• 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 Pull Out of Afghanistan?

Should we pull out of Afghanistan?

  • Yes, we should pull out of Afghanistan.

    Votes: 22 64.7%
  • No, we should not pull out of Afghanistan.

    Votes: 9 26.5%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • Total voters
    34
Should we pull out of Afghanistan?

We've been in Afghanistan since '01, and there's no end in sight. I'm undecided on if we should pull out so, I would like to hear some arguments for each side.

Spare us the conspiracy theories that we just want to control the opium production of the world. unless you have concrete evidence to back that up.

Otherwise it seems we are attempting to stabilize a region with demographic and geographic challenges. Maybe the U.S.S.R. has already tried and learned that it cannot be done. What do you think?

Ultimately, what is best for the Afghani people?

I don't give a rat's ass about the Afghani people, but we should stay. The cold, hard fact is...if the Taliban regain control of that country we will have another 9/11-level terror attack along with increased lower level attacks.

I care about Americans.
 
A stable Afghan government not plagued by the Taliban would likely be able to handle such warlords themselves.
The talk I heard while eating lunch on thew news was that we were going to try to pressure the Taliban militarily to get them to come to the negotiating table with the hope of reaching some sort of settlement. Not sure what that would look like, but included the Taliban in its objective.
 
If G.W. Bush had stayed out of Iraq (Which was no threat to the USA.) and concentrated on Afghanistan the kerfuffle there could have been finished a long time ago.

Just sayin'.

If that line of logic were true, then Obama should have been able to get it finished when he pulled out of Iraq, yet here we are.
 
If breeding, supporting or harboring "terrorists" is the reason to have our military (and 3X that number of "contractors") enter and remain forever in (allegedly sovereign) foreign lands then there are certainly places more worthy of our military attention/resources than the wilds of Afghanistan (and now Trump wants to add Pakistan). The problem, as I see it, is that we define "winning" (the only proper time to have our troops leave?) as the total elimination of any "terrorist" threat and the ability of the foreign "nation" to prevent their return.

When we can't even stop ultra-violent street gangs from existing in and terrorizing residents of our own major cities do we really ever expect that these far less wealthy or organized foreign nations can be become, much less be kept, "terror" free? Not every problem has a military solution (the reason that we don't try to develop a military solution to our own organized and/or gang crime problem) and not every bunch of corrupt tribal folks can become a cooperative nation no matter how much we pay to help them pretend that is so.

The goofy notion that we either fight "them" over there or "they" will invade us over here is insane. Iran (and likely other regional powers) are quite content to watch the most powerful military on the planet spend a million dollars to counter attack each of the many "terror" groups that they fund for less than a thousand dollars per "attack". The "terror" threat is real but we can't expect to ever bomb or buy it out of existence.

A successful military campaign must take and control (hold) territory not simply play whack-a-mole in response to occasional "terror cell" activity. The big problem in Afghanistan, as the Russians learned, is that nobody can control (hold) much of that territory no matter how many troops, bases and support facilities they tossed into the effort.
 
I don't give a rat's ass about the Afghani people, but we should stay. The cold, hard fact is...if the Taliban regain control of that country we will have another 9/11-level terror attack along with increased lower level attacks.

I care about Americans.

No, the cold hard fact is assuredly not wild speculation from a paranoid mind who views the world as a zero-sum game.
 
If that line of logic were true, then Obama should have been able to get it finished when he pulled out of Iraq, yet here we are
.


Wrong.What I meant was that if the troops sent to Iraq had went to Afghanistan that place could have been cleaned out quickly.
 
Should we pull out of Afghanistan?

We've been in Afghanistan since '01, and there's no end in sight. I'm undecided on if we should pull out so, I would like to hear some arguments for each side.

Spare us the conspiracy theories that we just want to control the opium production of the world. unless you have concrete evidence to back that up.

Otherwise it seems we are attempting to stabilize a region with demographic and geographic challenges. Maybe the U.S.S.R. has already tried and learned that it cannot be done. What do you think?

