghanistan isn't military, it's political and economic. No matter how many troops you pour in, if you don't address the real reasons why people are turning to the Taliban and poppy cultivation then there's never going to be success. But that's typical thinking on our part- our fetishizing of the military continues on.

Most of the peple fighting are mercenaries and most of them are getting paid less than a dollar a day.

The solution is to pay them a dolaar a day to dig ditches and rebuild the agricultural infrastructure which has existed there for three thousand years and helps make Afghanistan some of the world's bet farming country.

Another thing would be to end the stupid war on drugs, buy the poppy crop and distribute cheap pain killers to poor countries.

Occam's Chainsaw: coco ebert: The problem in Afghanistan isn't military, it's political and economic. No matter how many troops you pour in, if you don't address the real reasons why people are turning to the Taliban and poppy cultivation then there's never going to be success. But that's typical thinking on our part- our fetishizing of the military continues on.

I thought it had more to do with our zero tolerance all-drugs-Merck-can't-patent-are-bad global policy stance.

Yes this is a major part of the problem.

Swampthing in Korea: The economy is too poor, the people are too primitive, and the country too isolated for any reform or modernization to occur.

You probably coudn't find the place on the maopp either.

Biological Ali: To put it simply, Pakistan is "too big to fail".

In fact, by 2050 Pakistan will have a larger population than the US, on current trends.

However, it's worth noting than the Pakistan economy economy grew at about 7% a year for about a decade, though it has slowed recently.

I don't get why it's any of our business if they make heroin or not. We can do our best to keep it out of our country but who are we to tell other countries what they can and can't produce?

Occam's Chainsaw: coco ebert: The problem in Afghanistan isn't military, it's political and economic. No matter how many troops you pour in, if you don't address the real reasons why people are turning to the Taliban and poppy cultivation then there's never going to be success. But that's typical thinking on our part- our fetishizing of the military continues on.

I thought it had more to do with our zero tolerance all-drugs-Merck-can't-patent-are-bad global policy stance.

Jesus dude! Keep that shiat down.

You may want to check for mysterious vans parked outside your home for the next few weeks and be sure to not get pulled over or travel into a part of town that could be considered "dangerous".

Random Reality Check: 67 Beetle: If we drop 17K more troops into Afghanistan to plus up to around 50K, we'd still be 1/2 - 1/3rd the size of what we had Iraq and Iraq had fewer people, was smaller in size, was more civilized and easier to move around in.

Your numbers are way off.
Now factor in the contractors.

You are right. Without factoring in contractors, you're looking at 1/4tr - 1/5th the size. Thanks for helping me make my point better.

17K additional troops will not cut it. It is a complete waste of US blood and treasure at a time of great economic turmoil.

/get.out.now.

For Al Qaida, Afghanistan is like soooo over. Pakistan is where the action's at now! Let's pull all our troops from Afghanistan - there's no way those backwards camel farkers will be smart enough to re-cross the border and set back up in Afghanistan!

Biological Ali: Also:

A president who rose to power on the clarity of his antiwar message is surely beginning to disappoint some of his supporters with his 19-month partial withdrawal plan for Iraq and his escalation in Afghanistan.

Was this guy watching the same election campaign that I was? Obama repeatedly made it clear that he would the US needed to do more in Afghanistan and he'd increase troop levels there, among other things.

He got all his information about Obama from the Mccain campaign.

67 Beetle: You are right. Without factoring in contractors, you're looking at 1/4tr - 1/5th the size. Thanks for helping me make my point better.

17K additional troops will not cut it. It is a complete waste of US blood and treasure at a time of great economic turmoil.

/get.out.now.

To be honest with you, I think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

We had a chance to effectively deal with the Soviet Union and shut them down, so the problem goes back nearly 30 years.

There is the "You broke it, you own it." problem and if we don't fix it is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

This is going to be expensive, but maybe not as expensive as abandoning the country to insanity - think Somalia.

To my way of thinking we lost control when we dove into Iraq. Had we not done that we would be in much better shape in Afghanistan - but hindsight is always clearer.

Nonetheless, we're there now and walking away from this problem is only delaying the inevitable, in my opinion.

FTFA: "A president who rose to power on the clarity of his antiwar message is surely beginning to disappoint some of his supporters with his 19-month partial withdrawal plan for Iraq and his escalation in Afghanistan."

Reality
Obama in 2007: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"

you'd think someone who is head of a think tank would think more about what he says.

Ball of Confusion: You can't impose democracy on people who are incapable of self-rule.

THIS is what I have been saying from the beginning .You can't GIVE people democracy. People have to take it. You have to want it. These people are busy trading goats and living in the 2nd century and wiping their asses with their hands. They have no clue what democracy is. No democracy will ever work unless people rise up and take it for themselves. And you certainly can't drive out terrorism and hatred by killing little childrens fathers. They are only breeding more hatred over there. We would have been better off secretly coming in and installing electricity and then bombing them with TVs. Cheaper operation too.

We didn't have a problem with the Taliban before the war. In fact we were bribing them to let us build a pipeline so we didn't have a really big problem with what they were doing back then. Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan any more so that isn't it.

I'm not sure what winning means in Afghanistan so this might as well be it.

Declare victory? Over what?

Education and economics are the key .

Neither can be achieved without security .


We teach this generation how to read and they teach the next .

Such a development would do more to destroy the Talliban than anything else .
That's why they'll fight tooth and nail to deny education to their own children .

That's why we stay .
Finish what we farking start for once , eh ?

( also , stop with the retarded War on Drugs - it's a potential game loser )

Damn it !

Spelled "Taliban" wrong .

Moran .

Admiral Digby: Finish what we farking start for once , eh ?

Do you know how I know you're Canadian?

/agrees with your post

Silly Republicans.

You don't declare victory until you actually win something.

/and they wonder why they're not in charge anymore.

It is not in America's nature to cut and leave. We have imagined ourselves as the Supermen of the world - our mission is to free people and liberate them and make them all prosper, like us. We feel too guilty living the good life to sit back and let them self destruct, or worse, destruct us.

Subconsciously, other parts of the world know this about America because we reflect our self images in our movies seen around the world. We even elect "the Governator" as a real politician. How obvious. So no, America, no matter how socialist leaning our current President may seem, will not change. America plays a role in this world. That role is the superhero. We will not stop that role as the rest of the world depends on us for it. Currently, our main mission: save the world economy.

Abstruse: Does anyone care what the guy from Bones who played Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer cares about it?

Thread began promisingly, then went astray.

...but who'd finish the pipeline?!?!

If you really think Obama's extra 20,000 troops are to "Fight the Taliban", I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

The deadline for completion is 2012, they gotta get a move on!

http://leadershipnigeria.com/news/132/ARTICLE/8452/2009-03-28.html

Lumi: Abstruse: Does anyone care what the guy from Bones who played Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer cares about it?

Thread began promisingly, then went astray.

Yes, yes!! More intervention, more!! *pants*