The 'Vietnamization' strategy of the Obama administration seems to be failing, with the continuing advance of the Taliban. If Afghans who oppose the Taliban cannot or do not want to 'win it' for themselves, then the U.S. will have to forever occupy Afghanistan.
Pakistan is playing a very back-handed role in this affair, supporting a shadow Taliban government in the waiting...yet this White House continues the policy of shoveling them billions of dollars in 'aid'.
Joe Biden was right...no 'surge', and a light footprint going forward. The President's 'surge' cost thousands of U.S. lives for no gain in the end.
Pakistan is playing a very back-handed role in this affair, supporting a shadow Taliban government in the waiting...yet this White House continues the policy of shoveling them billions of dollars in 'aid'.
Joe Biden was right...no 'surge', and a light footprint going forward. The President's 'surge' cost thousands of U.S. lives for no gain in the end.
2
Apoplectic is a word I seldom use. But it popped into my mind after I read that you are recommending additional troops in the thousands to "better support our local Afghan allies". To do exactly what and for how much longer? If the Afghans themselves can't rescue their own country after fourteen years of American support what makes you think things will change in the next fourteen years? Time to fess up to the facts and cut our losses and come home.
21
Much as the Danes of which our English military tradition is derived, there can never be victory over an enemy which does not exist. Instead, victory is only in the afterlife, of which there is only death.
3
Afghanistan is not ours to "lose" or "win." The Afghans must choose their own future. They get to decide what future they want and must themselves defend that choice.
19
Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires" for good reason. Later rather than sooner, the Afghans will win yet again. We should simply cut our losses (and they have been staggering) and walk away. They beat the Russians. They humbled the British Empire. They've learned that patience and attrition will win the day.
17
Let Afghanistan go. Let it go. We have no 'right' to win in Afghanistan. It's not ours to win. Let them own what is happening in their country. So they have resources for us? Not ours. Not our culture. I am tired, tired, tired of war.
37
To "be losing again" posits that we were winning at some patently invisible point in this debacle.
I think not. It's been a race to the bottom from the get-go.
Only our self-deluded military leadership begs to differ.
I think not. It's been a race to the bottom from the get-go.
Only our self-deluded military leadership begs to differ.
29
Numbers are not arbitrary. Numbers, based on the composition of a force, represent the answer to the question of what we are doing or trying to do, but that may be a political question as much as, and maybe more than, a military one.
Did we ever "have" Afghanistan? The country didn't get the nickname "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
52
This editorial is delusional. Just like during the Vietnam war the politicians and Generals have lied to the American People for so long about everything that they have to keep lying just to cover their earlier lies.
Obama is desperate to keep Afghanistan from collapsing before the 2016 election so Hillary doesn't have to answer for her part in this stupid blunder.
Obama's 8 years of "Change" have been 8 years of the same.
Obama is willing to kill thousands more and waste Billions more just to get Hillary elected. Morally he is just as bankrupt as Nixon or Bush or Cheney.
Like Vietnam, it's just time to get out and bring the troops home.
Obama is desperate to keep Afghanistan from collapsing before the 2016 election so Hillary doesn't have to answer for her part in this stupid blunder.
Obama's 8 years of "Change" have been 8 years of the same.
Obama is willing to kill thousands more and waste Billions more just to get Hillary elected. Morally he is just as bankrupt as Nixon or Bush or Cheney.
Like Vietnam, it's just time to get out and bring the troops home.
12
Have to agree with those who opine that we aren't "losing" Afghanistan because we never "won" it. Neither did Alexander the Great, or the 19th century British, nor the Russians in 1970s. Afghanistan is not really a nation-state, but lines on a map including people to whom tribes are the paramount loyalty. Loyalty to the state depends on who is in power at the time.
8
THOMAS JOSCELYN and BILL ROGGIO
concluded their false belief of losing again .......
"Al Qaeda and like-minded groups were founded on the myth that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because of the mujahedeen’s faith in Allah alone."
I believe they really are not aware of what happened after 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan.
CIA started green belt project, inquired Saudi Wahhabis darkest sectarian beliefs, trained Mujahedeen and send over the USSR troops which many traumatized severely due to perseverance. Bu that wasn't only the Afghanistan , it converted the democratic Pakistan , Sharia based failed states, even Turkey look Erdogan.
Green belt project promoted "faith in Allah alone." How can you deny that, that is the key to success against red army, plague followed that.
concluded their false belief of losing again .......
"Al Qaeda and like-minded groups were founded on the myth that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because of the mujahedeen’s faith in Allah alone."
I believe they really are not aware of what happened after 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan.
CIA started green belt project, inquired Saudi Wahhabis darkest sectarian beliefs, trained Mujahedeen and send over the USSR troops which many traumatized severely due to perseverance. Bu that wasn't only the Afghanistan , it converted the democratic Pakistan , Sharia based failed states, even Turkey look Erdogan.
Green belt project promoted "faith in Allah alone." How can you deny that, that is the key to success against red army, plague followed that.
I object to the title, "Are We losing Afghanistan Again?" We never had Afghanistan controlled in any way; or any real plan--other than to burn money and waste lives. We spent 14 years playing a defensive game. Let's just get out of there.
17
So we're going to accomplish with a few thousand more troops and drones what we couldn't accomplish with a full-scale invasion and a decade of occupation? Um... how?
12
So, maybe the US will learn what Alexander the Great, the British Empire, Tszarist & Soviet Russia all had to learn the hard way...
7
isn't it just so ironic, that Al Qaeda and the Taliban happen to live in that country/region of the world, so why would they not return. white America and white Europe don't own the world, although they are trying very hard to do so.
4
“Are we losing Afghanistan again?”
Afghanistan has never been ours so we cannot ever lose it...
Afghanistan has never been ours so we cannot ever lose it...
6
What does "defeat" or "victory" mean in this case? We cannot make the afghan people think, govern or live like us. This is a very backward culture and our influence will have minimal affect on them. Placing 1,2 or even 100 thousand troops will have little or no impact. It is a total waste of resources and manpower. The afghan people will have to decide, on their own to join the 21st century. This itself may take another century.
We forget that after the Soviets left in 1989, we claimed victory and totally left Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan(all so-called friends of the US) to transform Afghanistan into an Islamist state under the Taliban and Al Qaeda. How easily we forget our most recent history. Until we understand and acknowledge our own failings (our name is the US and yes we are alcoholics, called "short term memory loss") we will never come close to the cure.
We forget that after the Soviets left in 1989, we claimed victory and totally left Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan(all so-called friends of the US) to transform Afghanistan into an Islamist state under the Taliban and Al Qaeda. How easily we forget our most recent history. Until we understand and acknowledge our own failings (our name is the US and yes we are alcoholics, called "short term memory loss") we will never come close to the cure.
2
"Losing Afghanistan Again" assumes we at some point "Won" Afghanistan. That has never happened, and no matter how many hundreds of billions of dollars we spend and thousand of American lives we lose, we will never "Win" Afghanistan.
4
You can't lose what you never had...ask the Russians, ask the British, ask any country that has ever tried to occupy, transform or change Afghanistan's culture and/or way of life. It is pure folly best said by a reporter, "“Financially it is ruinous. Morally it is wicked. Militarily it is an open question, and politically it is a blunder." How prescient Winston Churchill's words were in 1899!
4
I desperately want America to wash it's hands of both Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the latter case women have actually made some gains which would be utterly and gruesomely negated in the inevitable Taliban takeover. My fantasy wish is for us to offer American immigration and education to any Afghan woman brave enough to take us up on the deal. An additional upside to this is when Afghani men find it increasingly difficult to find brides maybe they will begin to examine some of the more negative aspects of their patriarchal traditions. Or at least I could hope.
3
Sorry - we never "had" Afghanistan just as the Russians, British, etc. never "had" the country. It's a collection of feudal tribes with heavy weapons and a pathological hatred for anyone that's not part of the tribe. Why we continue to waste lives and money in this sinkhole is beyond me.
5
I don't recall Tom & Bill sounding all wounded when Obama surrendered a very stable Iraq and made America look like so many cowards when he abandoned it.
Nor do I recall their trepidation when Hillary & Barack trashed Libya and Egypt by leading the charge to oust those national leaders and then just walked away.
Nor do I recall their trepidation when Hillary & Barack trashed Libya and Egypt by leading the charge to oust those national leaders and then just walked away.
3
Losing Again.
When did we won?
Even though if we assume NYT editorial, you are right, Could you show me one single person cheered up when we won. ( P.S could you give us that exact date and historic event we really missed by a light year)
Again , that word needs a grandiose arrogance same level as Dick Cheney.
When did we won?
Even though if we assume NYT editorial, you are right, Could you show me one single person cheered up when we won. ( P.S could you give us that exact date and historic event we really missed by a light year)
Again , that word needs a grandiose arrogance same level as Dick Cheney.
6
Faith-based violence, likely misrepresenting the tenets of Islam it claims to represent, makes a mockery of itself by torturing and killing innocent folks, all in the name of an all-loving god...and a travesty of what should have been a social contract of humane inclusion and tolerance.
1
Puff piece for the phoney "global war on terror" (GWOT), whose principal aim appears to be the negation of the civil rights of citizens of the USA, in the form of the Patriot Act, universal NSA spying, the conversion of North America into another military command, and extra-judicial torture and murder.
A news flash for the writers: Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq are part of the globe. There, Al Qaeda and its mutant offshoot, ISIS, have grown bigger and badder beyond Bin Laden's dreams. Indeed, the CIA was effectively in a military alliance with Al Qaeda in Syria (Nusra, a fact that usually got little play in US media), until embarrassed by the recent Russian intervention. In Yemen the US has placed Saudi Arabia's agenda first, assisting them in going after the Houthis, never a threat to the US, rather than Al Qaeda in Yemen, and given the track record, we can predict with confidence that the Saudi/UAE intervention will only boost AQ's prospects there.
So excuse us if we are not convinced of US aims in Afghanistan. Now, alongside AQ, we also have the appearance of ISIS there. Keep up the good work!
A news flash for the writers: Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq are part of the globe. There, Al Qaeda and its mutant offshoot, ISIS, have grown bigger and badder beyond Bin Laden's dreams. Indeed, the CIA was effectively in a military alliance with Al Qaeda in Syria (Nusra, a fact that usually got little play in US media), until embarrassed by the recent Russian intervention. In Yemen the US has placed Saudi Arabia's agenda first, assisting them in going after the Houthis, never a threat to the US, rather than Al Qaeda in Yemen, and given the track record, we can predict with confidence that the Saudi/UAE intervention will only boost AQ's prospects there.
So excuse us if we are not convinced of US aims in Afghanistan. Now, alongside AQ, we also have the appearance of ISIS there. Keep up the good work!
3
It is not our duty to save Afghanistan from the Taliban. Just as it is not our duty to destroy ISIS. If there are not other resources to help get the job done, so be it.
1
More bobbling head pundits from un-thinking tanks preaching fear by expounding on the finer points of this sub-group vs. this religious sub-group. Just like in Iraq; remember the rainbow of Shiite, Sunni micro-factions and nuances learned people were supposed to be up on for their cocktail party and arm chair debates? The obscure baseball statistics of a massive military expedition, whose stated goals were as fluid and fuzzy as possible (was it WMDs, democracy-building, tyrant-deposing or terrorist-busting? Sorry I got dizzy and lost track...) Enough with the paid naval gazing and micro babble. We need to stop occupying Afghanistan for over-arching reasons; 1. We are not capable of nation building in underdeveloped countries. Our success rate is about 14% (Panama & Grenada) while the failures morph into military dictatorships (per Carnegie Endow.) 2. No country wants to occupied by another country (Human 101). 3. Occupying Afghanistan hemorrhages money and blood to very little gain, as the British and Russians can attest to.
1
Anytime we get involved with troops on the ground in any Middle eastern country we end up disappointed at the end result. Religious sects, competing factions, tribes, extremists, and the like will always rule in the long run. Look at the wasted war that Russia fought in Afghanistan to no avail. There have never been clear winners and 'victories' in any of our Middle Easrtern conflicts. There is only short-term calm before the next wave of conflict. When will we ever learn? And now we appear to be in a quagmire in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan with no 'winnable' strategy in any of these conflicts.
1
How can we 'lose' it, when we never really 'won' it. Only the Afghans can win it.
2
The headline perpetuates the problem - Afghanistan is not ours to hold or lose, it belongs to the Afghan people and the THEY need to decide what THEY want to do with it.
2
While it is intellectually and emotionally convenient to think of Afghanistan as a tribal backwater in which ruthless humans endlessly slaughter each other, the problem is that many, the majority probably, are not way. Do we protect the majority of afghans from slaughter by the Taliban or do we walk away and let them protect themselves? While many of the commenters find it easy to identify those who advocate security as 'war hawks', I believe it is closer to the truth that most are very concerned about the moderate afghans who will be left behind.
1
Shooting bad guys is one thing. Changing cultures is another.
1
My family members have been fighting in Afghanistan off and on since 1839 until today. You cannot lose Afghanistan. It will sit there long after people as a species will disappear. It is a country where the culture of the region encourages conflict. It is a crossroad where several ancient invasion routes run through choke points. These are strategic passes access more important parts of the world. In our modern world these choke points are not as important. The invention of advanced airborne and sea logistics and strategic weapons systems which only great powers deploy make this area less important.
For 100+ years this area was managed by the British. They used limited forces in their yearly skirmishes with tribal groups. A intensity war was a way of life for the British and Indian armies together. Great commanders got their early military training, honed their fighting skills against canny foes in a rugged theatre of operations. It made hard men on both sides.
What we are seeing is the fruits of a power vacuum. We have little actual interest in the area. The Russians thought they had interest and made an attempt at domination in the 80's which ended as a cock-up for them. If the US walked out today not much would change. We would see some other corrupt group emerge to dominate the few cities while tribesmen in remote regions would challenge and sap the strength of the unsavoury flavour of the year government. Strategically it is a tempest in a teapot.
For 100+ years this area was managed by the British. They used limited forces in their yearly skirmishes with tribal groups. A intensity war was a way of life for the British and Indian armies together. Great commanders got their early military training, honed their fighting skills against canny foes in a rugged theatre of operations. It made hard men on both sides.
What we are seeing is the fruits of a power vacuum. We have little actual interest in the area. The Russians thought they had interest and made an attempt at domination in the 80's which ended as a cock-up for them. If the US walked out today not much would change. We would see some other corrupt group emerge to dominate the few cities while tribesmen in remote regions would challenge and sap the strength of the unsavoury flavour of the year government. Strategically it is a tempest in a teapot.
16
The Long War Journal. That sums it up. You would think that people who were so fixated on war would have learned something from the Soviet experience.
3
The military situation has never been the main issue. The question is "What is the end-game?" We can stay 5 or 10 or 50 years, the native forces will still be present. Is the goal a secular democracy? A stable but business-friendly dictatorship? They waited out British Empire and the Soviet Union, and, no matter what protestations we make, they will wait out our military as well. If the majority of the populace prefers a theocracy, or if something less than a majority desires it, but the rest are not willing to fight for something different, exactly what are we accomplishing? There is zero possibility Afghanistan ever becomes something we can work with.
4
When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq the average voter has few seeds in the ground so these unending wars seem distant and have become secondary concerns to the average voter. Reinstate the draft and watch our policies change. Imagine what our political zest for war would smell like if we could draft your kids and mine?
6
The situation in Afghanistan described here should lead one to exactly the opposite conclusion than that of the authors. If there is such widespread and continuous support for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, why would any number of American troops over any period of time be able to rout them? They live there, their children live there, their grandchildren will live there. Are these authors really saying we should commit large numbers of American troops to fight in Afghanistan for generations to come? What madness, not to mention hubris.
Frankly, I don't care anymore what kind of government, or warlord, or mullah the Afghanis choose to live under. No one has ever "won" in that unforgiving landscape, and it's about time we admitted that and brought all our troops home. Leaving a small number there exposes them to the grave danger of being overwhelmed and slaughtered. Better that we fortify our defenses at home and stop trying to make the whole world adopt a western cultural template.