Ultimately, what is best for the Afghani people?

So let's connect the dots...Trump mentioned absolutely nothing about the fact that U.S. troops have been guarding the Poppy fields for the last decade of the 17 year war..... 90% of the entire worlds supply of heroin/prescription painkiller supply comes from Afghanistan.....and every year over the last 10 years, pharmaceutical companies have sold more prescription painkiller pills (year-over-year) than ever before. Connect the dots. Oh, and never mind the estimated $1 TRILLION of precious metals located under the surface of Afghanistan. Don't forget people....we were sold on going to war to blow up the training sites/monkey bars.... if you don't see that MONEY is the primary incentive to keep this war going, you do not have all the facts.
 
There's a Good Reason why The Russians isn't still pouring their resources into the ****hole anymore

China and Russia are involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a stragetic route to the Arabian Sea, coveted by Russia needing warm water ports, and China trying to expand its global footprint and to secure trade access into Europe - one way or another. Pakistan is in an eternal face off with India, is in danger on capitulating to the Taliban, and has nukes.

Not to mention we don't need China setting up Pakistan as a proxy state to threaten India like they have with North Korea. China will continue developing the use of proxy states to check US foreign interests if we don't challenge them.

One benefit the Chinese and Russians have in the "Stan's" is cultural. If you want to rape little boys, neither the Russians nor Chinese will object. It's cultural, and China and Russia are there for resources and influence, nothing more. The USA tries to exert moral authority, and that chafes at tribal chiefs who are just happy as clams remaining in the twelfth century. Great place for men like them.
 
China and Russia are involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a stragetic route to the Arabian Sea, coveted by Russia needing warm water ports, and China trying to expand its global footprint and to secure trade access into Europe - one way or another. Pakistan is in an eternal face off with India, is in danger on capitulating to the Taliban, and has nukes.

Not to mention we don't need China setting up Pakistan as a proxy state to threaten India like they have with North Korea. China will continue developing the use of proxy states to check US foreign interests if we don't challenge them.

One benefit the Chinese and Russians have in the "Stan's" is cultural. If you want to rape little boys, neither the Russians nor Chinese will object. It's cultural, and China and Russia are there for resources and influence, nothing more. The USA tries to exert moral authority, and that chafes at tribal chiefs who are just happy as clams remaining in the twelfth century. Great place for men like them.

Russia and Pakistan do not have very good relations. Russia is trying to sell them weapons, but in general Russia has been closer to India. I do not know of any major weapon sale to Pakistan from Russia (Perhaps some Mi-17 helicopters) but has sold significant amount of weapon systems to India.

China does have very good relations with Pakistan, and has "co developed" a few weapon systems with Pakistan. Both have a mutual opponent in India and use each other to keep India occupied on multiple borders
 
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Some reports have Russia arming the Taliban, and neighboring Iran and Pakistan arm/support their respective cadres of religious militia/martyrs.

The US has already expended tremendous assets in blood and treasure and we're right back where we started ... 90% of the country is ruled by the fundamental Taliban, brutal warlords, and opium smugglers.

The Kabul governments are corrupt and a bottomless money pit. The tribal culture of Pashtunwali rules, abetted by Sharia law. Slavery exists and women are often considered as property and chattel.

On the other hand, we cannot allow a failed-sanctuary-state where poppy crops bankroll the global terrorist plots of radical organizations such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and others.

Afghanistan is the perfect crucible of a lose/lose situation.

Leave it to Pakistan, Iran and China.
Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban. Pakistan is just a hair away from being a failed State.
Let the Sunni- Shia nutcases fight and kill each other.
 
Should we pull out of Afghanistan?

We've been in Afghanistan since '01, and there's no end in sight. I'm undecided on if we should pull out so, I would like to hear some arguments for each side.

Spare us the conspiracy theories that we just want to control the opium production of the world. unless you have concrete evidence to back that up.

Otherwise it seems we are attempting to stabilize a region with demographic and geographic challenges. Maybe the U.S.S.R. has already tried and learned that it cannot be done. What do you think?

