• 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!

US to keep nearly 10k troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Perotista said:
I think if keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan to train and help equip the Afghan military to defend themselves and stand on their own two feet so we can leave at sometime in the future it is worth. A train the trainers type program. But it shouldn't take ten years to make this happen, to accomplish that mission. This leaves me with a sneaking suspicion that we, the good old USA want our troops there for another reason. Perhaps a geopolitical reason, a home base of sorts. But when it comes to politicians, they always have sneaky agendas and the state purpose of something usually isn't.
Click to expand...

:agree: I find it ironic that we can take young men and women from any locale in this country, send them to a "boot camp" - consider them sufficiently trained in months to be sent to hot spots overseas , but Afghanistan is going to take years? Really? Yeah, that's believable - not!

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - US to keep 9,800 Afghanistan troops after 2014


If I was an American I would be furious with this. It's going to keep coming out of the tax payers pocket and the servicemen/women over there will remain targets for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Obama said that we would be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year. Obama has never lied to us about anything... from defending net neutrality to Benghazi, Obama always tells the truth. #sarcasm
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Whoa! Obama said that we would be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year. Obama has never lied to us about anything... from defending net neutrality to Benghazi, Obama always tells the truth. #sarcasm
Click to expand...

What has Obama actually done since taking office? Like seriously what has been acheived?
 
Higgins86 said:
What has Obama actually done since taking office? Like seriously what has been acheived?
Click to expand...

You know I was being sarcastic about that right?

On what has been achieved, that really depends on how you look at it. From the perspective of the average American, little to nothing has been achieved as the economy is still wretched with the unemployment rate only dropping because people quit looking for work, the government is corrupt, inept, and can get little done, and the police have become more and more militarized, and our foreign policy has only became more violent, so from that perspective, nothing has really happened. However, if you look at it from the perspective of those in power and know that their main goal is to maintain and expand their power, then everything is going rather swimmingly.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
You know I was being sarcastic about that right?

On what has been achieved, that really depends on how you look at it. From the perspective of the average American, little to nothing has been achieved as the economy is still wretched with the unemployment rate only dropping because people quit looking for work, the government is corrupt, inept, and can get little done, and the police have become more and more militarized, and our foreign policy has only became more violent, so from that perspective, nothing has really happened. However, if you look at it from the perspective of those in power and know that their main goal is to maintain and expand their power, then everything is going rather swimmingly.
Click to expand...

Yeh I was aware lol.

Just genuinely interested in what had been done during his time in office as from the outside it looks as if most of the policy from the Bush years is still in place. Still in Afghan for the foreseeable future, increase in the use of drones, Gitmo is still open and the NSA have taken on a life of their own.

For a leader that preached hope and change its really doesnt seem to fit, shame because I was actually excited to see what would happen when he took office.
 
Higgins86 said:
Yeh I was aware lol.

Just genuinely interested in what had been done during his time in office as from the outside it looks as if most of the policy from the Bush years is still in place. Still in Afghan for the foreseeable future, increase in the use of drones, Gitmo is still open and the NSA have taken on a life of their own.

For a leader that preached hope and change its really doesnt seem to fit, shame because I was actually excited to see what would happen when he took office.
Click to expand...


Well Obama was never about hope and change from day one. Look at how he talked about re-negotiating NAFTA and then contacted the Canadians when they got worried, telling them that it was just campaign rhetoric. (Canadian NAFTA Remarks Rile Obama Campaign - CBS News) I generally ignore what politicians say and look at what they do. As the saying goes "Talk is cheap."
 
the way to look at these things is like a still life painting. as it exists today, not clinging to past costs. as atrocious as they were. Would It make sense to put in 9800 US today?

Is the future of Afghanistan worth risking those lives, and the costs - what do we want out of this that would make it so? And how about Pakistan? This means the drones start up again.

( been a lull since the first of the year a Paki tried to negotiate with their TeT Taliban , before deciding to go on an offensive in the Federally Administer Tribal Areas -or Waziristan)

Are we helping to stabilize the region, or feeding into their civil war? would it be better to let them solve this themselves?

This IS a counter insurgency, and it would be much better if they could negotiate with their Taliban;

Taliban aren't our enemy -just al' Qaeda, and most of al' Qaeda core (Pakistan) have been decentralized. (AQAP/affiliates, etc)

I don't think we can write their history for them, all we can do is temporarily tip the scales. They need to come to a political solution, not an imposed military one
 
Ikari said:
Governments obtain their legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If you are not of the governed, you have no proper say. End of story.

But we could engage in our own propaganda if we were really interested in breaking the cycle. Building roads and schools and hospitals would go a much further way to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East than blowing up friends and family could ever do.
Click to expand...

we can only build up much infrastructure in Afghanistan..think we've done all we can -yes. spent untold billions

there has to be a negotiated power sharing with the Taliban, they are too large and powerful to exclude a role in Afgh,

Problem is they don't WANT to negotiate with ANA they want sole power like before we came in. Up to them to work it out. we can't do it for them
 
polgara said:
:agree: I find it ironic that we can take young men and women from any locale in this country, send them to a "boot camp" - consider them sufficiently trained in months to be sent to hot spots overseas , but Afghanistan is going to take years? Really? Yeah, that's believable - not!