Frankly, I don't care anymore what kind of government, or warlord, or mullah the Afghanis choose to live under. No one has ever "won" in that unforgiving landscape, and it's about time we admitted that and brought all our troops home. Leaving a small number there exposes them to the grave danger of being overwhelmed and slaughtered. Better that we fortify our defenses at home and stop trying to make the whole world adopt a western cultural template.
5
The objective after 9/11 was to destroy AQ and deny them sanctuary in Afghanistan so they could not use it as a launching pad for future attacks. Not only have we not destroyed them after 14 years of war, they are a multi-headed hydra now with additional sanctuary in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq.
Hundreds of billions spent and thousands of lives lost in Afghanistan...are we really safer?
Hundreds of billions spent and thousands of lives lost in Afghanistan...are we really safer?
5
Our military and political thinkers have not understood what they were up against for the last fifteen years; nor do they have a plan. Propping up regimes to control populations is not working. An ongoing battle of attrition is a losing proposition. They can carry on indefinitely. Their losses of blood and resources are easily replaced. The children that were born there after 9-11 are now of fighting age. Each year, they replace what we take. Their weapons are simple, and can be mass produced like any commodity.
Much of the force behind the Taliban is rooted in the regimes that we support. Our values have little meaning for Islamic fundamentalists. The American Way of Life will never be the Islamic Fundamentalist Way of Life.
It is time to determine exactly what we want to accomplish, and why. It is time to talk about the situation, and quit letting the "experts" give us version after version of what we want to hear. A fundamental change must take place in our thinking. This will require honest and open discussion of values and resources.
What we need, as opposed to what some of us want, must be discussed. Once we find a direction, we can talk about how much of the problem is solvable militarily. Sure, we can totally wipe out the entire region - just like white supremacists can make other races disappear, and heterosexuals can enforce heterosexuality - right?
Much of the force behind the Taliban is rooted in the regimes that we support. Our values have little meaning for Islamic fundamentalists. The American Way of Life will never be the Islamic Fundamentalist Way of Life.
It is time to determine exactly what we want to accomplish, and why. It is time to talk about the situation, and quit letting the "experts" give us version after version of what we want to hear. A fundamental change must take place in our thinking. This will require honest and open discussion of values and resources.
What we need, as opposed to what some of us want, must be discussed. Once we find a direction, we can talk about how much of the problem is solvable militarily. Sure, we can totally wipe out the entire region - just like white supremacists can make other races disappear, and heterosexuals can enforce heterosexuality - right?
3
Folk wisdom: don't spit into the wind. Don't draw to an inside straight. If you had to bet your own money on the long shot of our achieving success in Afghanistan, what odds would want? 50 to one?
3
Someone is and has been making tremendous amounts of money in Afghanistan - and not just the CIA's lucrative trade in Afghan poppy derivatives.
There is no *good* reason for continued US presence. Their continued presence is a crime.
There is no *good* reason for continued US presence. Their continued presence is a crime.
6
Leaving Afghanistan to its own devices is what made the 9/11 attack happen. Do you ever read news?
Controlling Afghanistan-the soviets couldn't and Alexander the Great couldn't. Why do we think we can. Only the afghan people can determine their future.
5
To lose Afghanistan again implies that at some point we actually "won" Afghanistan which an enigma wrapped inside a fairytale. There was no victory and the Taliban simply went into hiding and waited for the American forces to grow tired and leave (reference Vietnam War). When the US occupation was sufficiently reduced up sprang Taliban 2.0 ready to resume possession of Afghanistan.
The Afghans are the only people who can win there; only if they really want to win back their country. Everyone else is just visiting and it's time for the US troops to come home!
The Afghans are the only people who can win there; only if they really want to win back their country. Everyone else is just visiting and it's time for the US troops to come home!
17
Exactly. No one has ever "won" Afghanistan: not U.S., not U.S.S.R. and not the Brits. Leave them to themselves.
9
"Losing Afghanistan"?
The verb tense is wrong: lost, was lost, have lost, has been lost... all variations on the PAST tense!
The verb tense is wrong: lost, was lost, have lost, has been lost... all variations on the PAST tense!
1
The fact is that Afghanistan is neither ours to win, nor ours to lose. If the Afghani people don't want their country nothing we will do (or for that matter the Russians did) will change that.
3
Screeners at the NYT seem to consider my comments not fit to print lately for some reason. Note to NYT: there are plenty of other news outlets available to subscribe to. Anyway, here goes another try.
When did Afghanistan become ours to keep or to lose? In fact, since Bin Laden has been taken care of, why have we kept any militaty personnel there at all? Nation building? It's the "Graveyard of Empires". Nation building there is a waste of lives and money. Afghan society is tribal and not centered in the US/European sense. Tribes will continue to fight each other as they always have for centuries. They are excellent fighters and the majority of them view us as invaders not as liberators. And of course, we will continue to be painted as the enemy just like the Russians were in the 20th century. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans and spend our tax money here at home.
When did Afghanistan become ours to keep or to lose? In fact, since Bin Laden has been taken care of, why have we kept any militaty personnel there at all? Nation building? It's the "Graveyard of Empires". Nation building there is a waste of lives and money. Afghan society is tribal and not centered in the US/European sense. Tribes will continue to fight each other as they always have for centuries. They are excellent fighters and the majority of them view us as invaders not as liberators. And of course, we will continue to be painted as the enemy just like the Russians were in the 20th century. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans and spend our tax money here at home.
3
"We" cannot lose Afghanistan. It was never ours. And we should get all of our troops out of Afghanistan before we commit more war crimes like the bombing of the MSF hospital in Kunduz, and other civilian killings.
7
The brutal fact is that it was far easier to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban when they held the reins of power in Afghanistan and essentially were the establishment, than it is to wage an anti-insurgent war against them. The same was true of Iraq of course. There may be a lesson in that.
It comes down to whether the Afghan people and army are willing to fight as hard for their country as the Taliban are to fight against it. If they are not, then only a full-fledged reintroduction of a US army/marine ground force will keep the Taliban at bay. And our country, rightly, have no stomach for that after nearly two decades of war in the region.
I do think we can do more to make the Afghan forces more formidable by, for example, building a robust air force (possibly equipped with Russian hardware since many Afghans were originally trained on it) and, perhaps, by helping pro-government tribes to confront the Taliban as a sort of militia (remember the Northern Alliance). But in the end this is and has to be up to the Afghans.
It comes down to whether the Afghan people and army are willing to fight as hard for their country as the Taliban are to fight against it. If they are not, then only a full-fledged reintroduction of a US army/marine ground force will keep the Taliban at bay. And our country, rightly, have no stomach for that after nearly two decades of war in the region.
I do think we can do more to make the Afghan forces more formidable by, for example, building a robust air force (possibly equipped with Russian hardware since many Afghans were originally trained on it) and, perhaps, by helping pro-government tribes to confront the Taliban as a sort of militia (remember the Northern Alliance). But in the end this is and has to be up to the Afghans.
1
Afghanistan is not ours to win, lose or do anything else with. It belongs to others and the only thing for Americans to do is keep their hands off. Who do we think we are when we cannot even manage our own governmental affairs. It is time to replace our current system of government by the few with something new. I suggest voluntaryism, a system of self-government that promises to reduce violence worldwide, but particularly at home. Check it out on the web. Start with the Voluntaryist website.
7
You fellows are probably too young to remember Viet Nam, but the enduring shorter lesson from our enemies was; "Bring it on, throw all you have at us, but when you leave we'll still be here"
7
"We" never won it to begin with. "Again" is nothing but wishful thinking and denial.
“ALLAH has promised us victory and America has promised us defeat,” Mullah Muhammad Omar, the first head of the Taliban, once said, “so we shall see which of the two promises will be fulfilled. ... victory is a divine certainty.... And in Afghanistan today..., Mullah Omar’s bold defiance in the face of a superpower is beginning to look prescient.”
The best "we" can hope for is never ending war.
"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."~ GEORGE ORWELL
“ALLAH has promised us victory and America has promised us defeat,” Mullah Muhammad Omar, the first head of the Taliban, once said, “so we shall see which of the two promises will be fulfilled. ... victory is a divine certainty.... And in Afghanistan today..., Mullah Omar’s bold defiance in the face of a superpower is beginning to look prescient.”
The best "we" can hope for is never ending war.
"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."~ GEORGE ORWELL
10
Are we losing Afghanistan again? What a silly, arrogant question. Only American neocons could ask such a question. Afghanistan was never ours to begin with. And why should I care? If the Muslims of the Middle East want to wallow in Islamic medievalism that's their business. And they're welcome to it. Just so long as the oil keeps flowing and the West confines the Muslim's brand of insanity to their own countries, I don't care what else happens.
7
When did we ever have Afghanistan? Never. This is a tribal area, there is no nation state, we have wasted excessive money and lives on nothing. History informs us that the Mughals, British and the Russians could not succeed here. Why the hubris and naive belief that we with "American Exceptionalism" could do any better.
5
Afghanistan is a bipartisan lost cause. Neither party will admit that the objective is not attainable. Both parties push to send "good money after bad". They push to put more of our soldiers in harm's way. As voter, let's push for a non-exemption draft and one dollar per gallon gasoline war tax for the duration of our military involvement in Afghanistan. It may be only only way to extract us from this "Mission Impossible".
5
"Are We Losing Afghanistan Again?"
_____________
Are we assuming we own Afghanistan again?
_____________
Are we assuming we own Afghanistan again?
8
There is one way to keep the Taliban from power: Stay in Afghanistan forever. Do the authors seriously support this?
6
We never had that country. We had a lot of young Americans who are now killed or trying to make it in life either blinded, or no legs anymore, or emotionally destroyed. That's about it.
7
Islamic State, Taliban, Boko Haram, and too many others to mention. Can we please get off the politically correct train and say what's really going on. Go to Wikipedia and type in: List of Islamist terrorist attacks and take a look at what they've been doing all over the world.
If you don't mind your grand children bowing to Mecca 5 times a day then do nothing.
If you don't mind your grand children bowing to Mecca 5 times a day then do nothing.
1
It is the height of arrogance to believe we ever had Afghanistan to lose. That is a political tactic to destroy political opponents in this country with no basis in reality. And op ed pieces such as this just fan the flames of conflict.
8
I'm really surprised the NYTs is calling for a larger force to stay in Afghanistan after all these years of supporting withdrawal. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that the President, as I fear, only cares if the country is taken over by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before he leaves office. A force of 5,500 troops is less than we have in each of Germany, Japan and South Korea and clearly won't be enough to significantly help the current government to retain control of what it now has of the country, much less re-take possession of Taliban/Al-Qaeda areas. And so the turmoil and chaos in the Mid East and the danger to the rest of world just gets worse and worse - excellent foreign policy strategy!
2
I do not trust the military to tell us the truth about the cost of remaining in Afghanistan.
For a decade, we have heard rosie scenarios and extremely vague arguements. Eg. "If we pull out now, we will lose all of the progress we have made." (Huh? That statement assumes that real, lasting progress has been made but I see no evidence of it at all, but hear instead a lot of happy talk.)
The Fallacy of Sunken Costs also is a common mistake in reasoning for those who think we should stay there. The argument goes like this: we have already lost so much blood and treasure there, we can't leave now. But a lot of the time, in the real world, we have to -- or should -- cut our losses and leave. In Vietnam, for example, we lost more soldiers after we became aware that the war was unwinnable than we were losing earlier.
I believe a writer, faced with the question of when Bernie Sanders would authorize military force, wisely turned that question on its head -- we should ask proponents of military force what their safeguards are to prevent them from mistakenly using force.
Maybe we should return to the Bush doctrine of paying the Taliban to be nice to people. That worked for many months to reduce poppy production.
By the way, immediately after the 9/11 attack, the Taliban told WBush they would be willing to hold Osama bin Laden and turn him over for trial in a neutral third country if we had evidence of his culpability in the attack but Bush wanted a war, and hid that offer from us.
For a decade, we have heard rosie scenarios and extremely vague arguements. Eg. "If we pull out now, we will lose all of the progress we have made." (Huh? That statement assumes that real, lasting progress has been made but I see no evidence of it at all, but hear instead a lot of happy talk.)
The Fallacy of Sunken Costs also is a common mistake in reasoning for those who think we should stay there. The argument goes like this: we have already lost so much blood and treasure there, we can't leave now. But a lot of the time, in the real world, we have to -- or should -- cut our losses and leave. In Vietnam, for example, we lost more soldiers after we became aware that the war was unwinnable than we were losing earlier.
I believe a writer, faced with the question of when Bernie Sanders would authorize military force, wisely turned that question on its head -- we should ask proponents of military force what their safeguards are to prevent them from mistakenly using force.
Maybe we should return to the Bush doctrine of paying the Taliban to be nice to people. That worked for many months to reduce poppy production.
By the way, immediately after the 9/11 attack, the Taliban told WBush they would be willing to hold Osama bin Laden and turn him over for trial in a neutral third country if we had evidence of his culpability in the attack but Bush wanted a war, and hid that offer from us.
4
Nobody (including the authors of this article) has ever defined a genuine US strategic goal for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the authors feel it is appropriate to put as many as 25,000 US soldiers in harms way for the benefit only of the arms merchants and war profiteers. Long War Journal indeed!
10
July 2008: "This is a war that we have to win," Obama said [of Afghanistan] in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington. Oh well. Never mind. Bush did it.
3
We never had it in the first place.
11
Al Qaeda and the Taliban has been able to regenerate itself again and again because of the backwards culture of Afghanistan and other cultures it dwells in. They have no ability to harm the US in any significant way. They can kill a few people, but if that's their goal then I only think it reinforces my initial statement. Over time, they will collapse as all evil eventually does.
1
Obama's "surge" of more American troops into Afghanistan mainly acted to push the Taliban across the border into Pakistan, where they were protected by our treacherous "friends" in the Pakistani military. The same thing would happen with the 20 - 25 thousand US troops the authors advocate. The Taliban are ignorant, backwards and barbaric. But they fight mainly because we're there. And I'll bet they've learned their lesson not to allow al Qaeda to launch attacks on the U.S. from Afghan territory Unless we want to stay there 60 years as we have in Korea, it's time to declare victory, bring our troops home and let the Afghans make the best they can of their own country.
1
Sounds like it is time for another surge---remember how well that worked.
1
"In the end China went her own way as if the Americans had never come." - The closing sentence of Barbara Tuchman's book "Stillwell and the American Experience in China."
Contrary to the headline of this column, Afghanistan was never ours to win or lose. From the beginning of Bush's poorly thought out invasion the Taliban was destined to resume power as soon as the Americans left, however long the occupation lasted.
Contrary to the headline of this column, Afghanistan was never ours to win or lose. From the beginning of Bush's poorly thought out invasion the Taliban was destined to resume power as soon as the Americans left, however long the occupation lasted.
4
Afghanistan is a construction of western thought. It really does not exist so there is nothing to win or lose. The reality is that it is a bunch of ancient tribal leaders driven by selfishness and Islamic beliefs of Jihad and glory. Afghanistan is only interesting to the US in that it has been used as a terrorist base against the west.
We are dealing with a pan-national system of beliefs reflected in radical Sunni Islam taught for decades by madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia. We are playing "whack a mole" with this problem and the source of it is in the schools, the radical clerics in mosques and all of it traces back to Saudi Arabia. This is a scenario similar to the expansion of 20th century Communism which in every case I can recall could be traced back to the USSR.
We are in for a very long haul on this problem covering many decades. There will be a lot of Presidents who will have to deal with this problem. We need very long term planning and we need to address the root of the problem which is Saudi Arabia.
