Do you support Obama in continuing the Afghanistan war?

Catawba said:

Thank you for your thoughts Redress. There are many that agree with you. IMO, since Afghanistan has traditionally operated under tribal rule, I just don't see us having the time or the money to convert them to our way of central government. I think it is an unrealistic goal that we can't afford to pursue due to cost, both in terms of lives and National debt that is already bloated from the two wars over the course of a decade.

Click to expand...

Nearsighted nonesense. Let's just pull out before the Pathan government can keep the Tali-ban suppressed, thereby having to spend even more money later to have to send our troops right back to do what we should have given them time to do in the first place.

Afghanistan: Land of Conflict and Beauty. - John C. Griffith
Afghanistan: A Military History From Alexander The Great to the Fall of the Taliban. - Stephen Tanner
Three Cups of Tea. - Greg Mortneson and David Oliver Relin
The War for Muslim Minds. - Gilles Kepel


Here are four good sources to what is going on. Do yourself a favor and gain some insight. The sophomoric protests and nearsighted sensationalist loyalities that would have Iraq controlled by Hussein or in ruins right now aren't in our best interests when it comes to Afghanistan either.

DiAnna said:

I am so incredibly proud of our troops. Thank you for your service, from the bottom of my heart.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone could fault the troops. They have excelled in every task given them and with valor! My thanks to all our service men and women, including my son who just returned from his 4th tour in the ME.

Catawba said:

Don't police usually get paid for their services?

Click to expand...

Oh...but we do get paid. Every time you purchase something from a store, it is due to safe passages through trade routes all around the world. It is due to stabilities in regions where uncontrolled disruptions would send the world into a spiral. To pretend that we haven't been paid since the Barbary Pirates Wars by our abilities to deploy into the outside world is foolish. Not every threat is about immediate defense. You don't need your very angry lunatic neighbor to shoot you in the face before you can recognize the threat. Even Somali pirates off that coast are a threat to free trade. And hey, look at that....without mentioning the global military and national treats off and on to the free democratic world's way of life, I went from Barbary pirates to Somali pirates.

MSgt said:

Nearsighted nonesense. Let's just pull out before the Pathan government can keep the Tali-ban suppressed, thereby having to spend even more money later to have to send our troops right back to do what we should have given them time to do in the first place.

Afghanistan: Land of Conflict and Beauty. - John C. Griffith
Afghanistan: A Military History From Alexander The Great to the Fall of the Taliban. - Stephen Tanner
Three Cups of Tea. - Greg Mortneson and David Oliver Relin
The War for Muslim Minds. - Gilles Kepel


Here are four good sources to what is going on. Do yourself a favor and gain some insight. The sophomoric protests and nearsighted sensationalist loyalities that would have Iraq controlled by Hussein or in ruins right now aren't in our best interests when it comes to Afghanistan either.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to your viewpoint. I don't happen to share it. I still believe it is unrealistic to think we have the time or money to convert Afghanistan to our way of central government.

MSgt said:

Oh...but we do get paid. Every time you purchase something from a store, it is due to safe passages through trade routes all around the world.
It is due to stabilities in regions where uncontrolled disruptions would send the world into a spiral. To pretend that we haven't been paid since the Barbary Pirates Wars by our abilities to deploy into the outside world is foolish. Not every threat is about immediate defense. You don't need your very angry lunatic neighbor to shoot you in the face before you can recognize the threat. Even Somali pirates off that coast are a threat to free trade. And hey, look at that....without mentioning the global military and national treats off and on to the free democratic world's way of life, I went from Barbary pirates to Somali pirates.

Click to expand...

Considering we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined, I'm not too worried about modern day pirates to tell you the truth. This is not a problem that requires our world wide military occupation.

