It's time for large # of troops to GTFO of Afghanistan.

[BigRedChief]

It's a no win situation for us. Brave Americans are fighting a war in which there is no hope of winning. In this type of war there will never be a "winner". All we are doing is providing easy targets for Taliban to kill.

We can't just ignore military history there and say our effort will be different.

We went into Afganistan with 1,300 troops. When the Taliban fell we had 2.500 troops on the ground. We now have 60,000 troops on the ground and the Taliban control 40-70% of the country's territory.

The new commander in Afghanistan says he sees no evidence of a large Al-Quaeda presense in Afghanistan. That is and will always be the only reason for us to be in Afghanistan. The only reason we are there in the first place. The only reason to sacrifice American lives.

I think we should hunt down and kill every single member of Al=Quaeda, no matter where they are hiding.

We shouldn't be sacrificing American lives to nation build in Afghanistan. Yeah, they want to go back to the 12th century but why should we sacrifice American lives to keep that from happening? Not worth it.

But if we leave the Taliban will take over swiftly and then provide a safe -haven for Al-Quaeda? We don't let that happen. We put cruise millsle up their azz. We send out the drones. We use special forces to take them out.

Edited:

I'm convinced that this is the right decision for these reasons.

• We can't nation build in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be using our resources and sacrificing our troops to help them. Thats not why we are there. $300 billion spent so far. 900 brave Americans dead. Entering it's 9th year. Just when will it be enough?
• The argument that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda will just come back may be true but there are several problems with that. Al-Quaeda can be anywhere in the world. So we keep them out of Afghanistan, they show up in Pakistan, Somalia, where ever. I read there is only 100 Al-Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are probably more than that in the USA. If we keep them out of Afghanistan. they will just go some other place. We need a 21st century approach. We won't be able to defeat Al-Quaeda with conventional weapons and strategy. We can always go back in with surgical strikes to take out prime targets and more large scale attacks to prevent Al-Quaeda from establishing bases again. We can't let 100,000 Americans become easy to reach targets for Al-Quaeda.
• The government is corrupt beyond repair. For those who want to nation build, how can you with a totally corrupt government that the people don't trust? Nation building won't work no matter how many troops or how much money you throw at the problem with a corrupt government distrusted by the people.
• Afghanistan has no resources. What exactly are they going to make money at, build their country with? It would be a transfer of wealth from us to them.
• The population outside of Kabul is run by drug overlords. The majority of the population works in the poppy fields because its the only way they can feed their family. How are we going to change that? Provide jobs for those people to feed their families? A lot of those poppy field profits are going right to the Taliban. Just how are you going to end this cycle without a major infusion of American money. Again, a transfer of wealth.

[|Zach|]

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Stewie

Afghanistan is a proxy for Pakistan. We, along with India, need to squash Pakistan from east and west. Throw in China, too. They've had enough of this shit for far too long on their western border.

The reason why is because Pakistan had a terrible drug problem due to the Afghan poppy fields. So they supported the Taliban because they destroyed the poppy fields. They have now been brought back under our occupation. This is like a giant glaring flaw about our presence there. The Taliban offered to turn over bin laden to Bush if he provided proof he was behind 9/11. That was easy enough to do but Bush rebuffed it.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The Taliban offered to turn over bin laden to Bush if he provided proof he was behind 9/11. That was easy enough to do but Bush rebuffed it.

What a load of crap. No matter what "evidence" Bush provided it wouldn't have been good enough for the Tailban. That was just a stalling tactic.

I can't believe I just defended something George W. did.

[Garcia Bronco]

War is hell. If you want to win you better be prepared to lose troops and make the other side pay in full and then some.

"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

-Patton

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

What a load of crap. No matter what "evidence" Bush provided it wouldn't have been good enough for the Tailban. That was just a stalling tactic.

I can't believe I just defended something George W. did.

Bravo! but I feel you pain. I sometime have to choke back a little vomit when I defend people I don't care for but, it certainly ads credibility when one will acknowledge stupidity on both sides. For Example if The Clintons couldn't dig up some dirt that Obama wasn't a citizen when she was trying to get the nomination... it just isn't there.

[HonestChieffan]

I went to the WW1 museum yesterday. Really hits home when you relaize the lack of backbone this country has these days.

[Nightfyre]

I think you are comparing apples and oranges hcf. The wars we have fought dating back to vietnam have not compared to the world wars, excepting the first gulf war. Guerilla warfare presents a less tangible enemy, and one with which you can't acquire surrender. Instead, you would have to kill off every fanatic, which is not possible.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

I went to the WW1 museum yesterday. Really hits home when you relaize the lack of backbone this country has these days.

Macho BS.
Different times and different wars. Different strategy's are needed.

[HonestChieffan]

the lack of backbone is among the citizens . We have been a weak willed people going back to Vietnam. The military can do their job, its weak support and political crap that gets in the way every time.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

the lack of backbone is among the citizens . We have been a weak willed people going back to Vietnam. The military can do their job, its weak support and political crap that gets in the way every time.

I disagree. Weak support did not lose vietnam. We gave vietnam more than a fair shake both in timeframe and through a draft.
Posted via Mobile Device

[HonestChieffan]

But was run by mcnamarra and Johnson with all decisions politically based

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

But was run by mcnamarra and Johnson with all decisions politically based

correct but the President decides military objectives, not the military in our system of government.

Now, once the objective is established the President needs to get the hell out of the way and let the Armed forces proceed without political interferance and do their jobs to carry out their orders.

Just like the new commander wanting 100,000 americans on the ground in Afghanistan, I'm sure militarily thats probably the right decision. But, strategically is it? Does it become a quagmire in which we just get americans killed and no benefit from their sacrifice?

[wild1]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

correct but the President decides military objectives, not the military in our system of government.

Which is our problem here.

The President decides the mission's objectives, which in this case are something other than winning as soon and as completely as possible.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by wild1

Which is our problem here.

The President decides the mission's objectives, which in this case are something other than winning as soon and as completely as possible.

Our no longer Declaring War officially has a lot to do with this. We don't, as other nations don't, because of our treaty with the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act signed after becoming a member. This has a lot to do with our stalemated quasi "wars" such as Korean and Nam. Expect the same on Afghanistan. I'd throw Iraq in there as well, even if we didn't get the Security Council vote because the Resolution our Congress drew up was not a Declaration of War it was a UN-style call for military action to enforce the UN resolutions alleged to being violated by SH. ( but which weren't)

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Macho BS.
Different times and different wars. Different strategy's are needed.

Strategy has nothing to do with the nation's will to win and the ability to withstand casualties.