We are dealing with a pan-national system of beliefs reflected in radical Sunni Islam taught for decades by madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia. We are playing "whack a mole" with this problem and the source of it is in the schools, the radical clerics in mosques and all of it traces back to Saudi Arabia. This is a scenario similar to the expansion of 20th century Communism which in every case I can recall could be traced back to the USSR.
We are in for a very long haul on this problem covering many decades. There will be a lot of Presidents who will have to deal with this problem. We need very long term planning and we need to address the root of the problem which is Saudi Arabia.
27
But the US can't get to the source, because the Saudi/GCC dictatorships - euphemistically called in the West by the warm and fuzzy monikers "monarchy" and "emirites" - are very big buyers of US/UK arms, and since the Carter Doctrine at the end of the 1970's, the US has pledged its own military forces to defend these dictatorships to the bitter end.
The Saudi dictatorship, meanwhile, has long had the policy of exporting its own dissidents to keep them out of their hair, while employing these same as "jihadi" instruments of Saudi foreign policy. Of course the dictatorship doesn't directly lend support to the jihadis (except in the Soviet/Adghan war) - these are enemies of the Saudi dictatorship, after all - but they receive funding from private channels, perhaps from factional opponents of the dictatorship. The US cynically piggybacked on this Saudi policy, until it got bit by the blowback in 9/11, but not even that event as seen old US habits cease in the Middle East, as can be seen in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
Nevertheless, exporting its troublemakers is preferred by the Saudis to the internal destabilization of the dictatorship that would ensue is the regime tried to cure the problem at its roots.
The Saudi dictatorship, meanwhile, has long had the policy of exporting its own dissidents to keep them out of their hair, while employing these same as "jihadi" instruments of Saudi foreign policy. Of course the dictatorship doesn't directly lend support to the jihadis (except in the Soviet/Adghan war) - these are enemies of the Saudi dictatorship, after all - but they receive funding from private channels, perhaps from factional opponents of the dictatorship. The US cynically piggybacked on this Saudi policy, until it got bit by the blowback in 9/11, but not even that event as seen old US habits cease in the Middle East, as can be seen in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
Nevertheless, exporting its troublemakers is preferred by the Saudis to the internal destabilization of the dictatorship that would ensue is the regime tried to cure the problem at its roots.
1
Let's see. We're in their country, armed and making demands, our oil companies slavering for a pipeline, the latest armed invaders to try to take over there, and they're the "selfish" ones? I'd think he or she could imagine how it might feel if Afghanis had occupied the "Midwest". Why don't we leave them alone, and deal with Saudi Arabia's fomenting terrorism, which would at least be sane? For TSK to hold that other lands are "selfish", while we occupy them, is just bizarre.
We have been in Afghanistan for over a decade and the country is still falling apart. Now Obama wants to extend our stay, so my question is "What are you going to do differently?" If a decade of 'boots on the ground' did not produce results, what makes you think, 9,800 troops for a year or two will make a difference? This is more about political cover I think, than making an actual difference. The problem is that it is going to cover Obama's backside in the blood of troops who die for no real reason.
The entire Middle East is a rat-hole, the people there do not want peace, we are wasting our people's lives, time and money. GET OUT NOW!
The entire Middle East is a rat-hole, the people there do not want peace, we are wasting our people's lives, time and money. GET OUT NOW!
3
Impossible to "lose" something we never "won". Our efforts are futile; the sooner we leave, the better.
1
Of course 5500 isn't enough. It allows the president to say he left in place enough support to coordinate air attacks, etc., and maybe a few Special Ops units, but that won't do the trick, and we all know it. We all get that a major presence isn't in the cards, but let's at least not relinquish what so man brave men and women have accomplished.
"...the majority of Afghans still do not identify with the Taliban or Al Qaeda,..."
They don't identify with America, either. So what??!!
How long are we obligated to stay there to defend 80% of the world's H source and a gob of its maryjane (neither of which existed when we went there in 2001?)
Our West Pointers still haven't figured out how to fight a war against rebels. They are stuck up to the axles in WW II techniques: more bombs, more troops. If you don't go to Yale or Harvard to become an incompetent political force, you go to the Point to become an out-of-date armchair General.
They don't identify with America, either. So what??!!
How long are we obligated to stay there to defend 80% of the world's H source and a gob of its maryjane (neither of which existed when we went there in 2001?)
Our West Pointers still haven't figured out how to fight a war against rebels. They are stuck up to the axles in WW II techniques: more bombs, more troops. If you don't go to Yale or Harvard to become an incompetent political force, you go to the Point to become an out-of-date armchair General.
3
Absent a clearly defined mission we have not and will not achieve our goals. The war on terrorism will never end because you cannot defeat an idea or belief system.
When the United States or any country engages in stability or counter insurgency operations in any country, we will not prevail. Absent broad support of the"host"nation we will kill many but we will not defeat ideas or beliefs.
My first experience with terrorism was in 1972 while stationed Germany. The Bader Mienhoff and the Red Brigade began attacking US installations and personnel. Neither organization has disappeared, yes many of their followers are dead or were jailed but both organizations still exist. The Klu Klux Clan, Nazi Party and IRA still exist and still have active followers.
The ideas never die, the faces of the follower’s just change.
When the United States or any country engages in stability or counter insurgency operations in any country, we will not prevail. Absent broad support of the"host"nation we will kill many but we will not defeat ideas or beliefs.
My first experience with terrorism was in 1972 while stationed Germany. The Bader Mienhoff and the Red Brigade began attacking US installations and personnel. Neither organization has disappeared, yes many of their followers are dead or were jailed but both organizations still exist. The Klu Klux Clan, Nazi Party and IRA still exist and still have active followers.
The ideas never die, the faces of the follower’s just change.
1
Pepe Escobar, the Brazilian journalist, has the best take on Pipelineistan, IMHO.
Why don't we back off? Let the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians et al. fight over the World Island?
World domination is not worth a single dram of a mother's son's blood.
Why don't we back off? Let the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians et al. fight over the World Island?
World domination is not worth a single dram of a mother's son's blood.
1
Till there is a global consensus on what constitutes 'terror' and a united action taken against those who plan and perpetrate it - we will never kill the beast.
1
How much blood and treasure does the author expect us to expend for a godforsaken, corrupt country that can not defend itself despite billions in aid?
2
As has been observed elsewhere, democracies seldom survive in poor countries.
Democracies require a developed economy to support, and simply inserting a democratic government does not guarantee the economy will grow to support the democracy.
see http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/archives/spring07/Democracy...
This has:
" Rather, they claim that the relationship between income and
regime types is the result of the impact of higher incomes on the stability of democracies – once democratic countries (regardless of how or why they became democratic) reach a certain level of income (roughly $10,000 in 1996 real PPP gdp/capita), they are extremely unlikely to revert to dictatorship. "
10000 in 1996 is equivalent to 14847.50 in 2013 dollars
Afghanistan has a GDP per capita of 664.76 USD (2013)
So Afghanistan has about 1/20 the size of an economic output, per person, necessary for a stable democracy.
I believe people, everywhere, are largely concerned about enough to eat, a safe place to live, and good opportunities for their children.
People want a future, and are largely apolitical about how it is provided.
Promoting democratic change in an extremely poor country may be good for the US war machine and supporting think tanks in Washington, but perhaps will not result in significant changes in the lives of those people receiving the "democratic" gift.
Democracies require a developed economy to support, and simply inserting a democratic government does not guarantee the economy will grow to support the democracy.
see http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/archives/spring07/Democracy...
This has:
" Rather, they claim that the relationship between income and
regime types is the result of the impact of higher incomes on the stability of democracies – once democratic countries (regardless of how or why they became democratic) reach a certain level of income (roughly $10,000 in 1996 real PPP gdp/capita), they are extremely unlikely to revert to dictatorship. "
10000 in 1996 is equivalent to 14847.50 in 2013 dollars
Afghanistan has a GDP per capita of 664.76 USD (2013)
So Afghanistan has about 1/20 the size of an economic output, per person, necessary for a stable democracy.
I believe people, everywhere, are largely concerned about enough to eat, a safe place to live, and good opportunities for their children.
People want a future, and are largely apolitical about how it is provided.
Promoting democratic change in an extremely poor country may be good for the US war machine and supporting think tanks in Washington, but perhaps will not result in significant changes in the lives of those people receiving the "democratic" gift.
Delusional Americans think you can wage and win a war without killing people. Stone age tribal societies know only one thing, power. Kill them by the score eand they go away or at the least, stop harming others outside their immediate sphere of influence.
If you don't kill enough of them, they feel emboldened to start killing you in YOUR places.
Easy to understand.
If you don't kill enough of them, they feel emboldened to start killing you in YOUR places.
Easy to understand.
1
Delusional Americans that supported this nation getting stuck to the Iraqi Tar Baby in the first place seem to wish seeing us continue trying to 'save' Afghanistan. Nothing to save. As noted by others here, it has been a quicksand pit for other empires stepping into it, and is now one for the USA.
There is a reason this part of the world is known as "the graveyard of empires".
1
"Again"? What is this "again" of which you speak? There was never anything to win -- not militarily. We have already committed at least one egregious war crime. We have no credibility. The local forces we are allegedly supporting are hopeless (can you say Vietnamization?) We need to leave yesterday.
1
We have been the globe's policemen since the end of WWII. It is difficult to stop being the globe's policemen, but not impossible. If we do, there will almost certainly be horrible events that one could argue wouldn't have happened had we not withdrawn. But if we don't, we're just kicking the disengagement can down the road.
Military minded people would never agree to that, but it seems clear that we haven't made enough progress in the Middle East to continue this madness forever. It won't be easy. There will be lots of resistance. But it's got to happen one day. Why not today?
Military minded people would never agree to that, but it seems clear that we haven't made enough progress in the Middle East to continue this madness forever. It won't be easy. There will be lots of resistance. But it's got to happen one day. Why not today?
2
Losing again? It was never ours to lose, having been lost in the seventh century when Islam came on the scene. Wise up, the problem is extreme Islam, not Afghanistan.
3
Who is this "we" who thinks Afghanistan is to be "won" or "lost." No one is calling for a full-scale occupation of the country, the authors say, but they want 20-25 thousand US soldiers to put their lives on the line so they can boast that they "won" a country! Not once do they stop to consider that our presence there, as well as countless other misdeeds in the past, adds fuel to the terrorism fire.
1
Normally, I avoid ad hominem arguments, but in this case you have to question where these writers are coming from. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a right-wing think tank, whose founders were cheerleaders for the disastrous invasion of Iraq. The writers now want the U.S. to ramp up our failed invasion of Afghanistan, after we've lost more than a thousand soldiers and billions of dollars.
They point out that Al Qaeda was founded on the myth that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because of the mujahedeen's faith in Allah alone. They are right. The CIA gave the mujahedeen three to six billions in advanced arms, including rocket-propelled launchers, and the Saudi's also kicked in a few billion. How could they not win?
They point out that Al Qaeda was founded on the myth that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because of the mujahedeen's faith in Allah alone. They are right. The CIA gave the mujahedeen three to six billions in advanced arms, including rocket-propelled launchers, and the Saudi's also kicked in a few billion. How could they not win?
5
"Are we losing Afghanistan again?" It's a ludicrous title for a ludicrous article. NO outsider wins in Afghanistan. History has shown this over and over and over again. The US is overdue to withdraw. Do it now rather than later, with an army in tatters. It's the Afghan's country. Let them run it. The US has an infrastructure to rebuild.
4
Obama lost Iraq, abandoned Libya and Syria, and now reaps the harvest of his ill-fated decision to announce an Afghanistan pullout to our enemies 6 years ago. Combined with his acquiescence to a terrorist regime in Iran, a brutal Russian resurgence of Cold War aggression and the constant cyber incursions from China, it's hard to imagine a worse example of foreign policy in the last 200 years.
1
Our President was absolutely correct in trying to end BOTH WARS when he came into office. On the way to accomplishing that goal, and for many years now, he has been under unceasing pressure to keep these wars going and to get into new ones...but he needs to maintain the courage of his convictions. These are primitive societies which function in an almost constant state of war, murder, and daily violence. Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda is an old enemy. Now we have ISIS, Syria, Libya and other hellhole places to give us pause....but we shouldn't get sucked in. Now is the time to rebuild America's infrastructure, take care of our collective health, make immigrants our new citizens, and secure our borders by revamping our government's ability to deal with those who come here for education, touring, and business. We need to get all of this right. For that we need leadership, not Trump and not Republicans.
21
Now is the time to do a lot of rebuilding. Actually the time to do a lot of rebuilding was when G.W. Bush was elected. I'm afraid it is too late now and with 1/2 the US (Republicans) dedicated to destroying what is left of America.
To lose Afghanistan AGAIN assumes we once had it to lose. Since we unwisely resolved to occupy that mess of a country, after having very successfully bombed the Taliban and Qaeda into submission, U.S. and allied forces there have been fighting strong insurgencies bent on recapturing the land for the banished Taliban. It’s been a long time since any rational and impartial observer could plainly see that as soon as our forces fell below some critical level the “nation” would be overrun again by Taliban.
Benefiting from Russia’s example, we should never have sought to invade beyond tactical and temporary clean-up actions following the successful air war, and the idea of occupation for even a year should have been anathema, much less for fourteen.
Unlike Iraq that had strategic justifications with which many merely disagree, a conviction that historical analysis may one day change, Afghanistan after the initial punitive bombing was senseless. The resources an occupying power need to apply generationally to counter the steady pressure of a resolved indigenous adversary simply are prohibitive.
To the extent that we ever had it, OF COURSE we’ll eventually lose Afghanistan to the Taliban at least. As to Qaeda, who knows? It depends on the willingness of the Taliban to suffer them.
Benefiting from Russia’s example, we should never have sought to invade beyond tactical and temporary clean-up actions following the successful air war, and the idea of occupation for even a year should have been anathema, much less for fourteen.
Unlike Iraq that had strategic justifications with which many merely disagree, a conviction that historical analysis may one day change, Afghanistan after the initial punitive bombing was senseless. The resources an occupying power need to apply generationally to counter the steady pressure of a resolved indigenous adversary simply are prohibitive.
To the extent that we ever had it, OF COURSE we’ll eventually lose Afghanistan to the Taliban at least. As to Qaeda, who knows? It depends on the willingness of the Taliban to suffer them.
1
What our allies in Afghanistan need is a legal, high margin cash crop. As long as their economy depends on an illegal crop, opium, there will be dark shadows there. It is time for the West to fully legalize trade in hashish, especially that from Afghanistan, which is among the best in the world, I"m told.
2
I well remember when republicans blamed Harry Truman for "loosing China" too.
5
The USSR tried military force and failed. We tried military force and its not working. How was drone striking civilians and military occupation ever going to democratize the country?
The Chinese plan to build infrastructure and trade with Afghanistan. You know, it's crazy enough that it just might work.
The Chinese plan to build infrastructure and trade with Afghanistan. You know, it's crazy enough that it just might work.
2
We have no business being there now that bin Laden is dead. The Taliban are Afghans. Leave their country to them. It's certainly not worth my son's life to be there.
2
We never had Afghanistan to begin with.
1
Anyone who has a casual familiarity with the history of Afghanistan, and the history of occupations in general, will tell you that this was inevitable from day 1. The only question is how long we will continue this fiasco and how many of our soldiers will be killed or disabled. We should have bombed the al Qaeda camps to oblivion on 9/12/2001 before they dispersed into the mountains and finished all action within a week. The world would be a much safer place today if we had limited our action then, and will be a much safer place 10 years from now if we get out now.
1
In the “Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, Karl Marx wrote that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” We have seen in Afghanistan that the people, who were once "oppressed" during the Soviet occupation, and who were instrumental in creating “Taliban” to counter the soviet army, have now become the "oppressor". The bombings and other attacks by he US seem to have had little or no effect on them.
The people joining taliban and Al Qaeda are have been brainwashed into belieiving that they are fighting an ideological war and, should they die in the battle, they will get a safe passage to janat (heaven). Unlike the Afghan army, these Jihadists are not afraid to sacrifice their lives for the cause of their religion.