MSgt said:

Afghanistan has a chance and is improving exponentially. Stop looking for Vermont and you won't be dissapointed.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for Vermont, I'm looking for signs that Afghanistan is any better off economically than it was before...and more to the point, that it is sufficiently better off to warrant the enormous amount of resources we have poured into nation-building there. I'm not seeing it. Afghanistan is still one of the poorest countries on earth. It's still one of the most corrupt countries on earth. And its geography isn't going to change anytime soon. Afghanistan is landlocked and will remain dependent on its coastal neighbors, like Pakistan, for a very long time. As long as Pakistan remains poor, Afghanistan is not going to be able to develop its economy very much. If we're going to go on a nation-building adventure, Pakistan would be a much better target than Afghanistan...or even better, plenty of spots in Africa and India that we've forgotten exist.

MSgt said:

Because of Iraq, Afghanistan has not had 10 years of focus. They have it now. U.S. Marines are no longer deploying to Iraq. Without "pulling them out now" in ten years, Afghanistan will be strong while the fractured insignificant Tali-Ban is probably seeking to topple the Pakistani government. I've stated this for years....."The War on Terror is generational and region wide."

Click to expand...

The US military is not well-equipped to build nations. They can (sometimes) provide security, but that alone is not going to build a nation. And there is absolutely no reason to expect the economic or political situation in Afghanistan to improve anytime soon.

If our purpose for being in Afghanistan is national security, then let's have THAT debate and stop muddling the mission by pretending that we're nation-building. And if we're legitimately interested in being altruistic and building nations, then let's focus our humanitarian efforts on places that it CAN work: India, Bangladesh, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.

Catawba said:

You are welcome to your viewpoint. I don't happen to share it. I still believe it is unrealistic to think we have the time or money to convert Afghanistan to our way of central government.

Click to expand...

That is precisely why we (they, the guys and gals in theater) are working on promoting a secure DECENTRALIZED solution to this problem, by empowering the provinces. MSgt could perhaps clarify this, but I recall having read that this is the new strategy given the tribal nature of Afghanistan and the centralized corruption.

Catawba said:

You are welcome to your viewpoint. I don't happen to share it. I still believe it is unrealistic to think we have the time or money to convert Afghanistan to our way of central government.

Click to expand...

And this is why you are destined to be dissapointed. Like Iraq, the goal is not Vermont in the desert.

In regards to Afghanistan, its history is very Pathan controlled. As long as the central government respects the soveriegnty of the local outlying tribes (which shares a common divided theme with the others around the borders), then the tribes will accept Pathan government. This is historical. This is where the Soviets and so many other outsiders failed. Even between outside invasions over the last 2,500 years, their internal frictions and "wars" it was the Pathan government that offerred the greatest stability. A strong Pathan government with a trained ANSF/ANAF will do the job we need against the Taliban and Al-Queda base of operations so that we can leave.

In other words, "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves" isn't possible without providing them the means to do it.

Redress said:

A positive outcome would be a relatively stable government in place and with enough power to police itself to prevent the return of terrorist groups who threaten the US. How long it will take I have no idea.

Click to expand...

The terrorist groups are just going to move somewhere else and we can't invade EVERYONE. All we're doing is justifying their position that the U.S. is sticking our nose into places we don't belong and fueling their hatred.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Cephus said:

The terrorist groups are just going to move somewhere else and we can't invade EVERYONE. All we're doing is justifying their position that the U.S. is sticking our nose into places we don't belong and fueling their hatred.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Click to expand...

Please let's remember we are all just expressing our opinions here. Redress was answering a question I had asked and gave an honest opinion. No need to be uncivil.

Kandahar said:

I'm looking for signs that Afghanistan is any better off economically than it was before...and more to the point, that it is sufficiently better off to warrant the enormous amount of resources we have poured into nation-building there.

Click to expand...

The resources we pour into it is a matter of criticism you should have with Washington. Iraq did nothave to be thecontractor orgy it was and it never should have cost asmuch as it did. The same is true for Afghanistan. If you want to see an economic deifference, you have to back off and give it time. Poppy fields don't turn into wheat fields over night. Education programs don't educate a population where 80percent can't read or write over night. Discovered mass pockets of natural gasses don't immediately begin sourcing a nation's growth.

