Comments on: Giving Up on Afghanistan (It Begins)

By: Space Monkey

Space Monkey — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:15:51 +0000

Nooooo. Who will supply the intelligence sect’s with laundered money from narcotics smuggling if Afghanistan falls under China’s influence?
Afghanistan’s national motto should be:
“Afghanistan — toppling an empire every generation going back to when we first took to these here hills.

By: Byron

Byron — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:57:37 +0000

Afghanistan has never been more than a collection of tribes. The country is the result of another failed nation building following WWI. The age of total war, or absolute victory ended in WWII and we have yet to successfully build a nation (Germany and Japan don’t count because they already obviously had infrastructure. It’s not our job, you can’t fight wars for other people, and this was never going to work.
They have no faith in their government and the Taliban is resurgent. We have a national crisis and are low on funds, there is no reason we should get in a quagmire and this thinking will only lead to a rehashing of Vet Nam. Russians, British, Arabs, have never been able to do what we are trying to do successfully, yet shoot an bombing with newer technology seems to have some of you fooled into believing we can override and entire culture. They have to want it and they don’t, so we can’t give it to them. This isn’t about our success, or who we think is bad, this is about their will to make their country work and it’s just not there.
This article isn’t about whats best for Afghanistan, which may be the silence of stabilization, but about our bruised ego’s. It’s over and if they want a new government, they will have to build it if it is to survive. EX: America.

By: Sgt Oblat

Sgt Oblat — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:19:11 +0000

The US was never going to win in Afghanistan, right from the start Bush, Cheny and Gates limited the footprint because everyone knows the US military isn’t up to the job.
All the chest beating about no half measures and rants about firepower just cover up the fact that it is so fat and lazy that it cant even beat an agrarian society with the population of Nepal.

By: Prabhat Mathur

Prabhat Mathur — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:19:02 +0000

I’m shocked. Is this really the USA talking?
It amazes me how words like ‘good taliban’,‘bad taliban’ are being bandied about. And the total shunning of responsibility, to leave the Afghan population at the mercy of thugs and murderers is baffling.And the talk of ‘victory’. My word!
’With great power comes great responsibility’. I wonder what that means.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:16:34 +0000

Bobbymike you have added nothing useful to the debate. All you’ve done is shown that you’re ignorant and possibly racist.
Obama is not anybody’s God and to think such a thing is laughable. You really need to either put some useful into the debate or just be quiet.

By: Drake

Drake — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:39:08 +0000

No one including the commanders on the ground think that there is a purely military solution in Afganistan, but before you can deal with an expanding insurgency in the country, you need to secure the area, which calls for an increased build up of troops, at least initially. We have to take care to realize that while we have been in Afganistan for years, troops have been undertaking an “economy of force operation”, with limited resources, which has allowed for ground that was gained to be lost. It’s probably going to take at least as long to get back to where we were and longer to get to where we are supposed to be.

By: Tallgrass

Tallgrass — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:57:16 +0000

What is the US objective in Afghanistan? A stable democracy? A client state of the US? A religious or ideological war? How do we know when we have ‘won’?
There is not a purely military solution, and after more than 7 years in Afghanistan it time to recognize that.
I could go on about what a silly diversion and waste of troops, resources, and time invading Iraq was, and how that weakened any effort in Afghanistan.

By: Tad

Tad — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:48:52 +0000

Obama is really taking a realpolitik approach to this — I’m surprised, it runs counter to not only his campaign rhetoric, but also to his party’s history of Wilsonian idealism.

By: Parthicus

Parthicus — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:01:35 +0000

very few people have the courage of our founding forefathers; our forefathers were also lucky that the british were thousands of miles away and have a relatively small land army. Even then, we needed the french to help us.
It’s not so easy to fight an enemy that’s just next door, that has fully infiltrated your society and is funded by saudi petrodollars and American defense aid.
The karzai gov’t is weak and corrupt b/c we were busy in Iraq building up the Iraqi gov’t. All we have to do is build the strength of the Afghan gov’t just like we did in Iraq, and the war will be won. As for the paks, they seem to be permanently enthralled with jihadism; simply throwing money at the problem or expecting them to “help us” without screwing us won’t work.

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:47:57 +0000

This is Christian’s site and he can express any opinion he wants. I love how any criticism of Obama starts the whining and crying. Bush did this, Cheney did that.
The key point is this, Obama, after saying Iraq was lost, said over and over and over on the campaign trail the the “real” war on terror is in A’stan. Now JUST 50 DAYS into his administration he is looking for ways to get out.
The reason is simple, the quicker he gets out the more credible it is to say “Bush left it unworkable” the longer he stays the more it becomes “his” war.
He is a coward. Please read Michael Barone’s column about how Obama operates. It is childish “if it works I did it, if it doesn’t it is someone else’s fault” But what do you expect from such a lightweight who can’t even introduce a potential cabinet member without his TELEPROMPTER.
OK leftwing crazies have at me I criticised your god!!