• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

Should the U.S. pull it's troops out of Afganistan?


  • Total voters
    48
Not sure if anyone has read:

THIS from Will

or

THIS from Krulak to Will

Just some insight from pretty credible sources...

First off, what is more "credible" about these people that make all others less than credible?

What is credible about George Will's argument that we should just go back to the failed strategy that led to the disaster of 9-11?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.


As for the retired Marine General; the credibility of a doctored "e-mail" and its source aside, he suggests putting "hunter killer teams" along borders and in suspected Al Qeada strongholds. Aside from the OBVIOUS strategic impossiblity of such a strategy, this does not sound like the well thought out logic of a Marine General.

How would such teams be able to be supported? How would they infiltrate Al Qaeda strongholds? The REALITY is that this is a naive proposal that can only sound logical to the uninitiated and uninformed.

Sorry, but this is far from a compelling argument but rather more of the same naive logic that got us 9-11 in the first place.

The REALITY is that the Bush strategy as espoused back in 2001 to promote democratically elected representative governments and promote economic development and education systems is far more viable than the naïve notion that one can fight terrorists from the safety of offshore naval assets and missile firing drones. They ignore the reality of how good intelligence is obtained and the difficulty in infiltrating terrorist networks.

I am fascinated when people argue for the same failed strategies of the past purely for the reason that too many of our military are dying fighting terrorists and fights should not last beyond two years.

I guess this same failed strategy is okay if the people who do the dying are the innocent civilians like those who were lost on 9-11 here on our own shores rather than a professional military force trained to kill within the geography where the terrorists are to be found.

It just doesn’t make much sense to me and many others; but this is the fast food mentality of a nation that has gone soft in the head and has the collective memory of a lemming when it comes to the events leading up to and culminating in 9-11.
 
First off, what is more "credible" about these people that make all others less than credible?

What is credible about George Will's argument that we should just go back to the failed strategy that led to the disaster of 9-11?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.


As for the retired Marine General; the credibility of a doctored "e-mail" and its source aside, he suggests putting "hunter killer teams" along borders and in suspected Al Qeada strongholds. Aside from the OBVIOUS strategic impossiblity of such a strategy, this does not sound like the well thought out logic of a Marine General.

How would such teams be able to be supported? How would they infiltrate Al Qaeda strongholds? The REALITY is that this is a naive proposal that can only sound logical to the uninitiated and uninformed.

Sorry, but this is far from a compelling argument but rather more of the same naive logic that got us 9-11 in the first place.

The REALITY is that the Bush strategy as espoused back in 2001 to promote democratically elected representative governments and promote economic development and education systems is far more viable than the naïve notion that one can fight terrorists from the safety of offshore naval assets and missile firing drones. They ignore the reality of how good intelligence is obtained and the difficulty in infiltrating terrorist networks.

I am fascinated when people argue for the same failed strategies of the past purely for the reason that too many of our military are dying fighting terrorists and fights should not last beyond two years.

I guess this same failed strategy is okay if the people who do the dying are the innocent civilians like those who were lost on 9-11 here on our own shores rather than a professional military force trained to kill within the geography where the terrorists are to be found.

It just doesn’t make much sense to me and many others; but this is the fast food mentality of a nation that has gone soft in the head and has the collective memory of a lemming when it comes to the events leading up to and culminating in 9-11.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan.

You also don't understand what "victory" in Afghanistan is not achievable; not in the terms as defined by "victory" (I wouldn't call it that yet) in Iraq.

However, as you know, George Will is on your team; and, as it happens, a very credible source regarding National Security. Oh, and GEN Krulak is the former Commandant of the USMC, so, yes, he is rather credible.

Will's recommendations are hardly what I would call a "pre 9/11 strategy", in fact, it is almost the identical strategy and tactical approach used by the Bush Administration immediately after 9/11. What a really dumb comparison for you to make. It proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

And the email isn't doctored because Krulak published it, genius.

Do some research, read some books, understand the conflict and then get a hold of me; then we will talk.
 
Last edited:
You lack a fundamental understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan.

This is another one of your Liberal “because you say it is so.” I will be happy to put my understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan up against yours any day.

I already have and your response is basically as simplistic, trite and condescending as the above comment.

You also don't understand what "victory" in Afghanistan is not achievable; not in the terms as defined by "victory" (I wouldn't call it that yet) in Iraq.