Afghanistan will always be Afghanistan. But it can damn well be better than it is right now. Al-Queda and other such religious crime organizations can only thrive in nations like the former Afghanistan. Not addressing them and not holding their hands past what outsiders assume is all they are capable of, is criminal to our own security.

Remember how quick the pundits of Iraq were so willing to cater to short sighted current events as definition for ultimate failure? How every IED was a disaster? How the great civil war was going to erupt the Middle East? All of this was near sighted, ignorant, and smacked of racism for an entire civilization. Even as they refuse to offer credit for the current events towards the greatest social and dramatic change in the region with Iraq's efforts to create democracy, they are starting to voice the same ignorant doomsday crap with Afghanistan.

Kandahar said:

The US military is not well-equipped to build nations.

Click to expand...

The U.S. military was not equipped for humanitarian missions either, but that didn't stop them from dropping the military into one mission after another in the 90s. We had to learn under fire and learn we did. Besides, the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan alone. NGOs are very much a part of this effort. So this statement is pointless.

reefedjib said:

That is precisely why we (they, the guys and gals in theater) are working on promoting a secure DECENTRALIZED solution to this problem, by empowering the provinces. MSgt could perhaps clarify this, but I recall having read that this is the new strategy given the tribal nature of Afghanistan and the centralized corruption.

Click to expand...

With the corrupt government we are also support working against us after a decade at war with the loss of thousands of our soldiers, tens of thousands more with loss of limbs and other permanent disfigurements, and trillions of dollars in National debt, I just don't think we can pull it off without bankrupting the country at a time when our economy and people at home need help.

Cephus said:

The terrorist groups are just going to move somewhere else and we can't invade EVERYONE. All we're doing is justifying their position that the U.S. is sticking our nose into places we don't belong and fueling their hatred.

Click to expand...

Then let them move. They tried to set up camp in Iraq when tribal differences began to surface. They failed because their kind can't exist in societies where people have a choice for something better. They have been denied their base in Afghanistan and have moved to Pakistan. With a strong Pathan government in Afganistan, they will not return. Their best hope is that we leave prematurely (like they hoped in Iraq) or seek to disrupt the fragile Pakistani government. Do you not understand why crime is greatest in poor/uneducated neighborhoods even in the U.S.?

This is generational and it is region wide. Where before we could get away with supporting the Cold War dictator for stability, we now have to begin living up to our free/democratic rhetoric and support the people who will never end up choosing oppression.

Cephus said:

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Click to expand...

It is a good idea. Or do you think minding our own business about these wrecked and oppressed territories where terrorism goes so unchecked was a good idea on 9/11?

You don't know what you are talking about. I can tell because your remark is very sophomoric and lacks understanding.

Catawba said:

With the corrupt government we are also support working against us after a decade at war with the loss of thousands of our soldiers, tens of thousands more with loss of limbs and other permanent disfigurements, and trillions of dollars in National debt, I just don't think we can pull it off without bankrupting the country at a time when our economy and people at home need help.

Click to expand...

Karzai is temporary. The corruption is exponentially being addressed at every level. Stop living in the past and assuming that today is the future. Like Iraq, there is a process under way.

The tactic to define things in blacks and whites or it's either this or that never addresses the issue. There is no reason to "bankrupt" the nation in our efforts. Without addressing Washington's waste, you'll only ensure that they waste elsewhere. None of this should have cost this much.

MSgt said:

The resources we pour into it is a matter of criticism you should have with Washington. Iraq did nothave to be thecontractor orgy it was and it never should have cost asmuch as it did. The same is true for Afghanistan. If you want to see an economic deifference, you have to back off and give it time. Poppy fields don't turn into wheat fields over night. Education programs don't educate a population where 80percent can't read or write over night. Discovered mass pockets of natural gasses don't immediately begin sourcing a nation's growth.

Click to expand...