Ultimately, what is best for the Afghani people?

Yes. We need to get the **** out of there.
 
The only regret I have with leaving Afghanistan is the country would revert back to as it was before the war. Women and girls would suffer the most. But nothing we have done over the past 16 years has make one bit of difference. The American army cannot change a **** hole into a democracy if they, the Afghanistan people don't really want it. Its a hopeless task. Time to leave them to their own devises. The military couldn't train the South Vietnamese military to defend South Vietnam and like wise that strategy didn't work in Iraq.
 
As I have posted in prior posts, I think our continued presence is a mistake. There have been the British, (three different Anglo/Afghan wars), the Russians, (ten years and not the best practitioner of the Geneva Convention), and now the US military in for sixteen years. We talk of ending corruption. On that we certainly need to put our own house in order. The Afghans are a tribal people, been that way for centuries. Different customs and beliefs. Different culture and mindset. How do you change that? McDonald's on every corner? What is the endgame? I read that we have no less than a division in country(>10k). The rumor says 4K more. What are the additional troops going to accomplish. As ttwtt stated, there are many more contractors employed by the US there. My brother spent two tours flying men and supplies as a rotary wing pilot. Big money, three months on and a month off. Tax free money if he stayed out of CONUS for a certain time frame.

I vote we leave the world to it's ways. Fooling around with India/Pakistan any more than we are is asking for additional headache. Both of them have nuclear weapons. This doesn't end well for us, I fear. What could we have done with th e money alone, let alone the lives and limbs of the troops left behind.
 
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Some reports have Russia arming the Taliban, and neighboring Iran and Pakistan arm/support their respective cadres of religious militia/martyrs.

The US has already expended tremendous assets in blood and treasure and we're right back where we started ... 90% of the country is ruled by the fundamental Taliban, brutal warlords, and opium smugglers.

The Kabul governments are corrupt and a bottomless money pit. The tribal culture of Pashtunwali rules, abetted by Sharia law. Slavery exists and women are often considered as property and chattel.

On the other hand, we cannot allow a failed-sanctuary-state where poppy crops bankroll the global terrorist plots of radical organizations such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and others.

Afghanistan is the perfect crucible of a lose/lose situation.

I believe you have nailed it.

We never should have been doing anything there beyond going after bin Laden and the Taliban around him. Afghanistan was never a fully stable country. Trying to organize (make stable to our liking) something that has existed as an ungovernable mess for generations is beyond stupid.

If Trump just wants to kill terrorists and not nation build, he can keep pouring blood and treasure into it for another 15 years. Sending contractors and telling them they can kill whoever they want with no consequences still isn't likely to pacify the place.
 
Leave it to Pakistan, Iran and China.
Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban. Pakistan is just a hair away from being a failed State.
Let the Sunni- Shia nutcases fight and kill each other.

But failed, lawless states is where ISIS and Al Queda flourish. Add a few nukes into the mix next terririst attack.
 
One of the measures of success regarding Iraq and Afghanastan seems to be the absence of a major terrorist attack on US soil. How have our actions in those countries prevented nineteen Saudi Arabians from carrying out a diabolical attack within the confines of the US?
 
If G.W. Bush had stayed out of Iraq (Which was no threat to the USA.) and concentrated on Afghanistan the kerfuffle there could have been finished a long time ago.

Just sayin'.
Why didnt Obama end the kerfuffle?

just asking

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Wrong.What I meant was that if the troops sent to Iraq had went to Afghanistan that place could have been cleaned out quickly.

It's an asymmetrical insurgency war with tribal groups loosely affiliated under the Taliban, al Qaeda, and now ISIS, as well as other splinter groups.

The truth is, it doesn't matter who the President is or is not, or how many troops we send over there. As long as we have rules of engagement that prevent the eradication of actual, as well as potential, enemy forces including performing the complete obliteration of their support infrastructure, the battle in A-stan will continue for generations, and if we leave before doing so, it will follow us home again like it did on 9/11/2001.
 
Back
Top Bottom