Another Liberal claiming this is because he says so. But yet, we have already achieved victory by removing the Taliban, having Osama living in caves like an animal to avoid detection and implementing Democracy in Afghanistan.

I am always amused by the desperation of Liberals to redefine what victory means to fit their narrow, misguided and myopic views of the world.

However, as you know, George Will is on your team; and, as it happens, a very credible source regarding National Security.

My team? I didn’t know I had a “team” in this debate. I am merely dealing in facts and haven’t made even the remotest attempt to make this a “partisan” issue.

Oh, and GEN Krulak is the former Commandant of the USMC, so, yes, he is rather credible.

I never questioned whether Krulak is credible, but rather question your sources and attempts to suggest that Krulak’s OPINIONS should trump a majority of others who happen to disagree with his assessments.

Will's recommendations are hardly what I would call a "pre 9/11 strategy", in fact, it is almost the identical strategy and tactical approach used by the Bush Administration immediately after 9/11. What a really dumb comparison for you to make. It proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

This is another because you say so, but the strategy being espoused by Will and which you support is identical to the failed strategy of the past and has NOTHING to do with the Bush strategy which is to implement Democratically elected Governments in an attempt to advance prosperity and education.

And the email isn't doctored because Krulak published it, genius.

The e-mail had no source, the source of the e-mail was blacked out and you want to pretend that a pasted document lends legitimacy that the OPINIONS of a retired Marine General trump everyone else’s. Sorry, that just doesn’t wash in a debate of the facts.

Do some research, read some books, understand the conflict and then get a hold of me; then we will talk.

I would suggest you take some of your own advice as it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue of what you are debating and think that spewing a bunch of opinions that basically constitute “because you say so” is a substitute for facts and substance.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
I find them intelligent

Maybe that's why I tend to see things more clearly than some. Wisdom and understanding does not confine itself to a political party or a spectrum leaning. It's usually that allegiance to party or lean that leaves people in the dark. In this way, our people tend to mirror the blind and ignorant allegiances of the Middle Eastern tribe member.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that's why I tend to see things more clearly than some. Wisdom and understanding does not confine itself to a political party or a spectrum leaning. It's usually that allegiance to party or lean that leaves people in the dark. In this way, our people tend to mirror the blind and ignorant allegiances of the Middle Eastern tribe member.

Don't follow you???
To what do attribute your ability to "see things more clearly than some "??
 
In the case of Vietnam, we abandoned them....

Yes, we certainly did.

But once that commitment was made and agreements signed, we should have stood by our ally regardless of how corrupt the regime may have been and continually worked to improve their efforts towards Democracy.

I have more of a problem with the average American who has trouble standing by its military from headline to headline. I don't expect these kind of people to stand behind an ally.


It doesn’t matter how corrupt the current regimes may be or how long it takes us to be there until their fledgling Democracies begin to bloom. These are, after all, nations that never had representative Government in their entire histories and these things take time. I don’t care if we have to be there for 100 years. It is the ONLY viable strategy that will have a chance versus the failed policies of the past decades.

You are missing a very real truth here. We were never going to be in these countries for a hundred years. But we can "be there" without placing our troops into situations where they are dealing with a confused and fanatical population.

We can offer assistance. We can even offer opportunity. But we cannot force them to rise above their petty and culturally suicidal tribal allegiances. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Iraq always had a shot at something better because of the population. It may be divided in three, but for the most part they do not wish to slaughter forever and are interested in a measure of civility and good governance. This was always true despite our dimwitted critics who cheered at the possibility of failure and even wished it to validate their own personal immorality about the whole affair. But Afghanistan's population is made up of a perverted disorientating mess of tribal grievances. It is their corrupt culture that forms the corrupt government.

One of the reasons Afghanistan is a "mess" is because the United States Marines have been focused on locking down Iraq since the end of 2003 when it was asked to go back. There are just over 11,000 Marines in Afghanistan and this is up from the numbers of prior years. The Army has been hammering at the Tali-Ban for years, but even with the Marine Corps shifting east the only result will be far more blood shed (theirs) in a never ending sea of fanaticism. We will end our intimate time in Afghanistan after we've killed enough and accepted that these people deserve what they get.

Punitive strikes should be our role.

This statement is incorrect; our mission in Iraq was to enforce the agreements and UN resolutions the despotic regime of Saddam spent a decade ignoring. As part of that strategy, Saddam’s regime was to be replaced with a representative Democracy in an effort to prevent another despot from taking over an oil rich nation and create future problems.