Yeah, things don't change overnight. But I don't think it's asking too much to see SOME signs of progress after ten years. Afghanistan is not progressing, certainly not enough to justify the costs. The "contractor orgy" may have been part of the problem, but even if we had spent one-third as much, we could have certainly done more humanitarian good per dollar spent in, say, India.

MSgt said:

Afghanistan will always be Afghanistan. But it can damn well be better than it is right now.

Click to expand...

If you want to fix Afghanistan, you have to fix Pakistan first. There is absolutely no way that a landlocked country is going to economically grow if it is dependent on coastal neighbors that are FUBAR themselves. To illustrate this point, let's suppose for a minute that the population WAS suddenly educated overnight and those poppy fields DID suddenly turn to wheat fields overnight. OK, now what? How do you plan to get those textiles, machines, and wheat to port?

Nation-build Pakistan if you want to nation-build Afghanistan.

MSgt said:

Al-Queda and other such religious crime organizations can only thrive in nations like the former Afghanistan. Not addressing them and not holding their hands past what outsiders assume is all they are capable of, is criminal to our own security.

Click to expand...

OK, there are plenty of other terrorist havens where our nation-building dollars can go much farther. You could start with some place like Yemen, that's coastal and has the potential to at least not be a disaster...if not a prosperous state. There's plenty of room for altruism there.

MSgt said:

Remember how quick the pundits of Iraq were so willing to cater to short sighted current events as definition for ultimate failure? How every IED was a disaster? How the great civil war was going to erupt the Middle East? All of this was near sighted, ignorant, and smacked of racism for an entire civilization. Even as they refuse to offer credit for the current events towards the greatest social and dramatic change in the region with Iraq's efforts to create democracy, they are starting to voice the same ignorant doomsday crap with Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

I snipped this before, because it's really not relevant. But suffice it to say that Iraq is stagnant economically and actually regressing politically. If you want to discuss it more than that, start a separate thread.

MSgt said:

The U.S. military was not equipped for humanitarian missions either, but that didn't stop them from dropping the military into one mission after another in the 90s. We had to learn under fire and learn we did. Besides, the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan alone. NGOs are very much a part of this effort. So this statement is pointless.

Click to expand...

The US military is still not equipped for humanitarian missions, even after "learning under fire." I would be very happy if more of our defense dollars were geared toward things like nation-building instead of, say, fighter jets.

NGOs are in Afghanistan too, yes. I fail to see how this addresses the criticism that our nation-building efforts just flat-out aren't working and aren't going to work.

MSgt said:

And this is why you are destined to be dissapointed. Like Iraq, the goal is not Vermont in the desert.

In regards to Afghanistan, its history is very Pathan controlled. As long as the central government respects the soveriegnty of the local outlying tribes (which shares a common divided theme with the others around the borders), then the tribes will accept Pathan government. This is historical. This is where the Soviets and so many other outsiders failed. Even between outside invasions over the last 2,500 years, their internal frictions and "wars" it was the Pathan government that offerred the greatest stability. A strong Pathan government with a trained ANSF/ANAF will do the job we need against the Taliban and Al-Queda base of operations so that we can leave.

In other words, "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves" isn't possible without providing them the means to do it.

Click to expand...

The part in bold I emphasized above is where we are not at, after a decade of war. And IMO we are making the same mistake we made in Vietnam, thinking the side we are supporting in Afghanistan has our interest at heart, and is willing to fight for it. Its why it didn't happen in Vietnam. Its why it won't happen in Iraq after we remove our military occupation and won't work in Afghanistan after we remove our military occupation.

MSgt said:

Like Iraq, there is a process under way.

Click to expand...

I've heard absolutely nothing more convincing than this statement for our immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan!

Kandahar said:

Yeah, things don't change overnight. But I don't think it's asking too much to see SOME signs of progress after ten years.

Click to expand...