The United States made a monumnetal blunder in leaving the fate of the country to Afgnas once the Soviet army was driven back, The very forces, which received the patronage of the US governemnt, sadly have now turned their guns on them. If Obama or his sucessor withdraw their troops in 2017, Afghanistan will be run over by these Jihadists. The Afghan president who turned to pakistan for support has now relaized that it is Pakistan that is providing overt and covert support to these Jihadists. The US has always supported Paksitan knowing full well about its role in fomenting trouble in Afghanistan and India. It is not Allah who has promised Taliban the victory, but the failed US Afghan policy that will ensure their ultimate victory.
The people joining taliban and Al Qaeda are have been brainwashed into belieiving that they are fighting an ideological war and, should they die in the battle, they will get a safe passage to janat (heaven). Unlike the Afghan army, these Jihadists are not afraid to sacrifice their lives for the cause of their religion.
The United States made a monumnetal blunder in leaving the fate of the country to Afgnas once the Soviet army was driven back, The very forces, which received the patronage of the US governemnt, sadly have now turned their guns on them. If Obama or his sucessor withdraw their troops in 2017, Afghanistan will be run over by these Jihadists. The Afghan president who turned to pakistan for support has now relaized that it is Pakistan that is providing overt and covert support to these Jihadists. The US has always supported Paksitan knowing full well about its role in fomenting trouble in Afghanistan and India. It is not Allah who has promised Taliban the victory, but the failed US Afghan policy that will ensure their ultimate victory.
1
Why are we still there, except for our nationalistic pride? Is it the wealth of untapped minerals? The promise of gushers of oil? We got Osama bin Laden - and he had escaped to Pakistan years earlier. Another satellite of our global equivalent of the USSR? To fulfill the dream of George W. Bush that his parents, especially his Father, would finally accept him for being more than a worthless alcoholic? Why don't we give up the Crusades?
2
Afghanistan is not ours to lose. We have no business in that part of the world, or in the wider Middle East. The U.S. presence in that region, including Israel, is a huge net loss for our country. It wastes resources and lives that should be put to work here at home rebuilding our infrastructure and making us energy independent and efficient. Al Qaeda would have no beef with us if we stopped intervening in Muslim nations. While that is not necessarily a reason for us to leave, we have our own reasons for leaving, and if we do, al Qaeda, ISIS, and the rest of that murderous lot will no longer be a cause for concern for us. We will be safer for having left. Bring the troops and the dollars home, and stop subsidizing U.S. oil companies and military contractors.
5
After Bush abandoned efforts in Afghanistan to focus on Iraq- it was a done deal at that point...having said that, I don't think Afghanistan would have ever become a viable democracy regardless of whatever we did or didn't do. The Taliban lives there and can simply out wait any foreign forces.
The result would be the same if we withdraw now or in a hundred years- exactly the same.
The result would be the same if we withdraw now or in a hundred years- exactly the same.
3
We defeated the Taliban, and then chose to turn the country over to corrupt warlords and thuggish contractors. We threw away vast amounts of money, and that is certainly lost, but the country? We never even really knew what we wanted to do with it. Throwing money down a hole is a pretty poor way of pretending you are in control.
1
Afghanistan will be what Afghans want it to be. Not what the British, Russians or Americans want it to be.
We got what we went in there for next door, Osama bin Laden. Mission accomplished.
We got what we went in there for next door, Osama bin Laden. Mission accomplished.
3
When the Taliban were scattered and an oil man was installed as president, Bush moved on. What is rarely mentioned is that he not only abandoned the Afghanistan war, he also diverted resources from it to the Iraq “theatre” (Special Forces, drones, satellite surveillance, translators); the diversion of funds from the congressionally mandated budget was illegal, but no one shouted stop.
A feature of the early ground war was that an attack on a Taliban stronghold had to be delayed while “we” allowed Pakistanis intelligence agents to airlift out before the cameras followed the ground troops in.
In 2004, Michael Gordon reported here the fears of the NATO commander: “we’re flirting with disaster here.” Through that year, the NYT reported the resurgence of the Taliban and battles over the burgeoning poppy and opium trade. Little has changed.
We’re stuck in a tar-pit, as was warned over and over. But we swallowed the notion that Bin Laden must pay. He has paid, and our people in uniform and our tax-payers keep on paying. We have to learn not to grab a tiger by the tail. How do we learn to let go of the tail when we have so many armchair generals at home chanting “bomb, bomb, bomb?” How amenable are our serving generals to getting out? Not amenable enough.
A feature of the early ground war was that an attack on a Taliban stronghold had to be delayed while “we” allowed Pakistanis intelligence agents to airlift out before the cameras followed the ground troops in.
In 2004, Michael Gordon reported here the fears of the NATO commander: “we’re flirting with disaster here.” Through that year, the NYT reported the resurgence of the Taliban and battles over the burgeoning poppy and opium trade. Little has changed.
We’re stuck in a tar-pit, as was warned over and over. But we swallowed the notion that Bin Laden must pay. He has paid, and our people in uniform and our tax-payers keep on paying. We have to learn not to grab a tiger by the tail. How do we learn to let go of the tail when we have so many armchair generals at home chanting “bomb, bomb, bomb?” How amenable are our serving generals to getting out? Not amenable enough.
4
We are losing everywhere because of greed and selective ignorance.
Hey, there's no "WE" in who's responsible for losing Afghanistan. This is on the same naive guy who lost Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, and signed a Nuke deal that let's Iran inspect itself.
Obama created ISIS by creating the power vaccuum in Iraq when he pulled American troops out en masse. Now, the Obama Administration cites Obama's recent decision to keep some 9,000 troops in Afghanistan so the mistake of Iraq isn't repeated, but then claims Bush created ISIS.
Obama "I'm not doing the same thing I did before to avoid the problems I created, but that thing I did before didn't create any problems."
The Buck doesn't stop with "we."
Obama created ISIS by creating the power vaccuum in Iraq when he pulled American troops out en masse. Now, the Obama Administration cites Obama's recent decision to keep some 9,000 troops in Afghanistan so the mistake of Iraq isn't repeated, but then claims Bush created ISIS.
Obama "I'm not doing the same thing I did before to avoid the problems I created, but that thing I did before didn't create any problems."
The Buck doesn't stop with "we."
When did the United States ever "have" Afghanistan? And how much blood and money is it worth spending to "have" it in the future?
1
The authors and almost all of the commenters fail to mention the deep and wide corruption that Afghans must cope with. This is a big part of what sustains the Taliban, who clamped down on corruption during their rule of Afghanistan. I think Americans know about the high level theft that goes in the Afghan government, but are less cognizant of the sort of every day corruption--bribes extracted at every opportunity-- that grinds down ordinary Afghans, and drives many who don't especially like the Taliban to tolerate or support them.
1
I just don't like the way supporters of greater military presence in far off lands never mention the costs. "We must..." and "Otherwise we will experience..." they say, but they never weigh that against "We will lose..." So they are asking us to support a plan that has a defective cost/benefit analysis. And they never factor in the historical precedents. They just start from the conclusion that something drastic must be done and assume it's worth...whatever.
5
The force remaining in Afghanistan is not large enough to do anything. Training soldiers who won't fight is not the point. The force is large enough to be a "trip wire"; if the Taliban were to kill enough American soldiers , that would provide the basis for a full scale war. This is not the first time American soldiers were used as a trip wire.
3
The notion that the President’s decision to extend America’s very modest troop presence in Afghanistan (boots on the ground) through 2016 offers no effective response to the rolling resurgence of the Taliban, or the presence of a resilient Al Qaeda, or for that matter the growing influence of ISIS in an Afghanistan replete with colluding insurgent and terrorist elements.
Even adding in the element of significant U.S. combat air capability, the move will not be a game changer.
Kabul is an aberration of any real sense of credible countrywide governance. Afghan national unity in Western terms has been proven an impossible task. Hard realities indeed.
It is not untoward to question Obama’s motivations in what looks to be a blatantly token effort to defer the unthinkable -- an admission that after nearly 15 years of U.S. and NATO military and aid efforts in Afghanistan, there is no credible resolution in sight.
Further ratcheting up U.S. troop numbers is not the alternative answer, it would be more of the same failed strategy.
Even adding in the element of significant U.S. combat air capability, the move will not be a game changer.
Kabul is an aberration of any real sense of credible countrywide governance. Afghan national unity in Western terms has been proven an impossible task. Hard realities indeed.
It is not untoward to question Obama’s motivations in what looks to be a blatantly token effort to defer the unthinkable -- an admission that after nearly 15 years of U.S. and NATO military and aid efforts in Afghanistan, there is no credible resolution in sight.
Further ratcheting up U.S. troop numbers is not the alternative answer, it would be more of the same failed strategy.
2
In Afghanistan, reserves of precious minerals, gems, oil and gas have been valued at $1 trillion to $3 trillion. Corporations want them, and they're using the US military to get them. That's why we're in Afghanistan, and that's why we're staying on Afghanistan.
5
Losing Afghanistan? We never had it. All our esteemed leaders did was pump Billions of OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars into the country and their esteemed leaders quickly stole it and took it out of the country to support them royally when they leave. Same old story over and over. China and India each have significant investment in Afghanistan - in oil and minerals. Perhaps they should send their most accomplished new "investment" billionaires in to run Afghanistan.
3
We should not have gone in, in the first place. We're putting our country's son's and daughters in harms way, fighting a ruthless, terrorist group of people, that have no problem murdering our kids.
21
But Obama and the Democrats said this was the "right war" that we had to win. Oh, I remember now. Bush did it.
The long war journal... Sounds as though the solution is perpetual war. I would like to know how your proposal ends? Up to 25,000 now, then what? We had over 100,000 and that was not successful. If only they stayed longer? Then what? More? 200,000? Tactical nukes? Please describe your future
3
Just as Hosni Mubarak warned President Bush, if the US invades Iraq, the Middle East would go up in flames, Russia warned the US not to invade Afghanistan - been there done that.
Afghanistan will implode the minute the US leaves, just as Iraq imploded.
Right now, President Obama is keeping our soldiers safe. An incursion here or there, but basically removed from the field of battle. However, there is another Vietnam on the horizon. The West cannot continue to prop up a government in Afghanistan forever.
Politically the US is stuck in Afghanistan. If President Obama were to remove all the troops and Afghanistan implodes, the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham would hound this Administration. So, the President hangs on for now and hands the decision to the next President.
Next President Republican? The US stays and fights another day. Next President Democrat? All our soldiers come home. Tough Decision for American voters???
Afghanistan will implode the minute the US leaves, just as Iraq imploded.
Right now, President Obama is keeping our soldiers safe. An incursion here or there, but basically removed from the field of battle. However, there is another Vietnam on the horizon. The West cannot continue to prop up a government in Afghanistan forever.
Politically the US is stuck in Afghanistan. If President Obama were to remove all the troops and Afghanistan implodes, the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham would hound this Administration. So, the President hangs on for now and hands the decision to the next President.
Next President Republican? The US stays and fights another day. Next President Democrat? All our soldiers come home. Tough Decision for American voters???
2
"Next President Democrat? All our soldiers come home."
Sorry, been there, done that (Obama, 2008). With Obama increasing the troop levels again, such partisan commentary is delusional. With a hawkish Hillary Clinton certain to win the nomination, even more so.
Sorry, been there, done that (Obama, 2008). With Obama increasing the troop levels again, such partisan commentary is delusional. With a hawkish Hillary Clinton certain to win the nomination, even more so.
I have lived in Kabul, follow Afghanistan news, and recognize many of the names who write about Afghanistan credibly. The two authors of this op-ed are not that, and I would be very cautious about taking any of this at face value. It sounds more like scaremongering than anything else, and it makes me wonder why the NY Times would publish this without at least a note or comment from their Afghanistan-based correspondents/stringers.
5
Just as in Vietnam and Iraq, if there is no sense of nationhood and no national government for which the local men will fight and die, it doesn't matter how long American men fight and die for them. That is what is lacking in all this military calculus. in 20014, the Iraqi Army disintegrated at Mosul, where 30,000 men ran away from 700, in 2015 the Afghan Army collapsed in Kunduz, where 7,000 men ran away from 300, and in 1975 the Army of South Vietnam folded in two weeks despite being numerically and qualitatively far superior to the NVA. The problem is not military, it is political, and it cannot be fixed by American troops.
3
'...and in 1975 the Army of South Vietnam folded in two weeks despite being numerically and qualitatively far superior to the NVA.'
While I don't dispute your other comments, this one is patently false. At the time the NVA's Spring 1975 offensive, the NVA was the 6th largest army in the world. It had the full backing, both militarily and monetarily, of the Soviet Union. The ARVN, on the other hand, had lost it's only real ally, the US. To the point that congress had cut off all funding leaving the ARVN with no more ammunition or spare parts for helicopters or aircraft. They were left practically defenseless, abandoned by their ally.
While I don't dispute your other comments, this one is patently false. At the time the NVA's Spring 1975 offensive, the NVA was the 6th largest army in the world. It had the full backing, both militarily and monetarily, of the Soviet Union. The ARVN, on the other hand, had lost it's only real ally, the US. To the point that congress had cut off all funding leaving the ARVN with no more ammunition or spare parts for helicopters or aircraft. They were left practically defenseless, abandoned by their ally.
We never had it to lose.
3
I notice the authors do not say how we can win the war, but only how we will prolong it.
6
You cannot lose that which you have never held. Successive interventions in the region have only succeeded at putting weapons into the hands of tribal forces and increasing opium production. Some regions are best left alone.
1
Yes! We are losing Afghanistan again, and we are being evicted by the same jihadi forces, which we organized, armed and trained to do the same to the Russians in the 80's. Then they were billed as Freedom Fighters, which was patently ridiculous, but then as now, the ultra orthodox extremists are the people who can always be counted on to fight, if a fight is what you want. It all made for romantic copy in Soldier of Fortune Magazine, but freedom had nothing to do with it.
Lets face it! It is not news to us or any of our Sunni Royal allies or Pakistani satraps that the jihadists are useful pawns in the wars for land and oil. If America didn't find jihadis to be a part of the plan, we would be sanctioning Saudi Arabia instead of Iran, and working to build up the secular Assad along with the Russians.
We shouldn't feel too bad though. Britain is about to suffer its fourth loss in Afghanistan, since they attempted to put a puppet the Shah Shuja on the throne in the 1830's to control Afghanistan, which is still the Central Asian Plain, and was the gateway to the Raj.
Calling the other side in wars for strategic ground, and vital resources terrorists wasn't in vogue until the latter part of the 20th Century, but it is the aura of criminality of the other side that legitimizes what would otherwise be easily recognized as just the same old wars of conquest for profit.
We are loathe to leave AFPAK not because we love the views, but because it is gas pipeline essential territory.
Lets face it! It is not news to us or any of our Sunni Royal allies or Pakistani satraps that the jihadists are useful pawns in the wars for land and oil. If America didn't find jihadis to be a part of the plan, we would be sanctioning Saudi Arabia instead of Iran, and working to build up the secular Assad along with the Russians.
We shouldn't feel too bad though. Britain is about to suffer its fourth loss in Afghanistan, since they attempted to put a puppet the Shah Shuja on the throne in the 1830's to control Afghanistan, which is still the Central Asian Plain, and was the gateway to the Raj.
Calling the other side in wars for strategic ground, and vital resources terrorists wasn't in vogue until the latter part of the 20th Century, but it is the aura of criminality of the other side that legitimizes what would otherwise be easily recognized as just the same old wars of conquest for profit.
We are loathe to leave AFPAK not because we love the views, but because it is gas pipeline essential territory.