Well, mission accomplished.


Again, if we have to be there 100 years from now; that should be the goal in order to promote Democracy and peace in the region. Nothing can defeat terrorism more surely than education and prosperity. Those are the long term goals and they can only be achieved through a Democratically elected representative government.

In which they need to start being held accountabe to do. We provided opportunity and saw them through a few national elections. They have already made mistakes by catering to Al-Sadr in the interest of "peace." This was a direct smack in the face to our military. But this is their journey. Enough Iraqis feel that they can carry the ball on their own. Let them learn if they are up to the task.

Again based on my above comments, I vehemently disagree with this notion. We have to be committed to spend the next 100 years supporting Democracy if that is what it takes.

You can support democracy without placing our military between the tribes. The probable truth is that these tribes need to be allowed to slaughter each other until they are ready to move on. Our involvements are merely placing this "cleansing" on pause. Unfortunatley for us, this pause in tribal violence may see them to nuclear arms before they've had a chance to fullfill their historical destinies.

We spent 60 years in Europe after WWII and it was a stunning success in promoting peace and prosperity. Why should we suddenly believe this issue in the ME should be treated differently?

Think about it. What major event occurred in Europe prior to 60 years of peace, which is one of Europe's longest streaks? A: Tribal slaughter. This is one of history's ironic ingredients to long lasting peace.

The question here is what makes people think that the religiously feuled tribal madness of the Middle East is beyond doing exactly what Europe did...twice? The Middle East has merely been prevented from do so. Europe's borders were natural according to tribe after WWII (Yugoslavia being the lone exception and look what eventuallly happened to it.) Thgis being the case, there was no tribal insurgencies or tendencies to exact historical revenge. A German tribe didn't camp out in France. An Italian tribe didn't claim land in Germany. France wasn't carved up with it's people seperated behind different borders where they didn't get along with local tribes.

The Middle East is totally different. And until our leaders in Washington begin to understand this, they will continue to make bad decisions upon our military, which has to come through on their behalf.
 
This is another one of your Liberal “because you say it is so.” I will be happy to put my understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan up against yours any day.

1. I'm not a liberal. In fact, I'm disagreeing with our Liberal President over a second round of troop increases that he's going to implement. I'm sure you are a smart guy; but on this one, I got you beat. I've got enough experience in 21st century wars that I know this nation doesn't possess the resources or political will to "do Afghanistan right". We can't and won't. Why half-ass it? We shouldn't. It's morally wrong to have Soldiers die for political gain, which is what you are advocating. I also like how anyone that disagrees with you is brandished a "liberal". NS/FP are big boy topics, son. Partisanship goes by the wayside when we are talking life and death.


But yet, we have already achieved victory by removing the Taliban, having Osama living in caves like an animal to avoid detection and implementing Democracy in Afghanistan.

I think OBL is dead. I'm OK with some kinetics, like I mentioned. Afghanistan will never be a democracy. Get over it.

I am always amused by the desperation of Liberals to redefine what victory means to fit their narrow, misguided and myopic views of the world.

Funny, I read something like this above, then this statement below:

My team? I didn’t know I had a “team” in this debate. I am merely dealing in facts and haven’t made even the remotest attempt to make this a “partisan” issue.

You are absolutely partisan. You only know what Fox and Talk Radio tells you.


This is another because you say so, but the strategy being espoused by Will and which you support is identical to the failed strategy of the past and has NOTHING to do with the Bush strategy which is to implement Democratically elected Governments in an attempt to advance prosperity and education.

Bush strategy circa 01-03 is about right. He only started to "nation-build" in AFG when the Iraq strategy changed...read the 2006 NSS, you'll see the change to all the "happy, help people democracy bull****" that the U.S. military is not supposed to do and really stinks at. Read the 2002 NSS as well to familiarize yourself with the Bush doctrine; and also so you notice the difference in the one published four years later.

I suscribe to the realist school of national security and Foreign policy; which says that democratically elected government (a fallacy, by the way...since Karzai just "won" an unfair and rigged election) will have no impact in anyway to help A-stan "prosper" or become better educated. The only thing a U.S.-backed government accomplishes is increasing wealth and power of AFG govt. officials.

I would suggest you take some of your own advice as it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue of what you are debating and think that spewing a bunch of opinions that basically constitute “because you say so” is a substitute for facts and substance.

