So can any of the troop increase supporters answer my questions?

[AllentownJake]

How do you bring order to a country with a 28% literacy rate and religious fundamentalism. Do you think the Taliban arrived in some sort of Vacuum? Got a hint for you the Taliban is reflective of the Afghan people. The moderates in that country are religious fundamentalist. How long do you have to spend in a country to change that. As a comparison Iraq has a literacy rate of 74% and a history of a strong centralized government, military, and infrastructure for education.

Outside the Human cost (killed civilians, military personnel) how can we afford a larger war in Afghanistan when we are running a 1.8 trillion dollar budget deficit. Who is going to lend us the money? What strings come attached? Can we pay it back?

What is our objective? A strong centralized government? Infrastructure? Educating the populace?

How long are we going to stay there at these levels. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years.

Honestly, other than this is Bush's mess what are our reasons for staying there and how do we hope to improve the situation of a country that was in the midst of a civil war with an uneducated armed populace before we got there.

[Taverner]

1. Very good questions to ask

I'd like to see the answers myself

[AllentownJake]

2. Don't hold you breath

The only responses I've been getting when asking these have been emotional. I haven't gotten anything logical yet.

[Taverner]

4. Thing is I'm all for doing what the AfghanSupporters want

But I don't think the solution is a military one

[AllentownJake]

6. I'm all for helping the Afghan people

However I don't see how sending 40,000 more troops into a country accomplishes that goal.

Educating a population and bringing them into the world community is not something that happens overnight. Democracy in Afghanistan is like trying to bring democracy to 13th century England.

[timeforpeace]

37. Then explain how leaving helps them. It might, but please say how.

[AllentownJake]

39. How does adding 40,000 more troops help them

You can't force civilization on an armed populace that doesn't want it without disarming the populace, doing that will require us doing some pretty nasty things.

It is very hard to force a government on a populace. The cost of doing so in terms of civilian lives is very high.

[timeforpeace]

41. That's not how it works. You made the assertion, back it up. How does leaving help the Afghan people

[AllentownJake]

43. Nothing at this point helps the Afghan people

That is the point. You can't help a population that largely doesn't want our help.

It is like arguing how does leaving Vietnam help the Vietnamese people.

[AllentownJake]

3. Bueller.....Bueller.....anyone

?

[TxRider]

47. Here's a stab...

"How do you bring order to a country with a 28% literacy rate and religious fundamentalism. Do you think the Taliban arrived in some sort of Vacuum? Got a hint for you the Taliban is reflective of the Afghan people."

Can you back up the claim that the Taliban represents all the afghan people?

The Taliban didn't "arrive", they were born to combat the lawless tyranny of warlord drug bosses. Most afghans do not like them, but submitted to them in order to avoid death.

Remember the Taliban never controlled all of Afghanistan, we came in on one side of an ongoing civil war.


"The moderates in that country are religious fundamentalist. How long do you have to spend in a country to change that."

Again, proof? Is it our intent to change that anyway?


"As a comparison Iraq has a literacy rate of 74% and a history of a strong centralized government, military, and infrastructure for education.

Outside the Human cost (killed civilians, military personnel) how can we afford a larger war in Afghanistan when we are running a 1.8 trillion dollar budget deficit. Who is going to lend us the money? What strings come attached? Can we pay it back?

What is our objective? A strong centralized government? Infrastructure? Educating the populace?"

I believe Obama is reviewing and deciding what our objective is right now.

"How long are we going to stay there at these levels. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years."

Until whatever objective we are trying to fulfill is achieved, whatever Obama decides that is, oe we decide it's not worth it and go home.

"Honestly, other than this is Bush's mess what are our reasons for staying there and how do we hope to improve the situation of a country that was in the midst of a civil war with an uneducated armed populace before we got there."

I suppose we could have left Osama there with the training camps and infrastructure he had and was building, and let them revel in the results of 9/11 and use it to recruit and train even more misguided young men to come attack us.

The issue is what is our objective, which Obama seems to be deciding as we speak, and what amount of force will be required to achieve it. Personally I will withhold judgment on both his goals and force needed to achieve them until he announces what he's decided and explains why.

So far he has done neither, but it seems he will before sending more troops.

