Obama's addition of troops to Afghan...

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Pakistan is part of the problem. For one thing, they are dictatorship and nothing for Afghanistan to aspire to. Not to mention, there are regions of Pakistan just as f'ed up as Afghanistan and so even if we transform Afghansitan in to a liberal democracy, the extremists in Pakistan will move in the moment we pull out.

They're a democracy. There is a lot of issues with Pakistan but you have to realize they are taken the majority of the casualities. Unfortunately because the US screwed up in the 80's we have to do whatever it takes to correct the situation today. By abandoning the Afghans after the Soviets were defeated the US gave rise to the extremists.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by coolsurfer

I really like this article about US official, Matthew Hoh, who resigned over the war in Afghanistan. He was a former Marine Captain who served in Iraq and the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province. He makes a really good case on why we have no business over there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102603394.html

Hard to take the guy seriously when he talks like this:

"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the "second-best job I've ever had," his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve.

"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."

He doesn't sound very professional. Being happy about tactical success is one thing, but being happy about; "whacking a bunch of guys".... They're probably better off without him in Afghanistan since the main goal there is to win the hearts and minds of the people and not whack as many as possible. The war in Afghanistan is first and foremost a war on poverty, authoritarianism and gender inequality. A kill'em all stratefy won't work there.

We should be there for the main reason that a faction from there that was under the protection of their government attacked our closest ally. My only opposition to the mission is that I didn't think the former US administration cared enough about the war there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Hard to take the guy seriously when he talks like this:



He doesn't sound very professional. Being happy about tactical success is one thing, but being happy about; "whacking a bunch of guys".... They're probably better off without him in Afghanistan since the main goal there is to win the hearts and minds of the people and not whack as many as possible. The war in Afghanistan is first and foremost a war on poverty, authoritarianism and gender inequality. A kill'em all stratefy won't work there.

Thats pretty much a marine mentality though, I don't have a problem with him saying that. Soldiers are not creators of national policy, nor is anyone at a junior rank a creator of strategy, they're there to enforce it.

It reminds me of a quote that I read and I forget who said it but it went something like "We'll have peace here if I have to kill every son of a b$tch that oppossed it".

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We should be there for the main reason that a faction from there that was under the protection of their government attacked our closest ally. My only opposition to the mission is that I didn't think the former US administration cared enough about the war there.

This I completely agree with you on, Afghanistan has always been the place that should have garnered the most attention. While I'm happy that one of the results of the Iraq War is that that son of a b$tch Saddam took the long drop and his psycho sons ate bullets and the ba'ath party became extinct, the splitting of the American military into two wars was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

If the American's had bought their full military weight down in Afghanistan they probably wouldn't have the problems that they do now in terms of need to expand the mission.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

They're a democracy. There is a lot of issues with Pakistan but you have to realize they are taken the majority of the casualities. Unfortunately because the US screwed up in the 80's we have to do whatever it takes to correct the situation today. By abandoning the Afghans after the Soviets were defeated the US gave rise to the extremists.

If you define democracy as simply having elections, then I guess you can say they are. Their politcal system is heavily influenced by the military, and in fact, they just recently had their first true election in several years after being run by the military after a coup.... an election that I might add, was plagued by an assassination of prominant politcal figure. Scare tactics and the threat of military takeovers play a big roll in Pakistani politics. They also have a history of suspending their constitution and not cooperating with the international community on their nuclear program.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If you define democracy as simply having elections, then I guess you can say they are. Their politcal system is heavily influenced by the military, and in fact, they just recently had their first true election in several years after being run by the military after a coup.... an election that I might add, was plagued by an assassination of prominant politcal figure. Scare tactics and the threat of military takeovers play a big roll in Pakistani politics. They also have a history of suspending their constitution and not cooperating with the international community on their nuclear program.

Its an unstable trioka to me instead of a true democracy. When your president's nickname is Mr 10% you have a real problem.

The political body might have some control over the military there, the Military has never been completely loyal. The big x factor in that government is the ISS which created their own policy contrary to the government in terms of handling the tribal system and the extremists who live there.

You're completely right though, Pakistan is pretty much a democracy in name only and is always one small step about another military coup.

[octothorp]

Afghanistan is not a lost cause. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be a decent, functioning country if the US had focused on finishing the job there the first time rather than spreading themselves too thin with the invasion of Iraq. The motives for going into Afghanistan were good motives, and they're the same reasons why it's important to stay there now and finish things. If the US can make a case that they have a plan to go in and get it right this time, then I'd 100% support the Canadian military continuing on to help with that. The consequences of a failed state in Afghanistan are enormous on a global scale.

[coolsurfer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Hard to take the guy seriously when he talks like this:



He doesn't sound very professional. Being happy about tactical success is one thing, but being happy about; "whacking a bunch of guys".... They're probably better off without him in Afghanistan since the main goal there is to win the hearts and minds of the people and not whack as many as possible. The war in Afghanistan is first and foremost a war on poverty, authoritarianism and gender inequality. A kill'em all stratefy won't work there.

We should be there for the main reason that a faction from there that was under the protection of their government attacked our closest ally. My only opposition to the mission is that I didn't think the former US administration cared enough about the war there.

Well I guess some guys with a little more vested in the situation did take him very seriously:

The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay.
U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview. "We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him."

[Canuck-Hater]

I agree both Canada and the US need to GTFO of Afghanistan.

[moncton golden flames]

the sooner you realize obama doesn't call the shots, the better.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

the sooner you realize obama doesn't call the shots, the better.