God, you are a master of the talking points memo. Listen, son; I understand this war, though I have yet to fight in it. I'm sure I will soon. I doubt I go back to Iraq. When I get there, I'm sure all of my pre-concieved notions and theories I developed through research and education will be confirmed. You'll still be sitting on the couch watching Hannity. You have failed to refute anything in Will's column or any ideas that I've mentioned in either post.

Read Gunny's aforementioned posts; he basically says the same thing I am.

These people have problems we cant fix.
 
I don't have enough information to judge whether our presence there is or will have a positive effect on the middle east in general to justify the treasure and lives. I also don't know if it is a good place to find and fight al qaeda. I kind of feel it is. If what I hear in the media is true we probably should be there to keep al qaeda penned up in Pakistan. The people in charge have a lot more information then any of us and personally, I will support whatever decisions are made by President Obama and the Pentagon in this regard, just as I did President Bush.

Now, having the CIA attacked by the administration in the middle of an intelligence war, not smart. Get rid of Holder, Pelosi and Reid and start supporting the military.
 
Last edited:
If we allow the military to do its job we will win, pretty easily. It will just take a while, is all. They can't outlast us militarily; only the politicians and defeatists can lose this war.
 
If we allow the military to do its job we will win, pretty easily. It will just take a while, is all. They can't outlast us militarily; only the politicians and defeatists can lose this war.

True, but this is where they are making a mess of things. They aren't understading what we are facing. Even with a history of examples to draw from, they refuse to acknowledge what we are up against as they look towards examples that have nothing to do with it. They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers, Marines, and Navy Corpsmen for nothing: Political Correctness kills.

The conundrum is that our military strength (which is far stronger than most can ever fathom) makes our policy makers lazy. Neglectful of other instruments and means of national power, they inevitably find themselves forced to resort to military solutions. And after they have tossed our tired (but still motivated and driven) military into the fire and see exactly what our military is trained to do via media cameras that have no business in war, they do 180s and voice that the situation demands a politicial solution.

Our political morons continue to pretend that we are in a war like any other. This politically correct notion to refrain from offending a certain religion leaves our leaders unarmed and mentally ill equipped to make sound decisions. This attitude has even found its way into the Army's new "Counterinsurgency" manual - it barely mentions Islamic fanaticism or religion at all. The problem (as I see it) is that if we actually took a hard look at this and identified exactly what it is then we would have to abandon this "hearts and minds" dogma that satisfies those who have broken from this world's reality since 1992.

Washington doesn't discuss religion as an integral element of the security challenges we face. Our enemies insist that religion is dearer to them than all else. Does Washington (And I mean Congressmen, White House, Pentagon, etc.) think they are just making this up? Have the religious suicide bombers blended in with the athiest suicide bombers so well?

Afghanistan is a country of jealous clans patched together with uneasy compromises, lies, and corruption. And these clans form the government. It will always be Afghainstan. "Nation building" here is a joke. "Winning the hearts and minds" here is largely a joke. And thinking that our enemies will one day come to the table with a note of surrender is about the most tragically dumbest mistake our civilian leaders and media continue to make. The same is true for those who continue to mention that negotiating with the Tali-Ban will give us that political "victory."

The absolute truth and a an absolute fact of history is that military solutions have been the only effective tool in defeating insurgencies. Afghanistan is not Iraq. There is no politicial solution here. Sacrificing our troops lives by not allowing them to "Call for Fire" because it is a political burden to see dead civilians on TV is treacherous. Sending them to slaughter the enemy at the expense of some of their lives and then look to negotiate with the enemy for "peace" is a waste of American lives as well. Pretending that we can get through this period of history without recognizing the very real religious threat in order to maintain a sense of political correctness despite our enemies throwing God at us repeatedly while immersed within a deeply rooted religious civilization is irresponsible to our troops and our national security.

Our educated enemies are not under any kind of illusion. They know they cannot defeat us. They know that we will continue to exist and be successful ever embarrassing their own civilizations who all but claim the market on failure. But they are willing to continue the fight for their God, because it is the fight that ulitmately matters. Deathy is the reward (72 virgins) not victory. They will continue to fight until we simply get tired and move on. But we can deny them this....

Our enemies in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) do not need to see our troops on the ground any longer to feel pain. Since nation building in Afghanistan will only give strength to a government full of corruption and completely dependent upon American military strength to exist (after 8 years mind you) it may be time to recognize that this is a pointless endeavor (I keep stating that this is not Iraq). Dropping in special forces as need be from our sea bases and launching missiles into their Tali-Ban/Al-Queda neighborhoods will exact the punishment they have earned until they grow tired and move on.