2
"Losing Afghanistan"? When did we own it? There's no law under which "we" (or the people who gain something by these bloody adventures in others' lands) own the world, and have the right or necessity to demand that people everywhere please "us". The 9/11 attacks were carried out by Saudi Arabians, planned by Saudis, financed by Saudis--it's the largest sponsor of terrorism by far, proselytizing violent Wahhabi Islam in many countries. But the ruling house of SA are friends with the oil companies and politicians at the highest level (long-time personal friends of the Bush family, e.g., as were the Bin Ladens). So "we' are all over, everywhere else that our power elite sees profit to itself.
Britain learned in the end, the USSR learned, empires do learn in the end that it costs a treasury and seas of blood to keep an empire. We don't "own" the world, and we can't afford to. The sooner we see that, the better for us and the world.
Britain learned in the end, the USSR learned, empires do learn in the end that it costs a treasury and seas of blood to keep an empire. We don't "own" the world, and we can't afford to. The sooner we see that, the better for us and the world.
8
To lose it again means it had been won. Which is, of course, not true.
2
"President Obama has decided to keep 9,800 American troops in the country through much of 2016 and 5,500 thereafter. The president was right to change course, but it is difficult to see how much of a difference this small force can make."
Why change course when it will not make a difference, when it keeps American at risk, when those 5,000 will cost $15,000,000,000 ($3 million per person per year!), when who knows how much our 'contractors' aka mercenaries will cost.
Just explain yourselves, Thomas Jocelyn and Bill Ruggio. If you are think you are smart enough to be opinion writers in the NYTImes and hope to be opinion Makers, please tell the readers why spending/wasting $15 BILLION and who knows how many lives was the presidents "right change of course'.
Why change course when it will not make a difference, when it keeps American at risk, when those 5,000 will cost $15,000,000,000 ($3 million per person per year!), when who knows how much our 'contractors' aka mercenaries will cost.
Just explain yourselves, Thomas Jocelyn and Bill Ruggio. If you are think you are smart enough to be opinion writers in the NYTImes and hope to be opinion Makers, please tell the readers why spending/wasting $15 BILLION and who knows how many lives was the presidents "right change of course'.
5
Wrong title/headline. A more accurate question: Did we ever have Afghanistan to begin with?
3
This is what happens when people do not learn from their mistakes. Do the benefits of occupying Afghanistan outweigh the costs associated with it? Nope. Best thing to do is pack up and leave and not look back.
4
You can only lose what you once owned. Afghanistan is not President Obama's to lose, any more than Vietnam was Johnson's or China was Truman's. The fate of Afghanistan ultimately lies in the hands of the Afghans and no amount of American led NATO troops will do anything but delay the outcome and prolong the suffering of the innocent Afghans who live there.
As reprehensible as the Taliban may be, they did not attack the United States. They are Afghans. We were told many times that Al Qaeda, led by a son of Saudi Arabia, fled the country and it's leadership has been decimated. Is it possible that their resurrection has something to do with the number of foreign troops still in their country and the collateral damage they inevitably cause?
The best way to defeat international terrorism from Afghanistan may be to get out and let the Afghan's settle their own struggles for power. There are strategies other than invasion and occupation to contain the threat of international terrorism.
As reprehensible as the Taliban may be, they did not attack the United States. They are Afghans. We were told many times that Al Qaeda, led by a son of Saudi Arabia, fled the country and it's leadership has been decimated. Is it possible that their resurrection has something to do with the number of foreign troops still in their country and the collateral damage they inevitably cause?
The best way to defeat international terrorism from Afghanistan may be to get out and let the Afghan's settle their own struggles for power. There are strategies other than invasion and occupation to contain the threat of international terrorism.
5
We lost Afghanistan the day Obama announced his pull out plan.
We lost Afghanistan the day we entered it. But Bush wasn't content with that..Oooh Noo ... off to Iraq which irrevocably sealed the loss, if there had been any doubt.
We never won a war in Afghanistan and the real war is an economic war to control the flow of oil and gas and the currency used.
With our government’s approval, the transnational Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India Pipeline (TAPI) is the reason the Taliban terrorists rose to power in Afghanistan. Unocal and the CIA put the Taliban terrorists in a position of authority in Afghanistan, with an agreement to permit the building of TAPI. Pakistan, with US and Saudis support trained over 100,000 Taliban to commit acts of terrorism in Russia. The Taliban feeling they were in a position of dominance, failed to keep the bargain wanting to protect their drug trade that conflict with TAPI. We invaded Afghanistan, to fight terrorists over a pipeline.
Expected to be completed around 2017, the pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas owned by Israel (not Iran) from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. With most of the U.S. troops withdrawn Pakistan needed to get rid of the Taliban villages and the Taliban in turn attacked the Pakistan.
Its time to use diplomacy, instead of sanctions, terrorists, revolts and revolutions, bombings and invasions to solve corporate and government greed to control the energy needs and currency in the global economy.
With our government’s approval, the transnational Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India Pipeline (TAPI) is the reason the Taliban terrorists rose to power in Afghanistan. Unocal and the CIA put the Taliban terrorists in a position of authority in Afghanistan, with an agreement to permit the building of TAPI. Pakistan, with US and Saudis support trained over 100,000 Taliban to commit acts of terrorism in Russia. The Taliban feeling they were in a position of dominance, failed to keep the bargain wanting to protect their drug trade that conflict with TAPI. We invaded Afghanistan, to fight terrorists over a pipeline.
Expected to be completed around 2017, the pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas owned by Israel (not Iran) from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. With most of the U.S. troops withdrawn Pakistan needed to get rid of the Taliban villages and the Taliban in turn attacked the Pakistan.
Its time to use diplomacy, instead of sanctions, terrorists, revolts and revolutions, bombings and invasions to solve corporate and government greed to control the energy needs and currency in the global economy.
4
Diplomacy? State Department is essentially a spy agency, and has been so for a long time. The so called diplomats report on foreign people just like intelligence agencies, and both groips depend on each other for info. Diplomacy is not what it used to be, sorry to say.
To "lose" Afghanistan, we would have had to "have it." Did we? Ever?
8
Al Qaeda attacked the USA. First, the USA hunted down every person involved and made sure that they were either dead or worse. Second, the USA invested heavily in security and intelligence to prevent another 9/11. The first two parts of the US response have been successful.
It is the additional responses to 9/11 - that are inflamed by editorials similar to this one - that have been disastrous in every way. Iraq, Arab Spring-related-fights, and nation building in Afghanistan were not relevant to terrorist attacks on US soil. The link between internecine Middle East battles and the US is only made when the USA gets involved in these battles. Leave, leave, leave the Middle East and never go back.
It is the additional responses to 9/11 - that are inflamed by editorials similar to this one - that have been disastrous in every way. Iraq, Arab Spring-related-fights, and nation building in Afghanistan were not relevant to terrorist attacks on US soil. The link between internecine Middle East battles and the US is only made when the USA gets involved in these battles. Leave, leave, leave the Middle East and never go back.
1
"Coalition forces, including many brave Afghans, have brought America, Afghanistan and the world its first victory in the war on terror," the president said. "Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world." George W. Bush, June, 2004.
2
Tell me---
When did we "win" Afghanistan so that we can now "lose" it?
We never won Afghanistan at all.
When did we "win" Afghanistan so that we can now "lose" it?
We never won Afghanistan at all.
1
The Afghan war was never ours to win...
To the op ed writers of The NYTimes and all other media -
To the US and World leaders -
Stop trying to control Afghanistan.
The middle east is embroiled in a sectarian unwinnable war - but Afghanistan is the exception to the middle east - that the Afghani's are not driven by sectarianism - rather they are driven by their own local tribal chauvinistic rules that go back centuries. The Afghani's will never change no matter the incentives given.
It's time for us in the US to sit back and let the Russians take a beating for a change. They never learned from their invasion of Afghanistan - and so they want to take a shot at another country.
Until Afghanistan educates and treats their women fairly - nothing will change.
To the op ed writers of The NYTimes and all other media -
To the US and World leaders -
Stop trying to control Afghanistan.
The middle east is embroiled in a sectarian unwinnable war - but Afghanistan is the exception to the middle east - that the Afghani's are not driven by sectarianism - rather they are driven by their own local tribal chauvinistic rules that go back centuries. The Afghani's will never change no matter the incentives given.
It's time for us in the US to sit back and let the Russians take a beating for a change. They never learned from their invasion of Afghanistan - and so they want to take a shot at another country.
Until Afghanistan educates and treats their women fairly - nothing will change.
8
Who is the Commander-in-Chief of this miserable excuse of a military anyway? Don't pay for the same real estate twice...
4
What is the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies". Is Afghanistan a democracy?
4
Let's eliminate the tax exempt status and end tax deductions for donations to FDD and all other think tanks.
There is a tendency to confuse Al Qaeda with the Taliban. Al Qaeda has largely been destroyed and replace by ISIS, at least in Iraq. The only reason the Taliban are fighting us is because we are in their country. It's unlikely the Taliban will pose a threat to the U.S. is we simply leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
5
I believe in recorded history Alexander was the first.
You cannot lose what you never had.
You cannot lose what you never had.
7
The Afghan insurgents are fond of saying 'They (NATO/USA) have the watches, we have the time'.
Why not use our superior technology with which we made those watches to also secure our borders against Al-Qaeda?
Why not use our superior technology with which we made those watches to also secure our borders against Al-Qaeda?
3
To get rid of the Russians from Afghanistan we supported the mujahadeen, which gave us bin Laden and al Qaida, the perpetrators of the worst terroist attack in the United States.
Now that Osama is dead and al Qaida is not as menacing as it used to be, having been supplanted by ISIS, what exactly is our goal in Afghanistan other than creating more mayhem which may come back to haunt us again?
The Russians had the good sense to get out of Afghanistan and stay out. It's about time we did the same.
Now that Osama is dead and al Qaida is not as menacing as it used to be, having been supplanted by ISIS, what exactly is our goal in Afghanistan other than creating more mayhem which may come back to haunt us again?
The Russians had the good sense to get out of Afghanistan and stay out. It's about time we did the same.
4
Afghanistan was never ours to win.
But in 2003 when Bush abandoned our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy to launch his criminal project in Iraq, our total failure was guaranteed.
I don't know why the NY Times keep trying to rally us to keep fighting this lost war.
But in 2003 when Bush abandoned our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy to launch his criminal project in Iraq, our total failure was guaranteed.
I don't know why the NY Times keep trying to rally us to keep fighting this lost war.
6
Are we losing Afghanistan? Is it ours?
8
The real question should be: Was Afghanistan ever really WON by the US? The very title of the article reflects our hubris.
1
Why would you think we ever won Afghanistan?
5
Afganistan was never ours! Bush attacked Afganistan after 9/11 because he thought it would be an easy victory...guess he never read any history. He didn't attack Saudi Arabia from which the terrorists on the planes actually came because he was in bed with the princes and the entire family still is!
We do not belong in the ME. Unfortunately for the average American politicians would rather spend money on destruction so that they can strut...it's time to throw them out.
Go Bernie!
We do not belong in the ME. Unfortunately for the average American politicians would rather spend money on destruction so that they can strut...it's time to throw them out.
Go Bernie!
3
Let Russia go back after they've settled the Syrian mess. Maybe they have more resources than we do. We have another country to rebuild...
our own.
our own.
4
" ... Are We Losing Afghanistan Again? ..."
You cannot lose what you never won.
Just because the Taliban have retreated for a while does not mean that you won the war.
Especially not in Afghanistan.
A lesson that many invaders had to learn in this country.
You cannot lose what you never won.
Just because the Taliban have retreated for a while does not mean that you won the war.
Especially not in Afghanistan.
A lesson that many invaders had to learn in this country.
1
I wonder...
What is it exactly that we ever stood to WIN in Afghanistan?
Jes' askin'.
What is it exactly that we ever stood to WIN in Afghanistan?
Jes' askin'.
3
Al Qaeda? I thought ISIS was taking charge. Now there are 3 Jihadist teams competing for the prize?
1
Adequate numbers to prevent a complete complex until after the next U.S. election.
We never had it. We occupied portions of it. We never could occupy all of it. The Russians learned this and we failed to learn from them. Why we keep this pretense of world domination when we cannot even fix our own bridges and roads, I just do not understand? Send more troops to Afghanistan. Why? How about bringing them back to the USA and using those unpaid for, borrowed trillions and those soldiers to rebuild our roads, bridges, and schools? Let's spend American lives and American middle class tax dollars on us instead of using them to destroy other countries and enriching tax dodging corporations for rebuilding what we have destroyed.
4
We can embark on mis-adventures such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq when we're willing to leave standing armies of 120k+ for generations in such places. This was understood by many in 2003.
To do what's necessary to "win" such places would require a full draft with no exemptions (save CO) and taxes to cover the costs. If that's what people want, they should stop blaming BHO and start demanding such.
To do what's necessary to "win" such places would require a full draft with no exemptions (save CO) and taxes to cover the costs. If that's what people want, they should stop blaming BHO and start demanding such.
1
In ancient cultures, the wealthy and politicians were actually leading men into battles to defend their lands. They supplied the weapons too. Now, the spineless politicians and rich people use someone else's kids to fight for them as proxies while they sit in their armchairs giving lip service to them.
Want a war? Call for a draft that does not exclude anyone including rich people's kids. Then we talk.
Want a war? Call for a draft that does not exclude anyone including rich people's kids. Then we talk.
3
What arrogance makes us, the US, think that Afganistan is somehow 'ours'. How much more in dollars and precious lives will we spend to realize that there is nothing that can be won here. Will we win 'freedom' for the Afgfans? As soon as we leave new warlords will emerge with a different plan to control the people. or maybe the same ones with the same plan.
Every conflict we have been in since WWII has had us backing the losing side. Think about it. If it can even be said that the allies 'won' WWII. Since then no wins. Recalling the pictures of the last helicopter leaving the roof of the Saigon embassy, realize that we now have full diplomatic relations with VietNam, and a robust tourist trade.
Think about it.
Every conflict we have been in since WWII has had us backing the losing side. Think about it. If it can even be said that the allies 'won' WWII. Since then no wins. Recalling the pictures of the last helicopter leaving the roof of the Saigon embassy, realize that we now have full diplomatic relations with VietNam, and a robust tourist trade.
Think about it.
1
This opinion piece hits the nail on the head.
We ought to maintain a force of at least 25,000 in Afghanistan to hold the three key bases, provide air, logistical and training support to Afghan forces, and conduct counter-terrorism and other missions in Afghanistan and the region as required.
For a relatively small continued investment we can preserve our strategic position and prevent Afghanistan going down the tubes as South Vietnam did.
In what is likely to be a long struggle against violent Islamic fundamentalists, both the practical consequences and optics of a Taliban victory in Afghanistan are unacceptable.
We ought to maintain a force of at least 25,000 in Afghanistan to hold the three key bases, provide air, logistical and training support to Afghan forces, and conduct counter-terrorism and other missions in Afghanistan and the region as required.
For a relatively small continued investment we can preserve our strategic position and prevent Afghanistan going down the tubes as South Vietnam did.
In what is likely to be a long struggle against violent Islamic fundamentalists, both the practical consequences and optics of a Taliban victory in Afghanistan are unacceptable.
The government of the United States should not take a risk of another entanglement with extremist in Afghanistan because Russia has to fear much more for the resurgence of Taliban than US. Let the medieval societies evolve themselves and to police them is dangerous.
1
Joscelyn and Roggio have had the opportunty to defend "democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan by joining the Army or Marines and putting their boots on the ground. Instead they sit in Washington at a neo con think tank lobbing bombs at President Obama.
Afghanistan by any measure is a failed state that became a haven for radical islamic fundamentalism after the russians retreated with their tails between their legs.
There are no examples where military occupation has turned a failed state into a functioning democracy. Japan and Germany were not comparable to Afghanistan. Those countries had substantial experience with democracy before the fascists crushed their developing democracies and started WW2. After the war, those elements were removed and now Germany and Japan are highly evolved democracies.