This was the situation. Until a year ago, Afghanistan was not the focus. Iraq was. Even today, coalition forces, to include the U.S. Army, have celebrated a trend to hunker down instead of being proactive in their efforts. Instead of pushing forward with social and security programs, they treated the effort as an 8 hour a day job. Italians were training ANSF/ANAF differently than the French were. The Briitish were treating local villages diffrently then the Georgians were. Etc. The result has been a lot of stagnation. In the end, everyone was treating this as if they oinly had to hunker down in safety and wait out their end dates.

This is no longer the case. Coalition generals have visited Camp Lejeune recently to see what we are doing different that has produced such change over the last year in Marine sectors (towards Pakistan and Iran). ANSF/ANAF is responding better than before and local villages are responding to a more uncorrupt system of gaining assistance. The government is responding to coalition watchdogs who look for corruption. Intel has intercepted transmissions between Taliban leadersinsttructing them torefrain from attacking Marine units because they are "crazy and unkillable and cannot be exploited." They are notjust referring to Marines. They are referring to the ANSF/ANAF that have Marines embedded. We have also gotten away from allowing the enemy to dictate the pace of the war. Instead of retiring for the winter months, they are having to defend from coalition and ANSF/ANAF aggression.

It's happening. Bigger economic concerns very much depend upon other programs such as the transition from poppy to wheat. Or the pipelines that are to carry natural gas out of Afghanistan. Getting away from the drug trade will address much of the corruption within the government.

Kandahar said:

If you want to fix Afghanistan, you have to fix Pakistan first.

Click to expand...

It's not a one or the other. They are both concerns and they are both key to each other. It doesn't help that much of the taliban "tribe" is rooted on both sides of the border.

Kandahar said:

OK, there are plenty of other terrorist havens where our nation-building dollars can go much farther.

Click to expand...

And you don't think they are being addressed as well? CENTCOM doesn't just deal with locations where our military is present. National aid to these countries is a factor. Politicial and diplomatic lean is a factor. We do not have to invade everywhere to address terrorist havens within foreign governments... and we don't. Do you think Egypt's future is on a pace all its own?

Honestly - I thought he would have altered our approach and nature of involvement by now. But he's really just more of the same.

I agree that there's a problem worldwide which needs attention.
I don't believe (haven't for a long time) that we're going about it the right way.

But should be pull our troops out immediately? No. There would actually be MORE harm done by doing that than by doing what we're doing.

The opposition is riled up, pissed off, and well funded and armed - while it would be *nice* to not to have to worry about things anymore - we can't just *stop* giving it attention - they will just take what they have *now* out on everyone in our absence.

I'm sure many won't agree with me - but I feel that's how it is.

Catawba said:

I've heard absolutely nothing more convincing than this statement for our immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan!

Click to expand...

Well, that's because you have chosen to shut down (in 2003 no doubt) and refuse wider thought. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq would not have produced the Iraq you see today. And it would not serve as an example to the rest. It would also be a festering mess full of Al-Queda agents who are building safe havens for which my kind (and your son's) would have to bleed later for.

Immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan now is equally stupid and short sighted. This is bigger than Afghanistan. The enemy nol onger marches under a government banner in a uniform with a swastika on his shoulder. He no longer takes to the field to pit tank against tank under the expressed declaration of war with his neighbor. Our wars are no longer so neat and packaged for the simple folk who need such things to address an enemy. And this isn't new. The twentieth century merely gave history and the globe's civilizations a timeout from the norm.

MSgt said:

This was the situation. Until a year ago, Afghanistan was not the focus. Iraq was. Even today, coalition forces, to include the U.S. Army, have celebrated a trend to hunker down instead of being proactive in their efforts. Instead of pushing forward with social and security programs, they treated the effort as an 8 hour a day job. Italians were training ANSF/ANAF differently than the French were. The Briitish were treating local villages diffrently then the Georgians were. Etc. The result has been a lot of stagnation. In the end, everyone was treating this as if they oinly had to hunker down in safety and wait out their end dates.

Click to expand...

And that has changed now? When was it announced that we're going to be staying in Afghanistan for a long time? What additional focus on Afghanistan is there now that we're out of Iraq...just more security, or more actual assistance?

MSgt said:

This is no longer the case. Coalition generals have visited Camp Lejeune recently to see what we are doing different that has produced such change over the last year in Marine sectors (towards Pakistan and Iran). ANSF/ANAF is responding better than before and local villages are responding to a more uncorrupt system of gaining assistance. The government is responding to coalition watchdogs who look for corruption.

Click to expand...

The head of government himself is a corrupt dictator. The country remains one of the most corrupt on earth by virtually every measure I've seen. Is there any measurement that suggests the corruption situation improving?

MSgt said:

Intel has intercepted transmissions between Taliban leadersinsttructing them torefrain from attacking Marine units because they are "crazy and unkillable and cannot be exploited." They are notjust referring to Marines. They are referring to the ANSF/ANAF that have Marines embedded. We have also gotten away from allowing the enemy to dictate the pace of the war. Instead of retiring for the winter months, they are having to defend from coalition and ANSF/ANAF aggression.

Click to expand...

You're talking about tactical security. I'm talking about strategic economic development.

MSgt said:

It's happening. Bigger economic concerns very much depend upon other programs such as the transition from poppy to wheat. Or the pipelines that are to carry natural gas out of Afghanistan. Getting away from the drug trade will address much of the corruption within the government.

Click to expand...

How do you plan to get wheat to port? And how do you plan to convince desperately impoverished farmers that they should grow a crop worth maybe one-tenth (or less) of what they're growing now?

MSgt said:

It's not a one or the other. They are both concerns and they are both key to each other. It doesn't help that much of the taliban "tribe" is rooted on both sides of the border.

Click to expand...

No. Pakistan first, then Afghanistan. Pakistan has a coast, Afghanistan does not. Trying to develop Afghanistan's economy right now is hopeless, because it is reliant on the failed state to its south, and the US military cannot change Afghanistan's geography. It will ALWAYS be poor as long as Pakistan is poor. Pakistan, however, will not necessarily be poor just because Afghanistan is.

MSgt said:

And you don't think they are being addressed as well? CENTCOM doesn't just deal with locations where our military is present. National aid to these countries is a factor. Politicial and diplomatic lean is a factor. We do not have to invade everywhere to address terrorist havens within foreign governments... and we don't.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting we invade everywhere. I'm suggesting we use any and all of our nation-building efforts A) to rid the world of the conditions in which terrorism thrives, and B) in a responsible manner that does not involve throwing away money on lost causes when there are plenty of troubled spots on the globe that can actually use the money.

MSgt said:

Do you think Egypt's future is on a pace all its own?

Click to expand...

Huh, Egypt? For the most part, yes. But Egypt is fine. It's certainly not Afghanistan.

MSgt said:

Well, that's because you have chosen to shut down (in 2003 no doubt) and refuse wider thought. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq would not have produced the Iraq you see today. And it would not serve as an example to the rest. It would also be a festering mess full of Al-Queda agents who are building safe havens for which my kind (and your son's) would have to bleed later for.

Click to expand...

The Iraq I see today is one with the new corrupt regime we helped install that cannot stand against its own people without our military occupation. There was no al Qaeda/Saddam connection. See the Pentagon/CIA report.

Immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan now is equally stupid and short sighted

Click to expand...

.

Yeah the big fear tactic used back then was that if Vietnam fell to communism the rest of the world would follow. Tell, me something, did that happen? Haven't we been doing business with communist Vietnam for decades.

This is bigger than Afghanistan. The enemy nol onger marches under a government banner in a uniform with a swastika on his shoulder. He no longer takes to the field to pit tank against tank under the expressed declaration of war with his neighbor. Our wars are no longer so neat and packaged for the simple folk who need such things to address an enemy. And this isn't new. The twentieth century merely gave history and the globe's civilizations a timeout from the norm.

Click to expand...

That's the same fear tactics used during the Vietnam War and the Iraq war. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

We have the most powerful military on the planet, I don't understand the fear of people with no planes, no ships, no submarines, no giant missiles, no nuclear weapons. We have all of 'em and more than the rest of the world combined.