[AllentownJake]

52. Intelligent response

Thank you,

Most Afghans do not like the Taliban, they are not the biggest fans of the Northern Alliance either. In a country in the midst of a civil war they have their choice of war lords.

As for the Al Qaeda argument. It rings kind of hollow. The people that attacked us were mainly trained in the United States not in Afghanistan. They were 19 guys with box cutters who took advantage of the fact that no one thought to take an airliner and use it as a missile before. All of their flight training was done in the US. None of them were from Afghanistan. It might have been planned in Afghanistan but most of the operation was conducted in Europe and the United States. 8 years later, we aren't even sure how many Al Qaeda agents were actually in Afghanistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. They were 19 guys with box cutters who took advantage of the fact that no one thought to take an air

Small correction... many of us addled sci fi writers DID think of this scenario many a times... there is even a published novel or two in the 1990s that used this.

Now even the folks at intelligence who are paid to think of worst case scenarios did. BUT, those voices would never be heard by those who have no imaginations.

When I heard Rice say who could have imagined that? I swear I screamed at the TV...

Hell there are scenarios that right now an analyst and a sci fi writer are thinking about, that I am sure those who are paid not to think outside the box are going... NAHHH could not be.

[TxRider]

68. The problem isn't that nobody could imagine that

It's that we can imagine a vast number of methods, far more than we could ever hope to defend against.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Rice explicitely said, nobody could imagine that

I KNOW people who did, and did warn the US Government of this.

So her statement is BS.

As to defense... I am sorry, but some defenses are easier than others... and Airport security in the US is a joke, even today.

[TxRider]

82. As is port security, border security, internal security etc. etc.

They are all a joke.

I can think of hundreds if not thousands of ways to attack the U.S. without much effort.

Sure someone dreamed of it, along side a million other means to harm U.S. citizens...

Using planes as suicide bombs is just one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Absolutely, but when you have the governemnt

who was WARNED this was a way to do it... saying nobody could imagine it... was ludicrous.

Hell, as a sci fi writer I consider those scenarios REGULARLY.

Now of course there is this balance between freedom and safety to consider... but the point is... the statement that nobody could imagine it is ludicrous.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

56. I'm Not Sure How That Rings Hollow

The nerve center of al-Qaeda remains somewhere in the Afghan-Pakistani region. Between the cutoff of funds and the drone attacks, we know they've been severely disrupted. What does walking away from that ensure?

[AllentownJake]

59. There is no nerve center

Each operation is planned and executed separately with limited knowledge of anyone involved outside the people involved. OBL hasn't planned an operation since 2001 and there are doubts to how involved he was in the plans in 9-11.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. You are trying to 'splain how cells work to people

who have no clue.

:-)

And that is how terrorism works... classic cell structure... so does the Family by the way.

[AllentownJake]

61. I think some people still think

OBL is in a cave somewhere plotting attacks. The guy is so closely monitored and followed if he is still alive that any communication he makes hits our intelligent network 30 seconds after he makes it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Well that is the power of propaganda

they have moved from modern satphones (that we provided) or modern radios (that we provided)... to donkeys and paper communications...

What a lot of folks also like to ignore is that Al Qaida was our creation and so was... the Taliban... with the help of the ISI... I mean they were GREAT to fight them ruskies.

If we had rebuilt the country (with the rest of NATO) after the pull out by the Ruskies... history would be very different.

If we had engaged in HEAVY country rebuilding after the fall of Kabul... and we actually captured OBL at Tora Bora... oh wait, that would have meant the end of the war.

Of course there is the little detail of... you cannot go to war against a TACTIC... which is exactly what we did.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. Well...

Considering how al-Qaeda, as we know it, didn't exist during the Soviet occupation, I'm not sure how you can argue that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Read a little... Arab Fighters that came to Afghanistan

aka the foreign fighters, were funded by us.

Al Qaida, the base, was formed in the latter days of the occupation, and you do not know we provided silly shit like Stingers?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. Sigh.

*Some* foreign fighters received American aide, though there's no evidence that bin Laden was among them.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

74. Not Really.

His reach has been decreased, but not cut off completely (as I demonstrated in my other post). Though even if he were, he still deserves to be captured.