Counter insurgency cannot exist in a failed state which has not established its legitimacy. Democratic societies are built with the establishment of trust, the creation of social capital and institutions which are transparent, legitimate and accountable. Then corruption is eradicated and the rule of law established.
It only took europe 1000 years to solve the problem of giving peasants human rights, solving the problem of the catholics and protestants killing each other, eliminating the diving right of kings to rule, granting women the vote, two world wars, the russian revolution and communism.
Europe now confronts Syria and its refugees. Whew.
Retired army officers.
Afghanistan by any measure is a failed state that became a haven for radical islamic fundamentalism after the russians retreated with their tails between their legs.
There are no examples where military occupation has turned a failed state into a functioning democracy. Japan and Germany were not comparable to Afghanistan. Those countries had substantial experience with democracy before the fascists crushed their developing democracies and started WW2. After the war, those elements were removed and now Germany and Japan are highly evolved democracies.
Counter insurgency cannot exist in a failed state which has not established its legitimacy. Democratic societies are built with the establishment of trust, the creation of social capital and institutions which are transparent, legitimate and accountable. Then corruption is eradicated and the rule of law established.
It only took europe 1000 years to solve the problem of giving peasants human rights, solving the problem of the catholics and protestants killing each other, eliminating the diving right of kings to rule, granting women the vote, two world wars, the russian revolution and communism.
Europe now confronts Syria and its refugees. Whew.
Retired army officers.
4
The allusions to Afghanistan as our 21st century Vietnam are apropos. We are once again engaged in asymmetrical war with an "enemy" we do not understand and whose roots are in the culture. If the people of the region cannot or will not bring themselves to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and embrace modernity, why should we bother? If they "win", however one might define the term, what are the spoils? The only sane policy is one of containment, in concert with other world powers, and that applies to the entire Middle East. Anything else is perpetual, deluded futility, if not globally destructive.
3
Better question: Why are we surprised? Every military leader said from the outset that the Taliban will melt away, fight a war of attrition and return once the US leaves the country. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation that doesn't have the will to fight corruption, extremism; it doesn't have any natural resources that is of interest for western exploitation (except for opiate production).
I ask all the "serious" people in the media, in government, what is the end game here? Indefinite American occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? We have a Congress who doesn't want to spend on American citizens, we're going to throw more blood and trillions more at countries that don't want us, that offer little return on investment?
I ask all the "serious" people in the media, in government, what is the end game here? Indefinite American occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? We have a Congress who doesn't want to spend on American citizens, we're going to throw more blood and trillions more at countries that don't want us, that offer little return on investment?
7
The US is like a brilliant oncologist who refuses to admit that the Taliban is a malignant tumor that can't be healed even by the most skilled of military hands. Even as our allies in the West count on our powerful military to root out Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, we can't bring ourselves to acknowledge that the cancer is invasive & has metastasized throughout the entire region. Rather than a benign tumor that can skillfully be extricated with modern medicine, this malignancy is no longer latent but has radically invaded the entire body of the Middle East & even the best radiation therapy cannot prevent death, but rather merely postpones the inevitable.
2
We like nations before us
Have spent our wealth and sent our children to be killed
For this country where women are treated like slaves and young children
Are freely abused.
We have spent a decade trying to bring peace and democracy to this place.
It is a tribal place so different from ours as to be inconceivable.
Enough. The people must rise up and do the job. They must defend with their lives their rights.
Our son is a Marine and he has been to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let someone else's son an Afghan son pick up the fight.
Get us out of the Middle East.
Make us energy independent with clean energy.
When the money dries up the weeds will die.
That must be where are priorities lie.
Have spent our wealth and sent our children to be killed
For this country where women are treated like slaves and young children
Are freely abused.
We have spent a decade trying to bring peace and democracy to this place.
It is a tribal place so different from ours as to be inconceivable.
Enough. The people must rise up and do the job. They must defend with their lives their rights.
Our son is a Marine and he has been to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let someone else's son an Afghan son pick up the fight.
Get us out of the Middle East.
Make us energy independent with clean energy.
When the money dries up the weeds will die.
That must be where are priorities lie.
6
Hummm.... Boy, I really wish that I had a Brig. General to ask questions about that 30 square mile training camp that required "one of the largest joint ground assault operations we have ever conducted in Afghanistan", and that required "days" to conduct, 63 air-strikes and "200 ground troops, including both Americans and Afghan commandos".
Sounds like it was a hum-dinger.
Too bad that no one asked the esteemed General how it was that no one ever noticed a 30-square mile training base being erected right under the General's nose. Didn't anyone ever check the photos that our satellites take every day? Guess not. Everyone must have been too busy trying to pinpoint exactly where the Doctors Without Borders hospital was.... or the exact location of Tora Bora....
You know, defeating the Talibans never required rocket science. All it ever required was defending and protecting the women and children, breaking their rabid hold through laws, education, and food. Instead, we have let them starve in the camps, wasted an entire generation and let their narco-kings enslave them with Sharia law. Oh, and allowed their fields that used to grow vegetables to become the Number One producer of opium.
Time for us to come home. We are incompetent. The military/industrial complex has made enough profit off this venture and it turns out they are incompetent, too. Sorry to be the one to tell you this, boys, but you are not going to get the pipeline nor the $3 trillion in minerals.
Game over.
Sounds like it was a hum-dinger.
Too bad that no one asked the esteemed General how it was that no one ever noticed a 30-square mile training base being erected right under the General's nose. Didn't anyone ever check the photos that our satellites take every day? Guess not. Everyone must have been too busy trying to pinpoint exactly where the Doctors Without Borders hospital was.... or the exact location of Tora Bora....
You know, defeating the Talibans never required rocket science. All it ever required was defending and protecting the women and children, breaking their rabid hold through laws, education, and food. Instead, we have let them starve in the camps, wasted an entire generation and let their narco-kings enslave them with Sharia law. Oh, and allowed their fields that used to grow vegetables to become the Number One producer of opium.
Time for us to come home. We are incompetent. The military/industrial complex has made enough profit off this venture and it turns out they are incompetent, too. Sorry to be the one to tell you this, boys, but you are not going to get the pipeline nor the $3 trillion in minerals.
Game over.
6
In fact the Afghans and their American allies have to adopt an approach that helps solve the long-term problems in Afghanistan - to deal with the disaffected youth, who, lacking education and job prospects fall prey to Islamists, like the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda affiliates.
As long as the socio-economic problems are not being addressed by Ashraf Ghani, poverty will always nurture extremism. The same problem faces Pakistan. Since its border with Afghanistan is porous, the mountainous region is an ideal hideout for Islamist extremists of all stripes.
Washington has urge the government in Kabul to forge national unity, because the Pashtuns spawn the Taliban.
As long as the socio-economic problems are not being addressed by Ashraf Ghani, poverty will always nurture extremism. The same problem faces Pakistan. Since its border with Afghanistan is porous, the mountainous region is an ideal hideout for Islamist extremists of all stripes.
Washington has urge the government in Kabul to forge national unity, because the Pashtuns spawn the Taliban.
1
Our strategy in Afghanistan shouldn't be based on surging troops or giving the government "breathing room." If 14 years wasn't enough to create a stable partner another 2 years or 3 years isn't going to cut it either. Rather, we should determine how many soldiers we can afford to keep fighting this endless war in perpetuity without paying a price that's too high in blood and treasure. Because, frankly, the Afghan government isn't going to get much more competent. It's soldiers are still going to run away when met with underwhelming force. Radical Islamists aren't going to settle down and negotiate because they would far rather blow up little girls trying to get an education. They just need to be killed in sufficient numbers for them not to overrun the relative few bastions of stability that remain in that hellish country... and basically keep their operations to a minimum and to the outskirts. Our policy should be about defending the high ground not fighting the tide.
Somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand troops is probably enough. Once the Taliban realizes that these soldiers aren't going to leave.. ever. And drones will never leave, ever. The situation on the ground may stabilize, because the Taliban calculus and ambition might change ever so slightly... towards consolidating gains rather than further deadly and failed attempted expansion.
Somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand troops is probably enough. Once the Taliban realizes that these soldiers aren't going to leave.. ever. And drones will never leave, ever. The situation on the ground may stabilize, because the Taliban calculus and ambition might change ever so slightly... towards consolidating gains rather than further deadly and failed attempted expansion.
1
To answer the headline's question: No, we can't be 'losing Afghanistan again' because we never had it to start with. It wasn't lost in the first place when the Taliban took over after the Soviets left and it can't be lost now as we leave.
Because no country has ever had Afghanistan except Afghanistan. There is little need for intricate analyses of the situation on the ground. Just read a little history, some of it so recent that it still counts as current-event literature.
Alas, we are Americans, and think ourselves so exceptional that history does not hold lessons for us. So we will be in Afghanistan until forced to leave like the Soviets were, and for the same reason--that our empire is soon to disintegrate.
Because no country has ever had Afghanistan except Afghanistan. There is little need for intricate analyses of the situation on the ground. Just read a little history, some of it so recent that it still counts as current-event literature.
Alas, we are Americans, and think ourselves so exceptional that history does not hold lessons for us. So we will be in Afghanistan until forced to leave like the Soviets were, and for the same reason--that our empire is soon to disintegrate.
4
We're never going to able to "solve" this with more troops alone. An important reason that has more and more people joining the Taliban and AQ is because of the corruption and unfulfilled promises of the government the US has put in place. Although corruption is almost always forgotten in these contexts, it is a main driving force for recruitment. If the government can't and won't protect its people, if the governments' officials fully participate in this corruption, all the way to the lowest levels, there is no way the Afghan people are going to support it. Anything from getting a new car to obtaining grades for children at school is subject to potential corruption...And the US and allies, though they may not directly support this corruption, they also don't do anything to stop it. Continuing to support the corrupt government, makes them as guilty as the one's perpetrating the crimes. Command responsibility. Something we often forget.
1
There has not been a true open ground war, by two conventional armies, since the Korean Conflict in the early 1950s. That is, except for that brief aberration when Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard stood and fought the US-led "Army of the Willing" (or bribed to participate) in a tank battle where the Iraqis were outmatched and quickly annihilated.
A conventional army, no matter its firepower and manpower, is no match for local guerrillas. They know the culture, the language, and often have local ethnic and tribal ties. The guerrillas are fighting invaders/occupiers for their homeland. All the conventional powers have to fight for is their egos.
As Mao Zedong wrote in "On Guerrilla Warfare", guerrillas can swim with the fishes. They are hard to detect since they blend-in with the local population. Super-powers are easy to spot, don't follow local customs and are regarded as "outsiders".
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
A conventional army, no matter its firepower and manpower, is no match for local guerrillas. They know the culture, the language, and often have local ethnic and tribal ties. The guerrillas are fighting invaders/occupiers for their homeland. All the conventional powers have to fight for is their egos.
As Mao Zedong wrote in "On Guerrilla Warfare", guerrillas can swim with the fishes. They are hard to detect since they blend-in with the local population. Super-powers are easy to spot, don't follow local customs and are regarded as "outsiders".
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
Once Osama bin Laden was dead, we didn't need to be in Afghanistan.
You cannot bring freedom, much less democracy, to a people who believe that no law shall contradict the {insert name of preferred Holy Book}.
Until the people of Afghanistan toss aside their Holy Book and replace it with the Declaration of Independence written in 1776, they will be unable to support freedom in their country.
We should leave. We have done too much, and the Afghanis need to figure out how to do for themselves. If they lose their lives to the Taliban once again, so be it. If the Taliban setup jihadist training camps, we can bomb them without sending Americans to die.
You cannot bring freedom, much less democracy, to a people who believe that no law shall contradict the {insert name of preferred Holy Book}.
Until the people of Afghanistan toss aside their Holy Book and replace it with the Declaration of Independence written in 1776, they will be unable to support freedom in their country.
We should leave. We have done too much, and the Afghanis need to figure out how to do for themselves. If they lose their lives to the Taliban once again, so be it. If the Taliban setup jihadist training camps, we can bomb them without sending Americans to die.
3
The USA is spending too much on Social Security, Medicare and other useless home-grown civil programs. Alarmingly, some politicians are even threatening infrastructure projects and free education.
Let's be perfectly clear: We need to tighten our belts or risk losing the unique once-in-a-millennium opportunity to conquer the entire planet. It is truly unconscionable that there are still countries out there hosting NO American military bases. The latter must be quickly rectified; Washington needs to attend to this shortfall even if it means defunding all of the useless lefty arts.
I'm confident our peerless politicians will do what's right — particularly if they have the bountiful support of a sagacious electorate determined to re-capture past glories (e.g. electing the great G.W. Bush twice).
Let's be perfectly clear: We need to tighten our belts or risk losing the unique once-in-a-millennium opportunity to conquer the entire planet. It is truly unconscionable that there are still countries out there hosting NO American military bases. The latter must be quickly rectified; Washington needs to attend to this shortfall even if it means defunding all of the useless lefty arts.
I'm confident our peerless politicians will do what's right — particularly if they have the bountiful support of a sagacious electorate determined to re-capture past glories (e.g. electing the great G.W. Bush twice).
11
The greatest difficulty in killing cancer is to not kill the patient. The Taliban is just like a cancer that mutates, spreads and grows. After decades of our "treatments" the tumor is still active and spreading. We refuse to accept that our therapies cannot cure the disease. We have even implanted our own tumor, the Afghan regime, to combat the Taliban tumor. Hasn't worked.
We are slowly killing the patient. Our chemo is weakening the host. Doctors know that the body can only stand so much chemo. We are two decades into this thing and the host continues to weaken while the tumor spreads.
Military action cannot save the patient. Only a political settlement will bring the fighting to a close. Our policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists is preventing the conflict from reaching a conclusion. We want our guy to be in charge but we have no guy. This war is madness.
We are slowly killing the patient. Our chemo is weakening the host. Doctors know that the body can only stand so much chemo. We are two decades into this thing and the host continues to weaken while the tumor spreads.
Military action cannot save the patient. Only a political settlement will bring the fighting to a close. Our policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists is preventing the conflict from reaching a conclusion. We want our guy to be in charge but we have no guy. This war is madness.
2
Nathan Hale was an insurgent.
I understand why our country felt it necessary to invade Afghanistan. We needed to "bring to justice" the man who was responsible for 9/11. On the way, we deposed the Taliban government that protected bin Laden.
That was in 2001. It's 2015.
Were we ever convinced that Afghans might forswear their centuries old culture and embrace pluralistic democracy? Did we ever think that the Taliban and its medieval allies might be reduced to talking heads on Fox News Kandahar, spewing vitriol against gay people and women who haven't learned their place?
If not, then why are we still sending our children to die in the mountains of southern Asia? Why do we write blank checks to the military for unlimited operations designed to make exactly whom safe from exactly what?
As we see in our own country, the world is full of people who value superstition over reality. In some countries, such people are fully ascendant and backed by tradition and clan loyalties.
And yet we send troops, materiel, and money hither and yon and whine that someone "lost" some portion of the globe every time we of the Empire cannot overpower the Rebels. Are we so egocentric that we don't notice the lack of logic in any such "lost" claim? (It all started in 1948 with "Who lost China?")
Meanwhile, the people who would welcome our help, those who live within the boundaries of the United States and need no convincing, are left to wither, die, and blow away.
Are we losing America again?
I understand why our country felt it necessary to invade Afghanistan. We needed to "bring to justice" the man who was responsible for 9/11. On the way, we deposed the Taliban government that protected bin Laden.
That was in 2001. It's 2015.
Were we ever convinced that Afghans might forswear their centuries old culture and embrace pluralistic democracy? Did we ever think that the Taliban and its medieval allies might be reduced to talking heads on Fox News Kandahar, spewing vitriol against gay people and women who haven't learned their place?
If not, then why are we still sending our children to die in the mountains of southern Asia? Why do we write blank checks to the military for unlimited operations designed to make exactly whom safe from exactly what?