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Howdy Pol, after Vietnam I spent three years being a Drill Sergeant at Ft. Leonard Wood, basic training. What I taught was just the basics. Sort of an introductory course so to speak to the military. From there the soldiers would go on to their AIT, where they would learn a heck of a lot more. Just a guess but I would say this took a good six months. Then the soldier reports to his unit where he undergoes a lot more training, both individual and unit wise. Our troops keep on learning, going to class, training and gain experience. There are always field exercises where a soldier can put what he learned to use. He picks up valuable experience and in such places such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan one learns even more.

In other words the people doing the training has many, many years of classes, actual experience and training to get where they are. To be able to train a soldier from another country. We have had a couple of centuries to develop NCO's and Officers who can lead men and put to good use what they have been taught. Afghanistan hasn't had any of this until perhaps the last ten years. They lack the experienced cadre, support staff, etc. Remember we started learning way before the revolution, back to at least the French and Indian Wars. One needs to put all this stuff into perspective. It's not like we can just send an Afghan to basic and say, viola, there you are. It takes far much more.

We have experienced people in our military the new recruits can rely on and they take these new recruits out of basic and AIT and mold them into a valuable fighting man. That molding continues on throughout the soldiers career. There is a lot more to it, tons of more stuff, but perhaps this may give you an idea. Just running someone through 6 weeks, 8 weeks of training doesn't mean he has become a complete soldier. It means he has just started along on that journey. Its like teaching a baby to crawl, so the baby can crawl now, the next step is to teach him to walk so eventually he can run and hopefully win the race.
 
jonny5 said:
But whats the alternative? Bring them all home? What happens when AQ moves back in? Im not really furious about troops being there, but rather with troops being there with no apparent purpose, and forgotten by the country they serve.
Click to expand...
whack a mole. hit them (AQ) if they do get operational abilities again, otherwise who cares about Afghanistan?

(called "counter-terrorism, not counter insurgency) details What is the difference between counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism?

The difference between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency is simple: counter-terrorism focuses more narrowly on combating the tactics and strategy of terrorism and those who employ it, while counter-insurgency is a broader category of responses to political violence carried out by minority groups, both terroristic and otherwise
Click to expand...
 
braindrain said:
Not sure if you realize this but we have built roads, schools and hospitals over there. Lots of them. As well as irrigation projects, wells and district centers.
Arguing from a position of ignorance is not helpful.

With that said I do feel that the time to pull out was as soon as we said we were going to leave. The moment you tell the enemy you are quitting is the time to leave. Not years later.
Click to expand...

It's not. We have had limited humanitarian efforts in some of the countries. But our major form of interventionism is military, and we've done far more damage than good.

Arguing from a position of propaganda and hyperbole is not helpful.
 
annata said:
we can only build up much infrastructure in Afghanistan..think we've done all we can -yes. spent untold billions

there has to be a negotiated power sharing with the Taliban, they are too large and powerful to exclude a role in Afgh,

Problem is they don't WANT to negotiate with ANA they want sole power like before we came in. Up to them to work it out. we can't do it for them
Click to expand...

It's true, we cannot. We cannot have a helpful impact in the region if they People of the region do not want our help or do not see our path as the one they wish to take for themselves and their government. We've spent untold trillions blowing the place up and playing right into the hands of terrorist propaganda. War and military interventionism is clearly not the answer, it's been over a decade of continued interference and it has driven us no closer to a solution. Just more debt, bigger and more intrusive government, and more dead Americans.
 
Ikari said:
It's true, we cannot. We cannot have a helpful impact in the region if they People of the region do not want our help or do not see our path as the one they wish to take for themselves and their government. We've spent untold trillions blowing the place up and playing right into the hands of terrorist propaganda. War and military interventionism is clearly not the answer, it's been over a decade of continued interference and it has driven us no closer to a solution. Just more debt, bigger and more intrusive government, and more dead Americans.
Click to expand...

we can help, but not if it's a continuation of their civil war without requiring some negotiations between the sides. it's all but stalemated, they have got to find some common ground, or this just starts all over again when we leave
 
I've got 1 word for you. Japan.

OK...2 words..."Japan" and "Germany" (the 'and' doesnt count technically).

Granted...this hasnt been run as I think it should have (why oh why didnt they LISTEN to me...) and both administrations fumbled post war ops BADLY...but still...WW2 involved a LONG TERM goal to maintain peace. Thats what is required when you dont 'just' defeat a country at war but in fact oust an entire government. If you want to keep going back and doing the same thing...then Germany post WW1. If you want to see long term and sustainable peace, Germany post WW2.