[AllentownJake]

80. 40,000 troops

in a country he isn't living in, aren't going to find him

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

90. Pakistan

Frankly, that's speculation at this point. There are areas of Afghanistan that our troops haven't set foot into in months, if not years, and we know forces hostile to us exist in some of those areas. However, let's say you're correct, with the Pakistani military finally pushing into Taliban strongholds in their own country, isn't that all the more reason to stick with this?

[AllentownJake]

91. We'll see how it plays out

Pakistan has been extremely hesitant to go into its tribal regions as there has been an uneasy truce that if they leave the government alone, the government leaves them alone.

If we send troops into Pakistan we run the risk of pissing of our major creditor.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

93. Agreed.

I really don't believe the U.S. has any plans to send a large number of troops into Pakistan. They're allowing our intelligence agents as well as our drone program to operate there, and for now, that's plenty. I could be wrong, but honestly? I hope I'm not.

Also, the Taliban broke the truce by pushing into Buner. I understand why the Pakistani government is hesitant. They've been fought to a standstill in this area before, however U.S. airpower might be enough to make the difference this time. Though you're right, we'll have to see how this plays out. It's definitely something to keep a close eye on.

[AllentownJake]

95. Worst case scenario is the tribal leaders there

order a spilling out into Pakistan and Pakistan popular sentiment is not with the government.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

97. True

Though for now the populace seems to be with the government. Suicide bombings and attacks on innocent civilians have undermined the Taliban's credibility, just as it did for the insurgents in Iraq.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. Why Hello, Nadin

Are you merely here to play cheerleader or do you have something to add to this conversation?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Well easy... if the US wants to do what every other power, since Alexander

has tried to do in Afghanistan, by all means... be my guest.

It will fail... just like every other power has... partly since we have declared war against a TACTIC.

So be my guest in saying this is useless blather.

By the way, we had TWO windows to change that dynamic

Window number one was in 1989... you know what happened then right?

The other was 2001-2...

We wasted both.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. That's a Weak Argument

You don't believe there are important differences between the past and the present - for instance, that the Mujahideen of the 1980s were backed by much of the Western world, in terms of money and weaponry? Or are these things you're comfortable with completely glossing over in favor of vague statements about past invasions?

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Past is prologue

those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat them....

You go from there. And you do not want to talk but to attack, have a good life...

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

92. Ook.

The situation we're facing today is not the same as the situation the Soviets, the British, or anyone else faced in Afghanistan. There are important differences, like the one I just mentioned. If you'd rather duck out of this conversation than acknowledge that then be my guest.

[TxRider]

84. When was our goal to conquer and rule as part of our empire by force?

Or was Alexander just trying to get rid of terrorists and give the country a chance to govern itself too?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

69. To a Degree

That's true to a degree, however, it's clear that al-Qaeda's leadership has played a role in directing funding to other branches (like al-Qaeda in Iraq), in directing manpower in certain instances (such as Zarqawi's "transfer"), and in waging the PR battle (bin Laden's taped messages, al-Zahawiri's tapes, his appeal for funding, his denunciation of certain Western governments, etc.) You don't have to be smart to strap on a suicide vest. However, you do have to be smart to rally Islamic extremists across the globe. This is the nerve center of al-Qaeda and taking it out splinters the movement.

[AllentownJake]

73. I think he's dead

too be honest

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. Perhaps.

Perhaps. Even if that's the case, al-Zahawiri and others are still a concern.

[TxRider]

79. Actually the plot started out in the philippines.

But they all received training in Afghanistan at some point, the plot was ok'ed there, and it was funded from there.

Afghans went behind the Taliban because it looked better then the drug cartels the warlords were building up after Russia took a hike, and the fact that if they didn't they would be executed.

Osama isn't even really the guy we need to get, it's his "second" who is actually the leader that recruited Osama and radicalized him in the first place. One of the same people who assassinated Sadat.

From what I have read, if the Taliban's religious leader had actually believed what Osama was up to, he would have exiled him. He was a quite simple country mullah who did not believe Osama and Al Queda was involved.

I'm not sure the "Taliban", if such a thing even exists now in similar form to what it was before we invaded, would allow such things to happen again.

But we have to leave some time, and it will be nothing like Iraq. We will never have much control over what happens and who leads after we leave.

[Mudoria]

5. I would support a troop increase

if it was predicated on a realistic strategy that had an actual endgame that enabled us to withdraw in a decent timeframe and helped the Afghani's take over the role of fighting the Taliban. I still don't understand why we don't buy off the tribal leaders to fight the Taliban.

