What should US policy with respect to Afghanistan be at this point?

[oberliner]

Do folks think we should have any presence there at all? If so, to what end?

[shanny]

1. IMO, GTFO

[SweetieD]

2. Leave now.

[Orsino]

3. It's a land war in Asia.

And while we're getting the hell out, let's talk reparations.

[FLPanhandle]

4. If someone could demonstrate how the military can fix the problems there, then stay

To date, through 3 administrations there isn't a military solution. So staying is a waste of lives and money.

Yes, the Taliban will resume once the US is gone, but that's for the people of Afghanistan to figure out.

[IndieRick]

5. Complex issues

demand studied responses.
Prior to our entrance into Afghanistan the Taliban rule was increasingly unpopular there. Once we, in our pride and blindness, invaded , the people had a distraction from Taliban rule, an invading army killing their own people in far greater numbers than ever did the Taliban rulers.

However, we are there, we have destroyed much of that nation's infrastructure, appointed a government to rule them and, in general, made our usual mess of things. I believe we have no business there, had an excuse because the Taliban was harboring bin Laden, who we could have killed or captured early in our invasion at Tora Bora but, mysteriously, with the 10th Mountain Division poised to capture or kill him, allowed him to slip away into Pakistan.

I think we now have an obligation to those people to aid them in the restoration of what we screwed up, rebuilding what we destroyed, and, after they elect a government of their own replacing the puppets we installed, leaving with ,perhaps , a bit more good repute than we have now.

[lastlib]

23. "When we understand...."

this chart, then we'll win........"




Afghanistan--where empires go to die...... ask Britain, USSR, Alexander the Great......

[IndieRick]

24. Oh now I see!

Thank you for that simple chart, it really helped my understanding of the situation there.

[uppityperson]

22. Or spend a fraction of that for schools and health care clinics.

Help the people with basics that will make better quality of life without illegal drugs or wars or terrorism.

[speaktruthtopower]

7. There's rare earth minerals there..

and control of opium flow.

[Demsrule86]

8. Leave and leave some more...

[leftstreet]

9. What do the people of Afghanistan want? n/t

[Lurks Often]

27. Which group?

The religious Taliban who want strict Sharia law applied to the whole country
The Mujahideen warlords who ran the country prior to 1995 who were/are mostly corrupt
The current government, which is moderate (by religious standards), but also very corrupt.

There is no "Afghan" people, something most westerners don't fully understand. Most consider themselves Afghani last, not first.

Roughly first is family, then tribe, then ethnic group, then religion and only then maybe country. Many of the mountain tribes along the Afghan/Pakistan border have lived there for centuries and their tribal lands are on both sides of the border. The tribes fight because they like it and have been fighting among themselves and/or foreigners since before Islam arrived in that part of the world.

Personally I'd like to see the moderates in charge, since they are the ones least likely to abuse, mutilate and murder women, men and children for not following the strict interpretation of Sharia law.

On edit: It's unlikely a government elected by the people will work long term, the country would probably be better off under a competent monarchy.

Alternatively would be to form the country into 2 or more mostly autonomous regions where the various factions can rule themselves as they see fit, with people allowed to freely emigrate or immigrate to the region that most suits them.

[karynnj]

10. Really tough question

We have spent 16 years there with different goals over that time. For the 8 Obama years, the clearest goal was to help strengthen an Afghan government that could then control the country and not leave it as space for non state terror groups. This goal was never really met. Every government over that time has been rife with corruption. It required intense diplomatic effort just to form a government after the last disputed election.

Now, if we could show that all this effort, military as well as diplomatic is moving the country in the correct direction and things are improving, arguing to continue that would be a difficult, but reasonable choice. Rather than gradually increasing the land under government control, over the last year the Taliban has controlled more land and hopes that there could be a reconciliation with more moderate (a relative term if there ever was one) Taliban never gained traction. So, there are considerable areas where the Taliban, AQ, or ISIS thrive.

However, with at least two extremely skilled thoughtful diplomats - Holbroke in the first term and Kerry in the second, we could not help stand up a competent, non corrupt government that could provide good governance. Even if the Trump State Department had similar diplomats - which they don't, it is likely that a new look would have been needed because things are not improving. I would ague though that that was the correct goal. When we attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban were in control and they allowed AQ a safe space from which they attacked the west. If the US and coalition leave, we would probably be in a worse situation than in 2001.

Like most Americans, what I just wrote suggests that there is always a way we can help solve the problem. This is part of our mindset, whether you are speaking of the left or right. It is very possible that - like in Syria - all we have are bad options. The ones I can think of are - continuing the effort as defined by Obama, a primarilly military anti terrorism approach, and just leaving. Even given the caveat that nothing might work, I think a variation of the Obama effort makes work. I pick this NOT because of the "pottery barn" rule, but because the other two options I can see seem to lead to a failed state in an area where terrorism will thrive.

Trying to understand Trump's vague word salad, he is NOT continuing the diplomatic piece, but may be increasing the military piece - my second alternative. He is proposing just an anti terrorist action against the Taliban, ISIS and AQ. (This ignores that the Taliban is indiginious, so eliminating them is likely not possible. ) One problem withthis, identified when an antiterrorism only option was considered under Obama was that without the concurrent nation building piece, the targeting will be poor leading to many mistakes. It also leads to the question of what will fill the void. To me, Trump's proposal may be the worst of all choices - following the pattern of the Iraq invasion/surge followed by ISIS following the void created in the Sunni region.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. The absolutely unquestioned assumption for everybody is that terrorism will thrive if we leave

The Void = Terrorism, AQ, ISIS camps, etc., and then, of course, your new "9/11 style" attacks.