You're right, it's the Jews.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Afghanistan is not a lost cause. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be a decent, functioning country if the US had focused on finishing the job there the first time rather than spreading themselves too thin with the invasion of Iraq. The motives for going into Afghanistan were good motives, and they're the same reasons why it's important to stay there now and finish things. If the US can make a case that they have a plan to go in and get it right this time, then I'd 100% support the Canadian military continuing on to help with that. The consequences of a failed state in Afghanistan are enormous on a global scale.

O RLY? Wow, you must have a crystal ball because that's a fairly brazen prediction without any hard evidence to back it up. Let me get this straight, "stay balls deep in an unwinnable war or there will be a global catastrophe." Sounds like fear mongering to me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sliver

O RLY? Wow, you must have a crystal ball because that's a fairly brazen prediction without any hard evidence to back it up. Let me get this straight, "stay balls deep in an unwinnable war or there will be a global catastrophe." Sounds like fear mongering to me.

You know... this might sound cold, but I don't really care what becomes of Afghanistan in the end. The fact of the matter is, they were a state under the thumb of terrorists that not only threatened their own people (because honestly, I could live with that), but they threatened us. I didn't lose too much sleep over Afghanistan pre-9/11 (as most people here didn't), so I am not going to pretend that 9/11 all of a sudden made me a more caring person.

The way I see it, there are 3 choices... we either destroy them and permanently replace their culture (which used to be done everywhere before WWII), we try to build them a country where terrorists cannot have so much influence (what we are trying to do), or we can completely isolate the country and shut our doors to anyone from there. The first 2 requiring some type of military action... and the 3rd probably being more cruel than the 2nd.

The biggest issue with pulling out and not accomplishing our goal there is that NATO will take a credibility hit and there are nations and terrorist groups that watch NATO closely for weakness. If I am somone living in a place like Kosovo, Bosnia or Macedonia, I might be a little concerned if NATO suddenly appeared unwilling to keep its resolve.

[VladtheImpaler]

Here is a real cold argument for staying in. I didn't come up with it, but it has a logic to it. By putting soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, we (US that is) draw all the "jihadists" there. Better to have the crazies fighting/killing marines/being killed by marines than taking flying lessons in California...

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're right, it's the Jews.

not quite what i believe, but to each their own.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Sliver

O RLY? Wow, you must have a crystal ball because that's a fairly brazen prediction without any hard evidence to back it up. Let me get this straight, "stay balls deep in an unwinnable war or there will be a global catastrophe." Sounds like fear mongering to me.

You come across as a dense valley girl with the text type. I suppose the 911 attacks were a one off that could never happen again.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Sliver

O RLY? Wow, you must have a crystal ball because that's a fairly brazen prediction without any hard evidence to back it up. Let me get this straight, "stay balls deep in an unwinnable war or there will be a global catastrophe." Sounds like fear mongering to me.

That's funny, my thesaurus doesn't have 'implications' and 'catastrophe' as synonyms. Either you're very confused about the meaning of these words, or you're intentionally trying to misrepresent my arguments.

Let's think about the potential consequences of a failed state in Afghanistan:
most obvious is that it becomes a potential breeding ground for terrorists; al qaeda is far from eradicated, and recent western involvement in the region has only increased anti-western sentiment. Any extremist organization that's given the time and security to actually set up operations will be able to expand greatly. The invasion of Iraq has greatly increased the stakes in Afghanistan.
Secondly, the heroin-based drug trade will escalate from it's already high levels, increasing crime nationally and throughout the region, and increasing drug supply primarily in Russia, Europe, and the East, but here as well.
Thirdly, if the west doesn't resolve the situation, Iran and Pakistan will become heavily involved in a military capacity. I worry about the potential of the Iranian and Pakistani spheres of influence colliding. For one thing, such a conflict would probably bolster support for the current regimes in both those countries. Tensions between those two countries could also further Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Fourthly, a failed state increases the likelihood of sectarian and tribal violence, which could produce either genocide or mass refugee scenarios. A Shi'a vs. Sunni civil war could turn very bloody. Either of these are situations that the international community has a moral obligation to get involved in, if not prevent outright.

None of these are a global catastrophe, but all four of them have global implications. (See the difference?)

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Let's think about the potential consequences of a failed state in Afghanistan:

Secondly, the heroin-based drug trade will escalate from it's already high levels, increasing crime nationally and throughout the region, and increasing drug supply primarily in Russia, Europe, and the East, but here as well.

I read an article saying poppy production has increased significantly since the U.S. invasion....which I thought was odd....I'll try and find it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I read an article saying poppy production has increased significantly since the U.S. invasion....which I thought was odd....I'll try and find it.

Yes, I've heard the same thing too. Basically, the lack of a national government has lead to tribal warlords to set up large-scale heroin operations. And it's not an easy thing to solve, since a lot of families and villages work for the warlords and see these attempts to shut down the industry as a personal attack on them. That said, if the west pulls out, I think the heroin operations will expand and find it easier to get their produce to market domestically and internationally.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yes, I've heard the same thing too. Basically, the lack of a national government has lead to tribal warlords to set up large-scale heroin operations. And it's not an easy thing to solve, since a lot of families and villages work for the warlords and see these attempts to shut down the industry as a personal attack on them. That said, if the west pulls out, I think the heroin operations will expand and find it easier to get their produce to market domestically and internationally.

Well, the Taliban had clamped down on the heroin trade, so if they return to power, I assume they would once again clamp down on "sin". However, that does not make the rest of your points any less valid - it is actually even more complex... India is a supporter of the Karzai regime, which of course, is a problem for Pakistan, which means that Pakistan doesn't so much mind Taliban activity in Afghanistan...

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

not quite what i believe, but to each their own.

Not really a 'to each their own' situation. I'd love to have you back up your original comment. Or is the link dead?