[BuyingThyme]

7. What, do you want another 9/11?

If we grant sovereignty to Afghanistan, it will only make it easier for the Saudis to train pilots within the United States with the assistance of the FBI. Get a clue.

[AllentownJake]

8. Fuck

You totally shot down my argument.

You know that uneducated populace and religious fundamentalism thing I was talking about, it is over here too.

[timeforpeace]

40. The point, as with iraq, is to have a permanent presence. It's that simple. The Korea/Germany/Japan

models have worked. It was Bush's real reason for Iraq (right between Iran and Syria with the added extra benefit of taking out Saddam), and it's Obama's in Afghanistan (see Pakistan/India conflict between nuke powers).

[BuyingThyme]

100. But Obama tells us he's fighting terrorism.

Hmm...

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Infrastructure? Educating the populace?

Shit, they couldn't do it here, they think 40,000 more army men are going to do it there?

[AllentownJake]

11. A great deal of our problems are do to an uneducated populace

If people actually understood their health insurance or how the banks operate how hard do you think it would be to pass Finance or Health Care reform.

[derby378]

10. Let me put it to you this way...

Let's say that there's at least a million militant Klansmen and sympathetic teabaggers, all of them heavily armed, and only a few of them have graduated high school, let alone college. Now let's say they're threatening American schoolteachers to cut educational initiatives to maintain parity for women and nonwhites in the classroom. On top of that, these insurgents have reluctantly entered the illegal drug trade, cultivating and selling marijuana so they can use the profits to set up more training camps and buy more guns. Some of these Klansmen have won countywide or statewide elections in the southern and western states (including a couple of counties in Illinois and Indiana) and are busy imposing theocratic, racial law wherever they can. The majority of these insurgents, however, have grown tired of waiting for the democratic process to usher them into power and are now talking about an armed coup, with Obama and his family to be gunned down on sight.

This is roughly where the Taliban is today. They do not reflect the will of the Afghani people, especially not Afghani women, and they depend on that 28% literacy rate to help keep them strong and their subjects weak.

[AllentownJake]

12. What you are talking about is actually happening in the United States

Maybe we should be a tad bit more concerned about that.

[derby378]

15. Not really - it's on a much smaller scale than FOX News would have you believe

There are militant Klan organizations, true, and many of them are heavily armed, but not to the point where they pose any real threat.

And once we get the public option signed into law, I predict a lot of the teabaggers will stare at their feet, spit, utter a few choice curses, and shuffle off into obscurity without further incident.

[AllentownJake]

19. You do know that Poppi production

actually went down to next to zero under the Taliban and has increased substantially since we arrived there and some of that Poppi production is being done by the Karzai government and Northern Alliance...right

[derby378]

25. Check your figures again

The fatwa was only against cultivation, not trade. The Taliban raised the tax on opium trading from 10% to 20% in 2000, which meant they were still making some big bucks off of poppies without having to grow them.

Did you really think the Taliban were consistent in their own laws?

[AllentownJake]

32. Do you think any government set up in Afghanistan

will resist the urge to cultivate poppies to enrich its leaders and provide them with more guns and toys to play with?

[TxRider]

88. And that it's now giving Russia fits

As they are experiencing an epidemic of heroin addiction with most of Afghanistan's heroin going to Russia and cheap as dirt on the streets.

Which is one big reason Russia is cuddling up to us on Afghanistan.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. I think they're planning to go into Pakistan.

That's why they need the extra troops. That's what we might have to do in order to strike Al Qaeda. I'd love to see these wars end tomorrow, but if we're going to stay and fight, then I think we should give it all we've got.

[AllentownJake]

16. That sounds like a genius idea

Our country is going bankrupt and we are going to expand the theater of war into a Nuclear power.

Great fucking idea.

[LuvNewcastle]

21. I didn't say that was MY idea.

I think it's their idea (McChrystal and others). As I said, I would like for it all to end, but if they won't do that, then I think we should use whatever resources are necessary to get the job done and bring it to a swift conclusion.

[AllentownJake]

24. Yes We Can

The thing is we have next to no resources right now. Running a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit while waging a war is economic suicide. Not to mention that China and Pakistan have a pretty strong alliance so when we go there we better be going with permission because right now, at this point in history, China can stop us non-militarily at any point they want to.