As we see in our own country, the world is full of people who value superstition over reality. In some countries, such people are fully ascendant and backed by tradition and clan loyalties.
And yet we send troops, materiel, and money hither and yon and whine that someone "lost" some portion of the globe every time we of the Empire cannot overpower the Rebels. Are we so egocentric that we don't notice the lack of logic in any such "lost" claim? (It all started in 1948 with "Who lost China?")
Meanwhile, the people who would welcome our help, those who live within the boundaries of the United States and need no convincing, are left to wither, die, and blow away.
Are we losing America again?
5
re Are We Losing Afghanistan Again?
Afghanistan was NEVER ours to lose.
The country is medieval and corrupt; Afghans are divided and unwilling to fight for their own country.
We should withdraw completely from Afghanistan now. No more American blood, energy, or financial resources should be wasted in this G--forsaken
land.
Afghanistan was NEVER ours to lose.
The country is medieval and corrupt; Afghans are divided and unwilling to fight for their own country.
We should withdraw completely from Afghanistan now. No more American blood, energy, or financial resources should be wasted in this G--forsaken
land.
18
All the talk about a fence across our southern border, put the fence around this tribe of radicals and let them have it. Just make sure none get out.
I despair that purported experts such as the authors seem to have never read any history at all. Since the time of its conversion to Islam this area, now known as Afghanistan to the West, has been a knackers yard for foreign soldiers and colonists. The tribal fighters have always believed that victory is due to the mujahadeen's faith in Allah alone. This wasteland has never been worth a single American life. We should have bombed the place into a pile of rubble in revenge for 9/11 and never set foot there.
8
Read the history of Afghanistan. Had people in power in Washington done so, there would have been no invasion.
8
Doesn't anyone actually read about Afghanistan's long history? Chaos is par for the course in this god forsaken outpost on the globe. Doesn't anyone get that war is a right of passage for rural Afghan young men? They've been at this for a couple of thousand years so the notion that this misadventure could end up any other way was always a fantasy. We can't fix a place that doesn't want to be fixed.
6
There are civil wars going on in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan/South Sudan. Under the rubric " The-War-on-Terror," the US has inserted itself into each of these conflicts, and in the game of who won/who lost the decision in- "we" the American people are the losers.
Let's let these people, who seem to hate each other, fight until they destroy enough of their countries that they give up in exhaustion, and make peace with each other.
This may take years, centuries, or millennia, but it will happen.
In the mean time let us tend to our own gardens which are withering from neglect.
Let's let these people, who seem to hate each other, fight until they destroy enough of their countries that they give up in exhaustion, and make peace with each other.
This may take years, centuries, or millennia, but it will happen.
In the mean time let us tend to our own gardens which are withering from neglect.
71
The problem is that these groups fighting each other, seem to have a constant supply of funds from the Gulf States and from Iran (private donors?) and many countries ( Russia, Israel, Brazil...) are eager to supply arms to 'balance 'their budgets.
Gone are the days when wars could eventually stop, after fighters exhausted their funds/armaments. This will never happen again....
Gone are the days when wars could eventually stop, after fighters exhausted their funds/armaments. This will never happen again....
To ask if we are losing it suggests we owned it; have we developed an empire?
4
We never "held" Afghanistan! Our political leaders, to justify their own militaristic and short sighted adventures told us we did. To the average Afghani, we were just occupier who would, God willing, go the way of all past occupiers and disappear from their land. Most of the Middle-East feels the exact same way about our military presence yet we delude ourselves and keep pretending our presence is essential for a better future. That future has to come from the local populations when they'll be ready for it, not from our aerial bombings.
11
The longest war In U.S. history. A massive U.S. financed military training program which reveals Afghani troops whose determination to fight evaporates on the battlefield. A country that obviously does not have the resolve to fight against the Taliban. And against all this hard learned evidence what should the U.S. do; insert another 25K troops into a hopeless situation. News flash the Afghani people don't want us there. Thanks to the NYT for once again giving a platform to Neo Con thought. They did it once before in the hard news section of their paper and will NEVER live it down.
16
Mr Joscelyn and Mr. Roggio seem committed to just what their journal says; "The Long War". Maybe they should retitle their journal "The Endless War". Afghans may not "identify with the Taliban or Al Qaeda", but they sure seem willing to do nothing to stop them. And while we're at it, when will we stop calling every Muslim with a gun a terrorist? These groups are focused, well trained and well armed---I call that more like an army. We didn't call the NVA and Viet Cong "terrorists" as I recall. Now we seem willing and able to get along. I'm ready for a little diplomacy mixed in with our bombs.
2
Bin Laden is dead, as is Mullah Omar and most of the rest who rest who had anything to do with 9/11 The Taliban isn't going anyplace, because they're the Pashtun people who live there. It's long past time for us to leave.
13
Unless we're prepared to stay in Afghanistan with 250,000 troops for at least 5,000 years (no, make that 25,000 years), there is no chance to defeat the radicals. They're stronger, smarter, tougher and more determined than us.
And besides, they're who the average Muslim want to be controlled by.
And besides, they're who the average Muslim want to be controlled by.
7
Of course Al Qaeda is coming back in. And the Taliban is back in control of more and more territory. This is why it was nonsensical to wage war there to begin with. We'd have to stay there permanently, and maintain a puppet government or treat it as a colony indefinitely, in order to keep indigenous cohorts from regaining power. Permanent military domination is undoubtedly what the Bush administration had in mind. They would have reasoned that the nation would balk at removing our troops once the Taliban regained ground and Al Qaeda creeped back in. And indeed, Obama waivers, not wanting to be seen as the "loser". If Bush and Cheney had been as farsighted with domestic policy, this might still be a great country.
3
"Are we losing Afghanistan again?"
We never had it to lose in the first place. Whoever picked the title of the article is naive at best.
We never had it to lose in the first place. Whoever picked the title of the article is naive at best.
8
We lost Afghanistan long ago when we chose to prop up a corrupt puppet regime. The Taliban are taking control because, even though the people hate them, they only demand one payoff not the multiple payoffs at all levels demanded by Afghan government.
Putting 20 - 25000 Americans in country to support that regime just makes us targets.
Putting 20 - 25000 Americans in country to support that regime just makes us targets.
2
How many people care if we lose Afghanistan again and what does it matter if we lose? We should not even be there as our presence serves no valid purpose.
7
Your question is baseless. We never "won" Afghanistan. Throughout history countries that tried have paid a huge price. The war in Afghanistan was about punishing Al Queda for 9-11. It was not to become the defacto government for the country. For 15 years we have held Al Queda and Taliban (which is not a foreign power) at bay. We have helped Afghanistan stand up a democratic government and given them $billions in military aid and equipment. If they are unable to control their country by now, we need to accept reality about the nature of their culture as other nations who have tried to conquer and control Afghanistan have learned.
1
"Are we losing Afghanistan again?"
When did we have it?
When did we have it?
6
Winning Afghanistan is like the dentist asking if you'd like your root canal with no novicane or have him just punch you in the face until you pass out!
The troops have done everything they possibly could to improve a place that wants no improvement and has played us like a fiddle for huge amounts of money which I believe actually went to the people we are fighting.
We look at these countries and think "Oh my gosh, who would want to live like this" and that's our biggest mistake. There are a lot of people and a lot of countries who actually do. We can't keep sending our brave (and they are very brave) men and women into cesspools because 3 people actually want their country to possibly enter the 1800s. 2015 is way too much of a stretch. But it is funny that they love the Internet and sophisticated weaponry. Get us OUT of the entire region.
The troops have done everything they possibly could to improve a place that wants no improvement and has played us like a fiddle for huge amounts of money which I believe actually went to the people we are fighting.
We look at these countries and think "Oh my gosh, who would want to live like this" and that's our biggest mistake. There are a lot of people and a lot of countries who actually do. We can't keep sending our brave (and they are very brave) men and women into cesspools because 3 people actually want their country to possibly enter the 1800s. 2015 is way too much of a stretch. But it is funny that they love the Internet and sophisticated weaponry. Get us OUT of the entire region.
2
Will the United States ever learn? We cannot sustain our beliefs a half world away. No empire in history has ever been able to do this; why we should spill lives and treasure over this AGAIN is a mystery to me.
4
Solve the mystery. Start in the upper left-hand corner. It's a 6-letter space. 3rd letter is r. 6th letter is n. The clue is: It is now found in every town & city in America, but used to be rare & only in big urban centers.
We don't seem to learn that we cannot fight ideology with military advisers, guns and bombs. Yet we continue to believe this is true.
These perpetual wars are never "ours" to "win."
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
These perpetual wars are never "ours" to "win."
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
2
We never ever "had" Afganistan to lose. Not our country, never ever was. THe mission was a Tom Clancy fantasy only with real people dying: men women and children. Afganistan was and is being driven even further that it was into poverty, and America is poorer in everyway imaginable for what we did.
4
You can't lose what you never had.
4
Afghanistan was not ours to lose. You might say we are losing in Afghanistan, but what were we trying to win? Should we ever have been there in the first place? It's time to stop trying to run other people's countries and solve all their problems.
34
This is a recipe for endless war. Is that really what is required to maintain the freedoms that all of us presumably value?
The mistake here is thinking that Afghanistan was something the United States should have tried to "win" in the first place. We should have destroyed Al Quada and left it to Afghanistan to sort things out. If The Taliban permitted Al Quada to start up again, we should have destroyed it again. It's not the job of the US military to impose a national identity on a foreign country.
1
"Losing Afghanistan"? The premise of this article is that Afghanistan belongs to America. Did anyone check with the Afghanis?
3
This is a country that was ignored when it was possible to help it regain it's feet but instead Ronald Raygun ignored as he did with the Israeli Palestinian peace talks.
time to leave.
time to leave.
3
It's not so much the numbers of US troops on the ground but what they are doing that will or won't make a difference in Afghanistan. For example, the Pentagon spends much time carefully parceling out proportionate shares of deployment "opportunities" between the various services, more for reasons of keeping internal political peace in the DoD than having any effect on the battlefield. The result is thousands of Navy and Air Force personnel, who are not ground troops, being deployed to a ground war, in a land locked country, to basically Be There (to paraphrase the classic Kosinski novella and later movie). Adding to this surreal inertia is the reality that many troops sent down range are under strict instructions to, in military speak "stay in your lane." Instead of advancing the counterinsurgency mission in a relevant, multi-tasking way they are understandably preoccupied with a narrow set of bureaucratic tasks, focusing on not making any trouble and leaving quietly with some appropriate awards. Meanwhile the special forces elements are cowboys essentially left to their own devices rather than being an integral part of a larger, coherent strategy. This is not a recipe for success, and we are seeing the results.
1
The headline " Are We Losing Afghanistan Again? " is misleading. How can you lose a country that was never conquered? incidentally, not a single third world country invaded by US expeditionary forces since WWII was ever conquered/disciplined. Afghanistan is not going to be the first or the last one.
35
You are not serious?
Too many American lives and money has been spent.
Send your kid.
Too many American lives and money has been spent.
Send your kid.
3
Editors of The Long War Journal & other neo's foundational myths for Sunni jihadism ignore generations of Gulf funded madrasas indoctrination in Wahhabism. We can't understand Sunni jihadism if we ignore the history & evangelical propagation of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia & other Gulf states.
2
"Are we losing Afghanistan again?" Did we ever "had" it in the first place?
No one has ever succeeded in Afghanistan. Neither the British, nor the Russians, and now not the Americans. But politicians everywhere just does not seem to understand/learn/care.
No one has ever succeeded in Afghanistan. Neither the British, nor the Russians, and now not the Americans. But politicians everywhere just does not seem to understand/learn/care.
1
Not even Alexander!
We don't have a real president right now. We have a fantasy president in Obama. He thinks he is winning in his own fantasy world, but he is being left out of all relevant discussions dealing with world power, like Assad with Putin recently.
Assad is not a world power and Putin just wants to be.
Our president leads us toward peace.
The ugliness is all around us still,
but working with our partners in Europe and China we are making progress.
I have lived thru the awful hysteria of the Vietnam War,
and the lies of the Bush wars.
We are being pushed to be a juggernaut of endless war....
We must resist.
I am so proud of our President Obama.
He has been a strong steady thoughtful leader.
And a leader for peace.
Our president leads us toward peace.
The ugliness is all around us still,
but working with our partners in Europe and China we are making progress.
I have lived thru the awful hysteria of the Vietnam War,
and the lies of the Bush wars.
We are being pushed to be a juggernaut of endless war....
We must resist.
I am so proud of our President Obama.
He has been a strong steady thoughtful leader.
And a leader for peace.
I am a Black lawyer in Washington DC, I work on Capitol Hill.
Fortunately, I speak enough Russian to understand Vladimir Putin's speech to the UN General Assembly.
The NYT and CNN did not translate Putin's words correctly, and intentionally so. Putin called Obama a child, an inexperienced, incompetent, arrogant clown. Russian men, especially powerful Russian men do not use facial expressions and rarely convey emotion.
Putin looked incredulous as he spoke of Obama, underscoring what an abysmal failure our president is. Obama? A strong steady leader? This year I have traveled extensively in Europe. I always stop and scan newsstands or watch telecasts when American news is on. Every major country in Europe portrays Obama as a clown. That's all of them.
America is less respected and trusted less around the world during the Obama presidency than the Bush presidencies. Combined.
Here at home, a recent Ivy League study showed that every economic indicator used to measure quality of life in America shows Blacks suffering during the Obama presidency more than any racial group in America. The last time that happened? Slavery.
You are proud of Barack Obama?
Good. That makes one of you.
Fortunately, I speak enough Russian to understand Vladimir Putin's speech to the UN General Assembly.
The NYT and CNN did not translate Putin's words correctly, and intentionally so. Putin called Obama a child, an inexperienced, incompetent, arrogant clown. Russian men, especially powerful Russian men do not use facial expressions and rarely convey emotion.
Putin looked incredulous as he spoke of Obama, underscoring what an abysmal failure our president is. Obama? A strong steady leader? This year I have traveled extensively in Europe. I always stop and scan newsstands or watch telecasts when American news is on. Every major country in Europe portrays Obama as a clown. That's all of them.
America is less respected and trusted less around the world during the Obama presidency than the Bush presidencies. Combined.
Here at home, a recent Ivy League study showed that every economic indicator used to measure quality of life in America shows Blacks suffering during the Obama presidency more than any racial group in America. The last time that happened? Slavery.
You are proud of Barack Obama?
Good. That makes one of you.
I thought we has lost the whole shooting match when I read that US troops were guarding the poppy fields of the Afgans. What were we fighting for?
2
Of course the Taliban will win because the Americans tell them when they are going home so all they do is wait.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
The photograph shows "Taliban militants" wearing sneakers and sandals. Doesn't seem like they are well equipped to fight a war. Do they have an air force? What about a Navy? Do they have any armored divisions? What about their artillery? Why is it taking so long (15 years so far) to defeat this enemy?
Obama has a difficult job on hand, as had Bush before him, and as will his successor after him. Most of the countries in the Middle East are badly run and give little scope for the use of the services and energies of the youth. As a result, many of them, unable to find jobs or something to do with themselves, become easy recruits to jihadists who claim to speak in the name of Allah and to work for the glory of Islam. Slogans like Allah-o-Akbar find instant response and legions of youth – they have nothing else to do. Countries of the Middle East (and many other countries) will continue to be badly run in the foreseeable future. We cannot expect that 10,000 or 25,000 US troops shall be able to make a long-lasting difference to the state of things obtaining in Afghanistan at present, for instance. Nor am I suggesting that USA and other countries should start considering plans for the better governance of the Middle East countries. But this is a problem which perhaps we should not leave sight of – if we expect to do anything effective, at least in the long run. The short run is messed up any way. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 21 Oct 2015, 1614 IST
I know it sounds crazy, but now that we are also in bed with Iran, we should let them go in, as they have in Syria and Iraq. They have a long history together, including a common language (for most Afghans), over 1mn refugees in Iran, ....and we share a mutual hate of ISIS/AQ/Taliban.