Invariably. And then, we learn that Pakistan will "fall," and the nukes, etc.

I will say that I don't know enough about the situation to agree or disagree, but it does strike me as odd that this impending situation is absolutely beyond dispute. Indeed, it is the only thing we're not allowed to question: "of course if we leave then the Void =, etc., OF COURSE."

I've learned to somewhat distrust foreign policy "realist" assumptions when they're presented as absolutely beyond dispute. It seems to me that AQ took root in Afghanistan under very particular historical circumstances that we have no particular need assume will be replicated. Applying the Syria model to Afghanistan and assuming an automatic ISIS base also seems odd. We can't on the one hand say that the Taliban is homegrown and vigilant against foreign invaders and on the other simply assume that they'll either covert to an ISIS model or allow foreigners to camp out indefinitely. The Afghanistan problem seems nothing like the Syria problem, actually. Now, one might say that the RISK is too great for either of those outcomes, regardless of their probability (even a minimal probability of an ISIS ruled Afghanistan is too great a risk). OK, fine. But let's be honest about that. What I hear is that these outcomes are inevitable if we leave, which is, of course, just another way of saying that we MUST not. There's a strange circularity to all this "rethinking," and the circle always comes back to more war, more war, more war.

If we're going to start to re-imagine our role blank slate, maybe we should do that.

[karynnj]

13. ISIS is already there as is AQ

I agree that you can not say anything in the future is an absolute certainty.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Sure

But the Taliban (or some Taliban) actually fight against the ISIS elements, no? It doesn't seem even probable to me that ISIS wins that fight if we've left.

[karynnj]

15. I have not read of the Taliban ever fighting ISIS or AQ

I would guess that the Taliban itself could take over more if not all of Afganistan and allow both ISIS and AQ to exist in safe spaces in exchange for them not fighting the Taliban. Alternatively, Afghanistan could be a failed state with areas controlled by each of these groups and possibly other war lords.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. The Taliban fight ISIS in Afghanistan, and have for several years

Voice of America: https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-captures-islamic-state-bases-in-afghanistan/3131609.html
Seattle Times: https://web.archive.org/web/20150213191753/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025445123_apxafghanistanislamicstate.html
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-afghanistan-islamic-state-idUSKCN0P91EN20150629
CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-taliban-osama-bin-laden-tora-bora-cave-hideout-afghanistan/
More: http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-islamic-state-taliban-clash-in-afghanistan-dozens-killed-2017-4


etc.

They can and have come to various detentes but they are rivals, often involved in open combat.

[oberliner]

18. Joint Taliban, Islamic State raid killed disarmed Afghan fighters, civilians: U.N.

KABUL (Reuters) - A combined force of Taliban and "self-proclaimed" Islamic State militants killed at least 36 people in what may amount to war crimes during a raid on a northern Afghan town this month, the United Nations said on Sunday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKCN1B00DQ

That's from two days ago.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Some Taliban are aligned with ISIS, while some are not

Feel free to peruse the material that doesn't confirm your pre-existing belief as well.

[oberliner]

20. UNAMA: ISIL, Taliban jointly attacked Mirzawalang

A United Nations investigation has concluded that Taliban and self-proclaimed fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group jointly killed dozens of people in Afghanistan in an early August attack that may have amounted to a "war crime".

UNAMA, the body's mission in Afghanistan, said late on Sunday that it had "verified allegations" of at least 36 deaths in the predominantly Shia village of Mirzawalang, which lies in the Sayad district of northern Sar-e Pul province.

"These killings, corroborated by multiple credible sources, constitute violations of international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes," UNAMA said in its report.

It added that more than half of the killings took place on August 5 when civilians tried to flee the village after fighters had captured the area following a battle with a government-backed militia.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/unama-isil-taliban-jointly-attacked-mirzawalang-170821053152752.html

That's from Al Jazeera.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Yes, as I've said, some elements of the Taliban fight ISIS, while some are aligned

I've said that all through this subthread. Why you're pretending not to understand the complexity here, I won't speculate on.

The larger point is that the Taliban and ISIS are not established allies. Sometimes they see common cause, sometimes they kill each other. Some elements agree, while others do not. You have yet to dispute any evidence that they are often at odds, established upthread. Therefore, the assumption that ISIS will survive an American withdrawal is at the very least questionable.

Do you disagree? State your claim, if you can.

Why not state your own position on this issue? Do you agree with Trump's strategy, supposing there is one?

[dalton99a]

11. Trump should follow the Russian example - OUT

[Expecting Rain]

17. We should maintain adequate US military forces to prevent a return of the Taliban

to power, following the policy example set by President Obama and Sec. Clinton.

[madokie]

25. We need to get the fuck out of there

as soon as possible. Same as we finally did after millions of Vietnamese and 58 plus thousands and growing USA troops died.

There is no winning in Afghanistan and never was for anyone who has ever tried throughout history. Leave them the fuck alone and let them decide their own future. Just because we came over here and killed off the Native Americans and took over this country doesn't mean we're somehow holy warriors with the right plan. Rather it shows just what we really are, takers with a murderous tilt

IMHO

[Not Ruth]

26. They have as much right to determine their own future as anyone

Leave 15 years ago.