[LuvNewcastle]

28. There's no doubt it's a mess.

I'm not for half-measures in this case. Either we bring them home (my preference) or we escalate. I fear Obama will try to find some middle ground and we'll wind up in even worse shape than we're in now.

[timeforpeace]

42. No, but they are going to keep tabs on a nuclear Pakistan from right next door. Viola.

[AllentownJake]

49. Nuclear Pakistan

is more interested in blowing up there Indian neighbors than they are doing anything to any other country with their bombs. Even the militants there hate India more than they hate us. Kashmir is the local version of Palestine.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. "give it all we've got"

We've got enough to start WWIII. Is that what you have in mind?

[LuvNewcastle]

23. No.

I'm not talking about using nukes. I'm just saying that if we're going to fight the war (which I'm against), then we should fight to win it and win as soon as possible.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. What would constitute a 'win'?

[LuvNewcastle]

29. The destruction of Al Qaeda

[AllentownJake]

31. Impossible

You have to look at the reason Al Qaeda exist in order to destroy it. As long as those conditions exist you will have terrorist. They may not call themselves Al Quaeda but they will exist none the less.

Kill Osama Bin Laden there are three people ready to take his place.

[LuvNewcastle]

36. I think OBL is dead. Has been for years.

That said, pulling out is the best option, in my opinion. All other options either strain or deplete what few resources we have left. The war might have been winnable if we'd never have gone into Iraq, but it's too late to think of that now. If we're going to fight, though, we should plan for a lengthy and bloody stay. I hope it doesn't come down to that.

[AllentownJake]

38. Agreed

I have no problem protesting a democratic President's increase in war.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. The destruction of a movement that can recruit new members is a hopeless quest

Perhaps you really mean the destruction of all middle-eastern people.

Or all Muslims? (Of course, they can get new converts as well)

There is no such thing as the destruction of Al Qaeda and if that were possible, it wouldn't prevent the emergence of new groups with similar aims and techniques.

If you don't know that, then you are dangerously stupid.

If you do know that what I'm saying is true, then you are a propagandist for some very, very bad ideas.

I don't think there's a third possibility.

[AllentownJake]

34. Agreed

Most of these people exist in dictatorships that are supported by the US Military and aid from the US government. When you deny people the ability for a political solutions or at least representation to their plight you will have terrorism.

Hell, even when people have a political outlet they turn to terrorism. Declaring war on terrorism is about as effective as declaring war on crime or a war on drugs. You can't declare war on a social problem.

No matter how perfect a society is you will always have disaffected people who wage war on society.

[Flaneur]

46. Uh, but Al Qaeda isn't even in Afghanstan now.

[kctim]

14. I don't think people are supporting a troop increase

as much as they are supporting President Obama in doing what he was elected to do on this issue: evaluate the situation with his military advisors and do what he thinks is best for our troops and our country. I believe he deserves the chance to do that.

I also think all of your questions are valid and would love to see them addressed by those in the know.

[AllentownJake]

18. Just because I volunteered and voted for the guy

Doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and buy into everything he is selling. I like him better than the last President but I expect a little more from him as well.

[JTFrog]

20. Pretty obvious you're not going to buy into anything he does.

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

22. I liked it when he took missle bases out of Poland

:shrug:

[kctim]

27. I wasn't suggesting we sit back and become sheep

but doesn't he at least deserve the opportunity to show us what he is "selling?" This solution is not going to be planned and carried out overnight, it is going to take time. How about we let him make a plan, implement it and then determine if it is on the right course or not?
If you expect more from him, then you surely can trust his judgement more.

[AllentownJake]

30. When you think something is a very very bad idea

than you should speak up. The same logic can be imposed on President Bush. Shouldn't all of us just have given him the benefit of the doubt on Iraq?

[kctim]

50. I agree, we should always question and speak up

and I honestly believe you raised some great questions that should be answered. I also am not in any way saying I think you are wrong in saying that an increase in troops is a very very bad idea. Nobody knows really. But, President Obama knows more about the situation than any of us and I am willing to at least hear him out before I make up my mind.