And our attacks need to start being vicious. They need to leave even our allies in shock. We returned punches with our enemies with astounding success up until Korea. From then on we have been growing deeper attached to this idea of "winning hearts and minds" and negotiating "victories." Korea still awaits the next round. Vietnam was sacrificed. The end of the Gulf War saw us negotiate a victory rather than finish the job and declare it with pride and absoluteness. In the end, our leftists and our drama hungry media has caused more death and destruction than anything else. By shedding crocodile tears for the few, they manage to create the oppression and slaughter to come. Instead of allowing the military to do what it is trained to do, it is instructed to seek other ways to "win" so that our politicians can protect their pathetic images. Support the troop? Or does the troop wind up supporting the politician?

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning. Victory forgives.
 
Our enemies in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) do not need to see our troops on the ground any longer to feel pain. Since nation building in Afghanistan will only give strength to a government full of corruption and completely dependent upon American military strength to exist (after 8 years mind you) it may be time to recognize that this is a pointless endeavor (I keep stating that this is not Iraq). Dropping in special forces as need be from our sea bases and launching missiles into their Tali-Ban/Al-Queda neighborhoods will exact the punishment they have earned until they grow tired and move on.

Amen...great summation on post, Gunny.
 
nukes.jpg

We should get out of Afganistan only after we've turned the entire country into a parking lot.


 
I'm thinking Gunny pretty much nailed it.
 
If we allow the military to do its job we will win, pretty easily. It will just take a while, is all. They can't outlast us militarily; only the politicians and defeatists can lose this war.

Wrong. There are some things that the military can do very well and some things it does extremely poorly. The military, no matter how many bullets and bombs and multi-billion dollar bombers they have, can never change the minds of the people they are shelling. We can wipe out the Taliban but once we leave, they or a similar group will reform because that's what the people of Afghanistan want. Until they decide, on their own, that they want something different, this is a pointless fight.
 
JOHN NAGL

President of the Center for a New American Security

America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.

U.S. policymakers must, of course, weigh all actions against America's global interests and the possible opportunity costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, low-cost strategies do not have an encouraging record of success. U.S. efforts to secure Afghanistan on the cheap after 2001 led it to support local strongmen whose actions alienated the population and thereby enabled the Taliban to reestablish itself as an insurgent force. Drone attacks, although efficient eliminators of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, have not prevented extremist forces from spreading and threatening to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The so-called "light footprint" option has failed to secure U.S. objectives; as the Obama administration and the U.S. military leadership have recognized, it is well past time for a more comprehensive approach.

Topic A: Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting? - washingtonpost.com
 
The "liberals" in favour of pulling out dont care or dont wanna talk about the little girls who are finally being given the chance to be educated and have a real future.

We do however have to have a rational conversation about Afganistan because its gonna take years to achieve victory.

This may sound callous but their hasnt been massive casualties of allies troops.If we stop the policy of burning Opium we may still change it for the better.Otherwise what is the point of the military?
 
The "liberals" in favour of pulling out dont care or dont wanna talk about the little girls who are finally being given the chance to be educated and have a real future.

That's fantastic but, forgive me, this is going to sound a little callous, but what business is that of ours? We have no control over what any other nation does with their citizens and certainly no military right to move in and attempt to impose change on them by force. It might be a place for diplomacy, but so long as people in the Muslim world are spraying acid in the faces of girls just trying to get an education and in some Islamic nations, more than 50% of girls are married off before the age of 18, more than 25% before 15, and many die in childbirth at a terribly young age, that's a serious problem that bombing them isn't going to change.

The only way to fix it is to convince them to change their beliefs. Good luck on that.
 
The way I think about having our military involved in another country is this:

Is our presence there moral, (always a judgment call) AND is there a clearly definable & realistic path to victory for us? (if the clear answer to both of those questions is not YES...then we shouldn't be there)
Clear paths to victory are easy based on the way wars use to be fought, but not so easy in assymetric warfare. I wish it was different.
 
Clear paths to victory are easy based on the way wars use to be fought, but not so easy in assymetric warfare. I wish it was different.

Then don't get involved in these war unless we are physically attacked by a nation, not just a bunch of nomadic terrorists.
 
America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary.

The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown.

Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.
 
stay and finish the job of cours
 
Back
Top Bottom