Again for emphasis...I do NOT think what we are doing there now is effective. BUT...if it were managed better I can absolutely see a long term presence.
 
VanceMack said:
I've got 1 word for you. Japan.

OK...2 words..."Japan" and "Germany" (the 'and' doesnt count technically).

Granted...this hasnt been run as I think it should have (why oh why didnt they LISTEN to me...) and both administrations fumbled post war ops BADLY...but still...WW2 involved a LONG TERM goal to maintain peace. Thats what is required when you dont 'just' defeat a country at war but in fact oust an entire government. If you want to keep going back and doing the same thing...then Germany post WW1. If you want to see long term and sustainable peace, Germany post WW2.

Again for emphasis...I do NOT think what we are doing there now is effective. BUT...if it were managed better I can absolutely see a long term presence.
Click to expand...

Japan and Germany are slightly different. Their people weren't divided and were squarely defeated in proper, declared war. Yes, it's easier to dominate and engineer a bit with a beaten, but united people, willing to accept the rule of the victors. But I think you can agree that it's not the case in the current ME.
 
Ikari said:
Japan and Germany are slightly different. Their people weren't divided and were squarely defeated in proper, declared war. Yes, it's easier to dominate and engineer a bit with a beaten, but united people, willing to accept the rule of the victors. But I think you can agree that it's not the case in the current ME.
Click to expand...
Hence the comments about how badly mismanaged post war ops have been by both Bush and Obama.
 
Ikari said:
This is infinity war, there's no plan to ever get out of the region. We'll always have an excuse for drone bombing civilians.
Click to expand...
That's such a neckbeard thing to say.
 
Ikari said:
infinity war
Click to expand...
Is that a real thing? No war has ever been fought with a clear timeline or definite end in sight.
Ikari said:
But we could engage in our own propaganda if we were really interested in breaking the cycle. Building roads and schools and hospitals would go a much further way to producing a more Western sympathetic Middle East than blowing up friends and family could ever do.
Click to expand...

We do build roads and schools and hospitals, but that can't happen unless we militarily defeat the enemy first. Building a bridge will do zilch if the Taliban are going to blow it up in a few weeks or months. And even if drone strikes have produced resentment to such an extent that it makes people join terrorist groups (which hasn't been proven), we still have the upper hand, since al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. all kill more innocents than we do.
 
MadLib said:
Is that a real thing? No war has ever been fought with a clear timeline or definite end in sight.
Click to expand...

Yet our major, declared wars have ended in under a decade.

MadLib said:
We do build roads and schools and hospitals, but that can't happen unless we militarily defeat the enemy first. Building a bridge will do zilch if the Taliban are going to blow it up in a few weeks or months. And even if drone strikes have produced resentment to such an extent that it makes people join terrorist groups (which hasn't been proven), we still have the upper hand, since al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. all kill more innocents than we do.
Click to expand...

We build some in some places, true....usually after we've bombed it. Seems sporting to fix what we break. But in the end, we don't do enough to break the cycle and instead play into it. The terrorists, they're not cool...but kill more innocents than we do? I mean, we've nuked two cities; not sure they are on that level. But that is neither here nor there. Our killing of the innocent there is exactly what the terrorists want because that continual violence feeds their propaganda and recruitment, which then continues the cycle. That's why this is infinity war. It's not being fought to bring about a conclusion, but rather to continue the vicious cycle.
 
The US may be in Afghanistan indefinitely. As soon as they leave, the farce of a government that is there will collapse. As I recall, Kazai was known as the "mayor of Kabul."
 
MildSteel said:
The US may be in Afghanistan indefinitely. As soon as they leave, the farce of a government that is there will collapse. As I recall, Kazai was known as the "mayor of Kabul."
Click to expand...

yes. I also am hearing the proposed Bilateral Security Agreement that next Afghani president will sign (BSA) allows further escalation after 2016-next president.

IF all goes well and the Taliban are defeated, then the war ends if not...open commitment still playable by next POTUS :peace
 
annata said:
yes. I also am hearing the proposed Bilateral Security Agreement that next Afghani president will sign (BSA) allows further escalation after 2016-next president.

IF all goes well and the Taliban are defeated, then the war ends if not...open commitment still playable by next POTUS :peace
Click to expand...

The problem is that the US is not going to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban are part of the people that are there, many of whom that detest the US with a passion. The US presence there will not do anything to destroy that hatred. Some of the people who smile with the US are the very people behind some of the attacks. That is the problem.
 
soot said:
I can't speak for all Americans, but I've been furious with our troop presence there for, oh, I don't know, about a decade now.

Thing is, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...

There's plenty we can do; we just don't have a CIC with the balls to do it.
 
MildSteel said:
The problem is that the US is not going to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban are part of the people that are there, many of whom that detest the US with a passion. The US presence there will not do anything to destroy that hatred. Some of the people who smile with the US are the very people behind some of the attacks. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

I can't help but laugh everytime someone suggests that the Taliban is in touch with the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom