• 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 Congress require Obama end the war in Afghanistan?

Do you support the growing bipartisan movement to end war in Afghanistan?


  • Total voters
    17

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you support the growing bipartisan Congressional movement to require Obama to end the war in Afghanistan?



End the War in Afghanistan, And Begin Nation-Building Here At Home

"This week we joined with over a dozen of our colleagues – Republican and Democrat – to introduce new legislation to require the Obama Administration to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Specifically, our bill (the “Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act”) would: require the President to transmit to Congress a plan with timeframe and completion date on the transition of U.S. military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan; require the President to report quarterly (i.e. every 90 days) on the status of that transition, and the human and financial costs of remaining in Afghanistan, including increased deficit and public debt; and; included in those quarterly reports, the President must disclose to Congress the savings in 5-year, 10-year and 20-year time periods were the U.S. to accelerate redeployment and conclude the transition of all U.S. military and security operations to Afghanistan within 180 days (i.e. 6 months).

The operation that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden demonstrated that the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence community are incredible people.* The world is now a better, safer place.

The question then becomes: now what?* Now that bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered around the globe, does it really make sense to keep using over 100,000 U.S. troops to occupy Afghanistan and prop up a corrupt government?* We don’t think so.
Remember – we didn’t find bin Laden on the front lines of Afghanistan.* He was comfortably holed up in a mansion in Pakistan.* We must continue to target Al Qaeda wherever in the world they are.* But continuing to be bogged down in Afghanistan makes that mission harder, not easier.

In December, Afghan President Hamid Kharzai made it clear that he would rather align himself with the Taliban than with the United States.* So why on earth are we sacrificing so much in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and billions of dollars to support him?

We believe that bin Laden’s death creates an opportunity to re-examine our policy and to require the Administration to tell us exactly how and when we will end our massive troop presence in Afghanistan.

Our bill requires the President to give Congress a concrete strategy and timeframe for bringing our servicemen and women home to their families and communities, and it requires quarterly reports on the human and financial costs of continuing the war – and how much we would save if we withdrew our forces within a reasonable time frame.

That’s not too much to ask.

To make it worse, we’re not even paying for the war. It’s on the national credit card.* The war in Afghanistan adds $100 billion a year – $2 billion each week, $8 billion each month – to our debt."

http://www.thenation.com/article/160575/end-war-afghanistan-and-begin-nation-building-here-home
 
Doing it immediately would be foolhardy. I think the president is gearing up for that already and we'll be out of there by 2014, just like he said we would. I base this on a belief that there is going to be another surge in Afghanistan in the summer of 2012 and the review of the war that is planned to be released in... Nov?
 
Doing it immediately would be foolhardy. I think the president is gearing up for that already and we'll be out of there by 2014, just like he said we would. I base this on a belief that there is going to be another surge in Afghanistan in the summer of 2012 and the review of the war that is planned to be released in... Nov?

What do you think will be the realistic difference if we pull out now, or if we spend $300 billion more and end in 2014? Given our financial situation, can we afford $300 billion more, for any further gains that will most likely vanish once our troops pull out?
 
I love how some people are saying we got Osama, so lets back out now... as if Osama was the sole reason we invaded a country...
 
What do you think will be the realistic difference if we pull out now, or if we spend $300 billion more and end in 2014? Given our financial situation, can we afford $300 billion more, for any further gains that will most likely vanish once our troops pull out?

The difference between now and 2014 is the readiness of the Afghan army.
 
I love how some people are saying we got Osama, so lets back out now... as if Osama was the sole reason we invaded a country...

Osama and al Qaeda are the reason we invaded Afghanistan. Osama is now dead and experts say there are no more than 100 - 150 al-Qaeda left there. Is that worth keeping 100,000 troops there for another 3 years, costing us $300 billion more?
 
The difference between now and 2014 is the readiness of the Afghan army.

Under a corrupt central government in a country where tribal rule has been more significant than central government? It ain't happening in 3 years and we can't afford continuous war.
 
Under a corrupt central government in a country where tribal rule has been more significant than central government?

You'd be surprised what a United States trained military can do. Look at Yemen, not the government or the social unrest, just the military. They've been very effective taking it to Al-Queda. Hell look at Egypt.
 
You'd be surprised what a United States trained military can do.

It didn't work in Vietnam, it hasn't worked in Iraq, and there is no proof that another $300 billion is going to leave any lasting change there under their new corrupt central government.

If we are to ever address our debt problems, we have to eliminate unnecessary spending.


Look at Yemen, not the government or the social unrest, just the military. They've been very effective taking it to Al-Queda. Hell look at Egypt.

Yes, look at those places. In neither do we have 100,000 troops on the ground.
 
I love how some people are saying we got Osama, so lets back out now... as if Osama was the sole reason we invaded a country...

Umm he WAS the sole reason we invaded the country. And he was the only remaining justification for a continued US military presence in Afghanistan. Now that he's gone, there is none.
 
The difference between now and 2014 is the readiness of the Afghan army.

Protecting some brutal thugs from some slightly more brutal thugs is simply not worth the cost. American military power is not infinite and we can't have everything we want.
 
You'd be surprised what a United States trained military can do. Look at Yemen, not the government or the social unrest, just the military. They've been very effective taking it to Al-Queda. Hell look at Egypt.

This assumes that our military actions occur in a vacuum, as though they don't contribute to the sad state of governance or social unrest in those countries. And even if it's true that the US military has been effective, it completely ignores the cost side of the equation, as though killing a few terrorists is worth any price.
 
Last edited:
It didn't work in Vietnam, it hasn't worked in Iraq, and there is no proof that another $300 billion is going to leave any lasting change there under their new corrupt central government.

We didn't train the military in Vietnam, we fought that war. We were just starting to train the military in Iraq during the sectarian violence phase. Training the police force and military has worked since.

The point isn't to institute long lasting POLITICAL change, but to prepare the military to protect the country.
 
Osama and al Qaeda are the reason we invaded Afghanistan. Osama is now dead and experts say there are no more than 100 - 150 al-Qaeda left there. Is that worth keeping 100,000 troops there for another 3 years, costing us $300 billion more?

No.

The Taliban's attack on the United States is the reason the US invaded Afghanistan.

Since a premature pullout will allow the Taliban to return, the nation must assess it's priorities before acting. That's a habit the nation really has to begin.

Now is a good time.

Pullout now, Afganistan goes back to anarchy and warlordism and lunatic muslim jihadists. Is the nation willing to walk out now, knowing it may have to storm back in less than a decade?
 
We didn't train the military in Vietnam, we fought that war. We were just starting to train the military in Iraq during the sectarian violence phase. Training the police force and military has worked since.

The point isn't to institute long lasting POLITICAL change, but to prepare the military to protect the country.

Far too often when we train a military to "protect their country," they end up protecting it from us.
 
No.

The Taliban's attack on the United States is the reason the US invaded Afghanistan.

Since a premature pullout will allow the Taliban to return, the nation must assess it's priorities before acting. That's a habit the nation really has to begin.

Now is a good time.

Pullout now, Afganistan goes back to anarchy and warlordism and lunatic muslim jihadists. Is the nation willing to walk out now, knowing it may have to storm back in less than a decade?

When did the Tailban attack the United States?

This assumes that our military actions occur in a vacuum, as though they don't contribute to the sad state of governance or social unrest in those countries. And even if it's true that the US military has been effective, it completely ignores the cost side of the equation, as though killing a few terrorists is worth any price.

It doesn't ignore the cost of the equation. Stop thinking short term.
 
Last edited:
No.

The Taliban's attack on the United States is the reason the US invaded Afghanistan.

Since a premature pullout will allow the Taliban to return, the nation must assess it's priorities before acting. That's a habit the nation really has to begin.

Now is a good time.

Pullout now, Afganistan goes back to anarchy and warlordism and lunatic muslim jihadists. Is the nation willing to walk out now, knowing it may have to storm back in less than a decade?

When in its long history has Afghanistan NOT had anarchy, warlordism, and/or lunatic Muslim jihadists? This is one of the most corrupt, impoverished, wartorn countries on the planet, and has been for a very long time. A few more years of American occupation is not going to change that fact.
 
We didn't train the military in Vietnam, we fought that war.

We counted on the support of the South Vietnamese whom often betrayed our locations because they felt we were doing more damage to their country than the North Vietnamese.


We were just starting to train the military in Iraq during the sectarian violence phase. Training the police force and military has worked since.

If it has worked, why do we still have 35,000 combat troops there with the full backing of the most powerful military on the planet?

The point isn't to institute long lasting POLITICAL change, but to prepare the military to protect the country.

That only last as long as we are there to back them up. I don't think we can afford that kind of commitment for so little assurance of benefit that lasts beyond our pull out.
 
It doesn't ignore the cost of the equation. Stop thinking short term.

Who is thinking short term? You're the one arguing that we need to devote hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops to these countries, because ZOMG TERRORISTS OOGABOOGA.

There are far better ways to spend that money. How many lives could we have saved from heart disease or cancer (for example) for the same amount of money? They're far more dangerous than terrorism and a lot more cost-effective to prevent.
 
Pullout now, Afganistan goes back to anarchy and warlordism and lunatic muslim jihadists.

Realistically, that is what will happen whenever we pull out and we simply cannot afford to spend trillions more on an endless and needless war at this point.

We have to get a grip on our irrational fears people, or Osama will yet win with his promise to bleed the US into bankruptsy figthing "terrorism" in the Middle East.
 
Who is thinking short term? You're the one arguing that we need to devote hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops to these countries, because ZOMG TERRORISTS OOGABOOGA.

And now you are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned terrorist. Good job. A strong centralized military can project centralized power to the tribal region though a number of ways. Combine that military power projection with what Karzi appears to be doing, which is trying to set up a somewhat federalize Afghanistan and you may actually see the stabilization of the country.

Or the military could take over and impose its will on the people. Either way, you move away from a failed state.
 
Yes, we should pull out as soon as is practically feasible. The law of diminishing returns is starting to come into play now. We've killed Osama, and most of Al Qaeda. It doesn't make sense to continue spending money and lives just to get the few that are left.
 
Do you really believe that Congress should have no say regarding US wars?
Over a dozen? Let's say two dozen... 24/535 = 4.5%... Wow, that is impressive. :shock:

Anyone that thinks the USA Congress would pass anything that would force the President to withdraw or that, if they did, any USA President would sign such a bill is retarded.

Anywho, didn't they already have their say when they authorized Bush to use all necessary force? The only say they have now is to withhold funding.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom