Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

[Awesome]

The US needs to give proportionate control of Afghanistan to the respective ethnicities. The government and the army needs to be a majority Pashtun, representative of the actual situation on the ground. However the Pashtun forces MUST be non-Taliban.

Look around you'll find many Pashtuns that are moderates. Give the power to them.

Broker agreements between the Pashtuns and the other ethnicities to maintain peace. Get a commitment against the Taliban from all parties and impress upon them the need to settle their differences in the parliament.

If the US can't do that, then its not being fair and its just looking for solutions that favor it, not Afghanistan and it will be stuck in this battle forever.

 

[sadiqams]

The biggest mistake to make is send in more troops. The more the troops the more the targets for the resistance. The Americans lost over 50,000 troops in Vietnam and only starting losing huge numbers when they increased the number of troops in Vietnam. Obama must not make the same mistake these lives will be wasted as they were in Vietnam what did America achieve in Vietnam, nothing, and became introvert afraid to openly intervene even for humanitarian reasons in many parts of the world until Bosnia and then very late into the conflict. At the present time no week or day goes by with out news of British casualties. How long can Britain sustain these loses in human terms let alone in monetary terms. These wars have bled the economies and in part are to blame for the recessions in America and Europe. Stop spending on wars spend on your health, education, and future of your nations. In American people are going bankrupt and falling prey to medical conditions that can be cured but due to an inadequate medical response turning fatal for the sufferers. Spend it on your social security and help those out of work be re training them for other professions and jobs.etc I can carry on but I think I have made my point.

 

[sadiqams]

Masten Khan. There is no evidence that the enemy got away let alone evidence that there was an enemy 9/11 not withstanding.

 

[S-2]

"...while Taliban operate with outdated weapons and taken out from 30,000 feet by Jet's."

There's a reason why, after a comparable period of time, that this insurgency hasn't killed afghans remotely close to the VAST carnage spewed during the Afghan-Soviet war. Most nations don't support the taliban's right to govern nor oppose the U.N. mandated-mission for NATO.

Pakistan is one of the few that does oppose the mission. Not publically, mind you. Your actions are clear enough, though, and there's little doubt how sustaining the afghan taliban plays into Pakistan's foreign policy objectives for Afghanistan.

"it was your DUTY in 2001 to make sure Taliban from Afghanistan don't spill into Pakistan."

Don't be a fool. It was our DUTY to wage war upon our enemies. It's your DUTY, particularly at times of a nat'l security emergency, to secure your national borders from ALL comers. Not simply the Indians and not simply in the east.

That is, if sovereignty actually matters. You see, Patriot, for most nations, that's what an army does. For a country like Pakistan, though, you've apparently embraced a far more selective application to the exercise of sovereign responsibility.

Guard your own damned borders if you're the one to ultimately suffer the consequences. You chose not to and there's a clear reason for such. You were intent on providing the taliban safe fcuking haven to reconstitute their forces.

Stupidly, you didn't anticipate the blowback among your own tribals by elevating these loons to such an exalted stature. Every kid in his right mind living in FATAville could see which way the wind was blowing and threw their lot in with one element or another.

You made the choice to embrace these men and have since suffered the consequences for believing their ambitions could be directed and manipulated to your advantage.

Nope. Bajaur, SWAT, Buner, Malakand. Get the drift?

"All those countries were setup decades ago.Don't give me that..."

I'm not the loon who chose "always". Take care how you express yourself. It matters.

"...vs.Better examples would be Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan....."

Might take the time to check how our relations are with the Vietnamese. You'd be surprised if capable of a dispassionate assessment.

As to Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm inclined to look at matters over the long term. It took South Korea about 45-50 years before democratic institutions were really inculcated. Why would I expect less here?

I mean, gee whiz, look at Pakistan after 60 years. Do you really like what you see? Some call you a failed state. I don't know but to even be considered for such a possibility can't be a good thing, now can it?

It takes time under the best circumstance to effect meaningful positive change. Afghanistan and Iraq bring a very unique set of challenges with our efforts in both places. Your support of sanctuary for the afghan taliban further exacerbate our dilemma and, in that respect, represent the wrong policy choice for America.

The American government actually should acknowledge the inevitability of the mutual enmity which exists between the two and consider Pakistan as hostile to American nat'l interests. That would be right, fair, and honest for both America and Pakistan, IMHO.

Thanks.

 

[sadiqams]

Asim Aquil The USA has no right to give control to any other entity for the reason that it is an occupying force, in a sovereign country, which can not control the territorty it occupies. Only the Afgans have the right to occupy their country.

 

[Patriot]

I like this function of this forum..Ignore list!!

This message is hidden because S-2 is on your ignore list.

 

[sadiqams]

S-2 why should the USA declare Pakistan hostile? it is not. Why dont you stop watching the propaganda from Fox news, CNN and others and do some research for your self and find out the real reasons for these wars. Either you are a Zionist or very ignorant of this region's history. No power has been able to dominate this region for the last 5000 years. All invaders have been beaten back and have left like dogs with theirs tails between their legs much like the American exit from Vietnam.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I would like the american soldiers to come home now---it is a wasteful war at this stage---nothing is to be gained anymore than more bloodshed.

The problem in the u s is that due to the economic meltdown----there are no jobs for the soldiers coming home---and that is the tragedy that is having the multiplier effect---even if america wanted to bring its forces home---who is going to feed them---so they are better off overseas fighting a war with no ending and no purpose.

The sad thing is that for a soldier, the life after army is not a great living. Very little if any oppurtunity left for them.

There is a time for a high troop number---and that was the time at the begining of the war---higher number of troops would have controlled all escape routes---they would have controlled any kind of massacre and looting amongst different factions and groups. Once the initial control was established---the transition to peace would have been quicker.

The afghans / pushtuns / taliban were tired after a long war---they were looking for a saviour to get them out of their miseries---but they found out that the saviour was in cohoots with the demons.

It amazes me---with all the qualified people---educators---analysts---historians---war professors---afghan specialist---generals seasoned and young---israeli advisors---british analysts---that is what Rumsfeld came with a war plan of having northern alliance do the dirty work----knowing very well of no love lost between the two major factions---corporate america---in its dumbest most period---.

 

[sadiqams]

In other words S-2 is saying that America has to remain for 40 to 50 years fighting for so called 'democracy' this will be the ruin of America because the Afgans will not take this presence lying down. They will rubbing their hands in glee as they wont have to figt afgans for sport but will have a ready supply of Americans.

 

[sadiqams]

Mastan Khan why not use these 'unemployed Troops' to develop rather than destroy and kill the countries in the region as well as back home.

 

[S-2]

"...what did America achieve in Vietnam, nothing, and became introvert afraid to openly intervene even for humanitarian reasons in many parts of the world until Bosnia and then very late into the conflict. "

Hmmm..., so our continuing engagement with NATO and so many other regional security forums from 1972-1994, support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1980-1988, resupply of Israel during the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Desert One, DESERT STORM, Haiti, and Somalia represent WHAT, exactly?

Successful or otherwise, I'd say the above constitute adequate evidence of our continuing global post-Vietnam engagement to render your views...

...naive?

Better dig into those history books a bit more before spouting any other such nonsense. Just now I'm sorta doubting you're even aware of when the Dayton accords were signed.

 

[kidwaibhai]

I think that only solution for afghanistan is to empower the warlords. give them their on little fiefdoms have them control it (this will be bloody but effective). we can tell them that they cannot allow poppy to grow in their regions and also no alqaeda or taliban. We give them so much money that those greedy freaks cant refuse and if they dont abide by the terms pakistan and US can take a joint action againts them.
This way american soldiers will come home the talibs will not be in power(if anybody here thinks that if they come to power in afghanistan they will be pro pakistan they are sadly mistaken) and afghanistan will be stable for its neighbors. the people however will be in a very bad condition

 

[Awesome]

Asim Aquil The USA has no right to give control to any other entity for the reason that it is an occupying force, in a sovereign country, which can not control the territorty it occupies. Only the Afgans have the right to occupy their country.

In the case of Afghanistan that may not be true. Theres a significant number of Afghanis that have aligned with the US and look towards them for protection and guidance. Unfortunately this is not the Pashtun majority that makes up Afghanistan and whom the US has managed to antagonize as well.

The US is the biggest player when it comes to Afghanistan, bigger than the Afghanis too since they have no unified voice. Each ethnic section demands it be given tyrannical rule over all other ethnicities. The US is the only player in Afghanistan that can put their foot down and tell the Afghanis that, that's not a way forward and is an unacceptable solution.

So far the US has not removed granting tyrannical rule off the table. Once that is no longer an option, workable solutions will begin to emerge.

About maintaining troops

IF the US believes its going to fight out the Taliban problem, then I believe the surge is necessary. But not a pussyfoot surge - that is token surge. It needs to put in like a 100,000 troops more. Patrol the Pak-Afghan border from their side. Conduct battles, like what Pakistan did with Operation Rah-e-rast. Right now the US idea of a surge is, a policing force. The surge that Obama promised has just tickled the Taliban and they are more resurgent than ever.

Whenever Operation Rah-e-Nijat (which by definition mean The way to expulsion/removal) goes forth, more Taliban would flee the Pakistani onslaught and re-enter their original playing ground - Afghanistan.

If the idea is to battle it out, then the US really needs troops close to a 100,000. US troops, not coalition troops. People who have the largest stake in this war.

 

[WarProfessor]

The only way to make a very big and rich (profits from WW's) north American country relevant in mostly Eurasian affairs is to constantly douse fire to artificially make wars.

It also helps to redistribute wealth (deprive wealth legally made) from within American people to maintain the health of an institution (any world government would do this).

US is a democracy and for a long time private enterprises, doesn't have the convenience say like Chinese to channel national effort into certain things. Wars are the only way to do it.

Oh yeah, and the dollar.

 

[Developereo]

Tony Blair believed God wanted him to go to war to fight evil, claims his mentor - Telegraph

Blair’s decision-making in office — including the decision to invade Iraq — was based on his religious beliefs. It’s reminiscent of Bush’s description of the war on terrorism as a “crusade.”

Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”


AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED: GQ Features on men.style.com

just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."