Bin Laden said the way he would defeat America was not on the battlefield, it would be by depleting our financial resources by fighting wars we could not win. Judging by the size of our National debt, he may not have too much longer to wait, if we continue to play right into his plans.

Trying to win a war against your own irrational fears can never be successful.

MSgt said:

Then let them move. They tried to set up camp in Iraq when tribal differences began to surface. They failed because their kind can't exist in societies where people have a choice for something better. They have been denied their base in Afghanistan and have moved to Pakistan. With a strong Pathan government in Afganistan, they will not return. Their best hope is that we leave prematurely (like they hoped in Iraq) or seek to disrupt the fragile Pakistani government. Do you not understand why crime is greatest in poor/uneducated neighborhoods even in the U.S.?

Click to expand...

They failed because we spent trillions of dollars dumping millions of tons of ordnance on them. There are always going to be places that will welcome them with open arms because there are always going to be people who are sick and tired of the U.S. trying to control their lives. I'm willing to bet that the second we're out of Afghanistan, they'll be back. That's exactly what happened the second we turned our focus to Iraq. We leave, they come back. We're not actually changing the people's minds about terrorism, we're just distracting them with tons of money and flashy trinkets. When the money goes away, they go back to their old ways.

This is generational and it is region wide. Where before we could get away with supporting the Cold War dictator for stability, we now have to begin living up to our free/democratic rhetoric and support the people who will never end up choosing oppression.





It is a good idea. Or do you think minding our own business about these wrecked and oppressed territories where terrorism goes so unchecked was a good idea on 9/11?

You don't know what you are talking about. I can tell because your remark is very sophomoric and lacks understanding.[/QUOTE]

Continuation of the War in Afghanistan weakens America. There are many historical precedents of a country fighting the wrong battles which have the effect of weakening them.

I understand that our troops deal with wonderful people every day, people they have become fond of, people they wish to help. But dispite the insistance that Karzai's corrupt government will be dealt with, the reality is that the rigged election will allow him to stay in office, siphoning USA money into his own pocket, for years to come.

Meanwhile, his government, which has insisted that it will restore rights to the women in the country, is systematically removing those rights which were so painfully restored.

Women who have fled from abusive husbands and families that would kill them have found some protection at women's shelters in Kabul. Karzai's government is now passing a law that would put onerous burdens on these women, and have the authority to send them back to face certain death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/asia/11shelter.html

...The changes in the law would require a woman like Sabra to justify her flight to an eight-member government panel, which would determine whether she needed to be in a shelter or should be sent to jail or back home, where she would be at risk of a beating or even death. She would also have to undergo a physical exam that could include a virginity test.

...women’s advocates see the effort as an example of government pandering to religious and social conservatives as President Hamid Karzai’s administration starts reconciliation efforts with insurgents. Women’s rights, they fear, will be the first area in which the government makes compromises.

“I’m not sure why they are doing it — maybe because the government is becoming more conservative and to appease the Taliban they are doing things like this,” said Manizha Naderi, the director of Women for Afghan Women, which runs three shelters and five family counseling centers around the country...

The evolution of the new rules began in 2009 when Mr. Karzai set up a commission led by a senior religious figure, Mullah Nematullah Shahrani, to look into the shelters and prepare a report.

Senior officials at the Women’s Affairs Ministry insist that the new rules are for the good of the women and that they have no intention of taking over existing shelters. A copy of the draft rules obtained by The New York Times makes clear, however, that nongovernmental organizations would no longer run shelters...

Click to expand...

The 2-page article is bone-chilling to me, and a horrific step backwards for the rights of Aghan women. Karzai's government is not to bring democracy to his people. It's to solidify his own power by any means necessary.

The USA should not support this man or his government any longer. We should withdraw our money and our troops. Afghanistan will remain a tribal culture until Afghans decide they want something more. Until then, there is nothing more we can do there.