[AllentownJake]

35. I see unrecommends but little answers to my questions

:rofl:

[timeforpeace]

45. Never do either one but I will rec this since it's a good discussion.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. I just gave this rec #5. The unrecs of this sort of thread on DU is DISGUSTING

Far too many people took leave of their senses when they last cast a vote. Very few wish to answer this sort of question out loud for fear of finally saying aloud what they've been thinking for a while.

[AllentownJake]

48. It is easier to follow than ask questions

Some people like to think that our party is more advanced than the other side. Blind adherence to any ideology or idea is dangerous.

One must constantly question what is being done and whether or not something is productive and be ready to adapt to change and be ready to change direction when the evidence shows what you are doing is not working or that you do not have the resources to accomplish a goal no matter how noble it is.

Failure begins when questions stop being asked and answered. A great deal of the problems in this country can be defined by the failure to question and adapt.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. K

Actually, it's pretty clear that the Taliban DID arrive "in some sort of vacuum", unless you're honestly pretending that they would be where they are today without the Soviet invasion, withdrawal, and decade of civil war that followed? As for this argument that the Taliban are an accurate representation of the population as a whole, I would point you to the numerous instances this year of entire villages taking up arms to drive off Taliban advances, the families that have opted to send their girls to school, etc. etc. The Taliban did not get where they are because they accurately reflect the will of the Afghan people. They got where they are because they were the ISI's golden child and received the most funding in terms of money and arms throughout the 1980s.

Secondly, while I also find the deficit troubling, the idea that the situation is so dire that we need to immediately end a war without regard for the consequences is a bit absurd.

Third, the Obama Administration is currently debating what the objective should be.

Fourth, as we all know, the timeline remains unclear. It depends on our success on the ground. You already knew that though, didn't you?

Fifth, what are the reasons for staying? To ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become the playground of international terrorists, to eliminate the threat posed by al-Qaeda's leadership, to beat the Taliban into submission and ensure that the vacuum is filled by something a little more reasonable to the rest of the planet.

[AllentownJake]

58. Thank you for an intelligent response

1) the Vacuum existed for 20 years before they came to power. I'll take out my claim that they represent the population however, I do not take back my literacy claims. Literacy is vital to a democratic rule. You have to be able to read the law or have access to someone who can in order to understand the law. Right now religious teaching replaces law because the educated have a religious background and can understand it.

2) I don't see how when your country is in an enormous amount of debt you can justify a war of occupation half way across the world without there being a serious threat. Sorry 19 guys with box cutters is an internal security issue, not a problem that requires a large invasion force. A domestic group that didn't fear suicide could have easily pulled off 9-11 as easily as Al Qaeda

3) I think they should decide the objective before deciding to commit the resources...but hey what do I know.

4) The longer the war goes, the more people die, the higher the cost to our treasury, the less political support you have at home...but you knew that didn't you. Timelines are important.

5) Sounds like an objective. Are 40,000 troops enough to ensure that, that objective is met?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

65. Re:

1) I agree with you with regard to literacy and its value to democratic government. With that said, I don't believe the Afghan people see the particular value in democracy anyway and I find it unlikely that whatever regime comes out of this will be democratic in nature.

2) If the situation is so dire, financially, surely we can find more intelligent places to cut spending?

3) While I agree, we should keep in my why we're in the situation we're in. From essentially 2003 to present, we've been fighting a holding action in Afghanistan. Bush deemed this Ta wise move so he could focus on his pet project, Iraq. I strongly disagreed with his reasoning then and still do today. However, I think it's wise to determine precisely what our objectives are now, rather than never.

4) Timelines can be important, but only when they're somewhat realistic. Given the current situation on the ground, I'm not sure how one could even draw one up at the moment.

5) If it can be coupled with moves like reaching out to community leaders and consistent efforts to win the trust of the population, it very well could be. The military seems to think so, though I'm curious as to what the Obama Administration will make of it.

By the way, thanks for intelligently discussing this issue. You're one of the few willing to actually engage in a decent discussion on this topic. It's much appreciated.

[AllentownJake]

67. People need to be asking questions

Not asking questions is what got us here in the first place.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

94. Agreed.

[Turborama]

102. Re the literacy thing....

That's why building schools is a priority for us and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_T_wdajOo">destroying them is a priority for the Taliban - they also state in that report that 6,000,000 kids are now going to school in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewk0iXJgsHw">This report from Britain's Channel 4 News says 200 hundred schools have been burnt down, teachers executed in front of the kids and there is a school in Kabul that has a whopping 18,000 kids going to it.

[Joe Fields]

66. I wouldn't recommend leaving , without regarding the consequences.

But we should still leave. This is not a U.S. problem. The Taliban does not have a foothold in the U.S. This is a regional problem. The U.S. needs to twist arms inside the U.N. Security Council, twist the arms of the leaders of the nations of that region to take care of this problem. IMO, we should only send special forces to seek and destroy terrorists.

Nation building=quagmire...hell, we've been there nine years.

[uppityperson]

85. Thank you for your post as it says what I think. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. There you go asking releveant questions

it is easy....

USA, USA, USA... number one....

:sarcasm:

Now here is something else to add to your list.

For god sakes, Alexander the Great and Atila the Hun could not conquer this land... what makes these idiots think we can?

Granted, we HAD a window... but thanks to BushCo it did close... Oh and that window was to do the things that you listed, nation building, EEEWWWWW... and schools and all that crap...

But we could not take OBL at Tora Bora, no sireee... if we did... GWOT would have come to an end, and so would the excuse to invade Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. We're staying for the same reason LBJ escalated a lost war. To show we're "tough".

But, the excuses are much the same. To "protect" us from a bunch farmers and goatherds. "Falling Dominoes" in Pakistan. For the noble cause of "women's rights", of course, we'll regret all the women who we kill while "protecting" their rights. Establishing democracy..that's a laugh considering the recent elections there.

We lost. Get out (now). Get over it.

[mdmc]

57. We stay until mission accomplished

or Obama admits defeat and withdraws.

Since Afghanistan is our "good" war (as opposed to Iraq) we won't cut and run until we get a new president or until Obama's second term.

[Joe Fields]

63. Um, what's the mission, exactly?

[mdmc]

89. the big one

(same as Iraq)
an unified, Democratic, pro-west, stable, Afghanistan.

[Joe Fields]

98. Ha, ha.....please forgive me. I am not laughing at you, just at the mission.

An exercise in futility. To be honest, that is your assessment. Our govt. view is not so clear.

[mdmc]

99. yup

peace

[Joe Fields]

62. I say to hell with Afghanistan ...

Pull our troops out now, force the U.N. to deal with the problem.

Strong arm a coalition of middle-eastern countries to focus on ridding the vermin out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At the most, send special forces to seek and destroy the terrorists.

[AuntPatsy]

72. We cannot even deal with our own crazy fundies and some think we can change

another countries? we are often a bit full of ourselves....we allow raging biggoted racist religious leaders to decide how we run our government and even our every day lives when you take into account that not all citizens of this country are deserving of the same rights we should all be allowed such as case in point gay marriage...right here in the good ole usa and yet at the same time we denouce others who do the same...irony at it's finest..no wonder we are rarely taken seriously anynmore world wide..

[A-Schwarzenegger]

96. "Nothing to win. No way to win it."

:*

[Odin2005]

101. I would like at the very least a stable country not ruled by pro-AQ, misogynistic religious fanatics

And a Pakistan that is safe from an Islamist takeover.

[bvar22]

104. How many troops are you willing to send in to do this?

To achieve the goals you specified in Afghanistan, the best military estimate is 600,000 troops (400,000 trained Afghani troops and 200,000 "coalition" troops), and about 10 more years.
(Bill Moyers, two weeks ago)

Now THAT is for Afghanistan.

Now, to make Pakistan "safe" from an "Islamist Takeover" ?
WTF?
Are you willing to fight a Holy Religious War with Western/Christian troops in the Middle East?
It has been tried before.
Are yopu willing to add ANOTHER country to the two we are now fighting in?

Or maybe spend enough US taxpayer money to bribe all the "Islamists" in Pakistan?
That actually DID work in Iraq (bribing the Sunni Warlords), but the long term effects are still unknown. Will they still be "our friends" if we stop giving them Billions not to kill us?...Doubt it.
At any rate, that is very small scale compared to what is faced in Pakistan.

BTW: Do you know the best way to create more "pro-AQ, misogynistic religious fanatics"?

[cali]

103. In what way is the Taliban reflective of the Afghani people?

You could argue that they're representative of the Pashtuns, but I don't think you could argue that they're representative of Afghanis as a whole.