1
Just when I think Americans are weary of perpetual war, another one gets started. How long before we send boots on the ground to Iran or Syria or Ukraine. As for Afghanistan, the people there have few possession, value life poorly and can easily wait us out for decades, they have little to lose. They are in a tough neighborhood where everyone seeks to use them. The only reasonable solution is to let India take over control there, they are seeking that for strategic reasons.
2
The title to this piece is misleading. We cannot "lose again" that which has never been won. Talk to the ghosts of Alexander the Great's soldiers, or the British soldiers or Russian soldiers who died in Afghanistan and they will all tell you the same thing. That meme about the "graveyard of empires" is not merely an aphorism, it is the reality of Afghanistan. Recognizing a foolish and bloody mistake is one thing; continuing with the same mistake is criminal.
40
With respect, Alexander the Great did conquer Afghanistan, as did the Mongols. Now you can make the legitimate point those were respectively 2300 and 800 years ago, but you can't say they didn't do it, that's historically inaccurate.
When did "we" ever have Afghanistan?
2
We never won it the first time around. How many smart people does it take to be so very stupid about this?
2
The only reason Obama is holding the troops there is so he won't have it blow up in his face before his term ends. The Taliban have known all along that all they had to do is wait until we left. In the meantime they have built their network and gotten combat training.
This is just throwing good money after bad. We should have stopped with the ouster of the Taliban. Nation building anyway is risky and prone to fail without an overwhelming amount of troops and funding, doing it in Afghanistan is like building a sand castle with no water.
1
"Are we losing Afghanistan again?"
I would point out to the authors of this article, 'senior fellows' apparently, that it is doubtful it was OURS to lose.
You write as if putting more troops into this ages old battle ground would be the 'miracle in the mountains' ignoring completely our 'ally', Pakistan, a country which has given aid and comfort to our enemies these many years and will help sustain the Taliban as it keeps India on it's toes.
Have either of you held a rifle, gone out on patrol or watched friends mangled and killed in a completely useless cause?
Here is the actual number of American troops that should be stationed there; zero.
Mr. Obama has, apparently, lied to all of us when he vowed our withdrawal out of this miserable wasteland. 25,000 troops then 50,000 troops then just another 20,000 or so; sounds very familiar and it would be equally as effective as it was in Vietnam with General Westmoreland.
Perhaps it's time to heed Bob Seegar:
"Neck deep in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on."
Get out now before more young men and women come home mangled or in body bags for a cause that is unsustainable.
I would point out to the authors of this article, 'senior fellows' apparently, that it is doubtful it was OURS to lose.
You write as if putting more troops into this ages old battle ground would be the 'miracle in the mountains' ignoring completely our 'ally', Pakistan, a country which has given aid and comfort to our enemies these many years and will help sustain the Taliban as it keeps India on it's toes.
Have either of you held a rifle, gone out on patrol or watched friends mangled and killed in a completely useless cause?
Here is the actual number of American troops that should be stationed there; zero.
Mr. Obama has, apparently, lied to all of us when he vowed our withdrawal out of this miserable wasteland. 25,000 troops then 50,000 troops then just another 20,000 or so; sounds very familiar and it would be equally as effective as it was in Vietnam with General Westmoreland.
Perhaps it's time to heed Bob Seegar:
"Neck deep in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on."
Get out now before more young men and women come home mangled or in body bags for a cause that is unsustainable.
3
Pete Seeger, not Bob.
"We?" We never had it, and never could have Afghanistan. We never wanted it. That said, one US administration overthrew the Taliban and chased bin Laden into Pakistan. We should have declared Mission Accomplished and left Afghanistan to its own after that, come what may. Now it is the Obama administration and its lack of policy, strategy, will or common sense that is about to 'lose' Afghanistan and we are going to end up where we should have ended up in 2002 - pulling out and leaving these pre-modern tribes to sort it out themselves.
America can not and should not be the police force for the world. We have tried time and time again, spending trillions off the backs of our people, to right the world. We have limitations in our ability to force the world to be as we wish it. None of what we have done since 9/11 has done a thing to make any of the countries we have been involved with actually better. If they can not stand on their own by now, what is the point. Does anyone really see a better outcome or will the Taliban just wait it out. Something tells me they will just wait us out. One hundred years is nothing to these people. How long do we plan to stay? Also who is paying for all this security? Afghanistan?
25
How can you loose something that was never ours to loose. The fait or triumph of Afghanistan is held by those that live there.
The authors of this column THOMAS JOSCELYN and BILL ROGGIO state:
"We don’t think 5,500 troops is enough. No one is calling for a full-scale occupation of the country. But a force of as many as 20,000 to 25,000 would far better support our local Afghan allies, helping them defend multiple provincial capitals at the same time and fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their strongholds.”
Roggio’s military experience was as an enlisted signalman and infantry GI in the early 1990s. He has written blatantly false comments in “The Long War Journal” with Joscelyn. My military officer spouse is inurned in the National Cemetery of the Pacific; my friends who are general officers agree with our Commander-in-Chief and REALLY want to get out of the Middle East soon.
Roggio and his fellow “journalist” (I doubt their current ideas) can come out from behind their blog which SHOULD read “The Long Unwinnable Slog” and re-enlist if they want to send over more troops. If they want to die for nothing-OK but send no more friends and family to their certain death.
Let the Middle East fight their own wars. If by horrific chance Ted Cruz or Donald Trump (or even the “smart” Bush-JEB!) becomes our 45th Commander-in-Chief we WILL end up in a REAL Nuclear Winter. Climate Change will no longer be the world’s top problem.
It is time this madness ends. We killed UBL..let’s return to nation building HERE!
"We don’t think 5,500 troops is enough. No one is calling for a full-scale occupation of the country. But a force of as many as 20,000 to 25,000 would far better support our local Afghan allies, helping them defend multiple provincial capitals at the same time and fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their strongholds.”
Roggio’s military experience was as an enlisted signalman and infantry GI in the early 1990s. He has written blatantly false comments in “The Long War Journal” with Joscelyn. My military officer spouse is inurned in the National Cemetery of the Pacific; my friends who are general officers agree with our Commander-in-Chief and REALLY want to get out of the Middle East soon.
Roggio and his fellow “journalist” (I doubt their current ideas) can come out from behind their blog which SHOULD read “The Long Unwinnable Slog” and re-enlist if they want to send over more troops. If they want to die for nothing-OK but send no more friends and family to their certain death.
Let the Middle East fight their own wars. If by horrific chance Ted Cruz or Donald Trump (or even the “smart” Bush-JEB!) becomes our 45th Commander-in-Chief we WILL end up in a REAL Nuclear Winter. Climate Change will no longer be the world’s top problem.
It is time this madness ends. We killed UBL..let’s return to nation building HERE!
6
Saying that G W Bush did not devote sufficient resources to finish the fight in Afghanistan is, at best, a half truth, as our struggle there has not really been with the Taliban so much as it as been with the perfidious Pakistanis who have sheltered, supported, armed, and tasked them in their opposition to us all along. So unless we were willing to nuke Pakistan back to the Stone Age, there really was no way to end the insurgency in Afghanistan because our real enemy throughout the process has been Pakistan.
But our interest in Afghanistan does not require a stable and secure state. Our sole interest there is that we not be attacked from there, which means that our true goal should be simply to deny al Qaeda and their Taliban protectors control of sufficient territory and resources to do so.
Our interests would be best served by a series of punitive expeditions whose purpose would be to lay waste to as much as possible and to kill and disable as much of our enemies as can be done thereby. Bribe the various tribes to continue to oppose them, foment a thousand years of internecine strife. Return as needed to clean the rats' nest out then withdraw and let them know we will repeat the process every time they tick us off. They are perfectly welcome to their preferred theocracy within their own borders so long as they leave us alone.
But our interest in Afghanistan does not require a stable and secure state. Our sole interest there is that we not be attacked from there, which means that our true goal should be simply to deny al Qaeda and their Taliban protectors control of sufficient territory and resources to do so.
Our interests would be best served by a series of punitive expeditions whose purpose would be to lay waste to as much as possible and to kill and disable as much of our enemies as can be done thereby. Bribe the various tribes to continue to oppose them, foment a thousand years of internecine strife. Return as needed to clean the rats' nest out then withdraw and let them know we will repeat the process every time they tick us off. They are perfectly welcome to their preferred theocracy within their own borders so long as they leave us alone.
1
Of course we're losing. This is an endless game of whack-a-mole.
17
"Are we losing Afghanistan Again?"
We never had it to lose. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Brits, so long ago. Afghanistan defies occupation. Look at history, because those who don't are bound to repeat it.
We do not have the money or the resources to permanently occupy every nation that will happily foster Al Qaeda. They are like rats after a flood - the worse the stink and damage the better they fare.
We had better come up with a solution that doesn't involve only US troops and doesn't involve occupation, because rats have a tendency to survive intractably, no matter what you do to try to get rid of them.
We never had it to lose. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Brits, so long ago. Afghanistan defies occupation. Look at history, because those who don't are bound to repeat it.
We do not have the money or the resources to permanently occupy every nation that will happily foster Al Qaeda. They are like rats after a flood - the worse the stink and damage the better they fare.
We had better come up with a solution that doesn't involve only US troops and doesn't involve occupation, because rats have a tendency to survive intractably, no matter what you do to try to get rid of them.
22
Just satellite image & drone-bomb the poppy areas every 90 days, and get out otherwise. If we did this the Taliban would probably behave without any other instigation. Instead we aggravate them white our Western military and let them kill our kids with heroin. This is the money cart before the decency horse.
7
The issue to be addressed is not Afghanistan or Syria or Libiya.. but the ideology that inspires Taliban/ISIS and a host of similar outfits within and outside the Muslim countries? While literature on Afghanistan and Syria/Libiya..... is mounting day after day the issue of what draws multitudes of educated and well off youth towards these organizations remains to become a subject of discussion in print and electronic media.Why?
4
Who is behind the ideology of putting all these terrorists in one place in Afghanistan? It was a US company Unocal and the CIA supported by Pakistan and the Saudis who trained over 100,000 terrorists and misplaced fighters from Afghanistan to protect a pipeline (TAPI) and trained to commit acts of terrorism in Russia.
Obama, ignored the warning by a CIA White Paper not to make the same mistake in Syria as with Afghanistan. Not bring different kinds of terrorists from all over the world into one place to fight against Assad's government. The first result was ISIS, and now both Russia and Iran are in the way of yet another pipeline this time from Qatar or Iran.
Obama, ignored the warning by a CIA White Paper not to make the same mistake in Syria as with Afghanistan. Not bring different kinds of terrorists from all over the world into one place to fight against Assad's government. The first result was ISIS, and now both Russia and Iran are in the way of yet another pipeline this time from Qatar or Iran.
The issue to be addressed is not Afghanistan or Syria or Libiya.. but the ideology that inspires the US to invade and destroy country after country for the benefit of rapacious corporations and narcissistic politicians and generals.
We all knew it would end this way.
Democracy comes from within, not by export from the West. The West has never understood Afghanistan.
Yes, we will ride off into the sunset and sunrise will bring back the old ways of thousands of years. We must learn to accept what we cannot change.
Democracy comes from within, not by export from the West. The West has never understood Afghanistan.
Yes, we will ride off into the sunset and sunrise will bring back the old ways of thousands of years. We must learn to accept what we cannot change.
14
Shift in US policy in Afghanistan is not entirely based on Kundoz incident. Putin apparently has outmaneuvered Obama in Syria and this could be a counter move by Obama administration to stay in Afghanistan till 2017. Syrian folks are utterly devastated with US/west foreign policy in the middle east. Half million Syrian are dead; six to eight million civilians internally and externally displaced, consequently Syria looks like a pre-historic civilization. US/west, Russia, Iran and Gulf monarchs have used Syrians as sacrificial lambs and these ruthless players are directly responsible for this bloodbath/mayhem. Russia/Iran/Assad are in a win-win situation for time being but it could be an American plot to get Russia sucked into Syrian conflict to the extent where there is no going back. US has suffered heavily in Afghanistan and Iraq; Its Libyan policy is in tatters, Egypt/Yemen is another fiasco though el Sisi is in power. Russia has 15 percent Muslim populations and her ruthless bombings in Syria leading to the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of Syrian folks could have deadly repercussions at the home turf. Russia either did not learn lessons from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingustia, and Georgia. Middle east is on fire; Turkey Lebanon are in the center of this apocalyptic storm, Palestine/Jerusalem are soaking in blood....looks like beginning of the end scenario. Are we foreseeing a Third world war or actually it has already been started since nine eleven?
3
"Are "We" Losing Afghanistan Again?"...did "we" ever have it? Is it "ours"? Seriously. We need to realize that we do not own or control other people and countries...
43
If there ever was a POTUS who lacked the spine,fortitude and most importantly, the competence to be Commander-in-Chief it is the current occupant of the White House.What a disaster he has proven to be.
2
When are the American people going to demand an accounting from the military for its failures in the Middle East? Rather than Benghazi, the Republican congress should look into a decade and a half of military failures.
21
We never had Afghanistan. At no point during the entire 14 years the US has been there have we and what passes for the government had complete control of the entire country. At best we had the major cities and some corridors. 60% at most and now its well below 50%. In that famous counter insurgency manual Petraeus co-authored it was estimated that to have any chance of pacifying the country permanently would require a reliable force of around 650,000 men, take ten years and require the expenditure of vast amounts of money. This would effectively mean direct American rule. The US is not and never was prepared for an undertaking on this scale. Even the authors of this piece are only suggesting a force of 25,000 which is about the same number that were there from 2002 to 2008 when the ramp up commenced and about as much use. What their proposal amounts to is that the US maintains a combat force of around 25,000 in Afghanistan and spends maybe 20 billion a year in perpetuity. All we're doing whether it's with 5000 or 25,000 is putting off the evil day of recognizing that it's all been a failure.
24
Imagine what would happen if the Taliban invaded and tried to occupy the United States. Get my point?
14
Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a disaster made in the US of A.
It was cold warrior Ronnie Rayguns who armed and lavishly funded the Afghan fundamentalists who changed their name to Taliban then gave bin Laden sanctuary and al Qaida an entire country to hone their dark arts.
It was Reagan who invited the Saudi's into Afghanistan where they build the Wahabbi madrassas that produce the death worshipping jihadi's and suicide bombers.
Then the Alfred E. Neuman of American politics, the future war criminal George Bush, invades and occupies the Graveyard of Empires, and first thing, allows family business associate bin Laden to mosey, unmolested, out of Tora Bora to lead AQ another decade.
There is no winning in Afghanistan. There is nothing to win.
If Joscelyn and Roggio are so convinced that more war is the answer this Viet Nam veteran suggests they go enlist in the Afghan Army. Don't be cowards, standing on the sidelines, cheerleading for sending other American's children off to needless, futile, slaughter.
The two architects of the disaster that is Afghanistan, Reagan and Bush were just that. Literally two guy cheerleaders, at Eureka College and Andover prep, respectively, one who used the studio's influence to dodge WW II and the other who used daddy's influence to dodge Viet Nam.
Cowards cheerleading for war with other people's children.
It was cold warrior Ronnie Rayguns who armed and lavishly funded the Afghan fundamentalists who changed their name to Taliban then gave bin Laden sanctuary and al Qaida an entire country to hone their dark arts.
It was Reagan who invited the Saudi's into Afghanistan where they build the Wahabbi madrassas that produce the death worshipping jihadi's and suicide bombers.
Then the Alfred E. Neuman of American politics, the future war criminal George Bush, invades and occupies the Graveyard of Empires, and first thing, allows family business associate bin Laden to mosey, unmolested, out of Tora Bora to lead AQ another decade.
There is no winning in Afghanistan. There is nothing to win.
If Joscelyn and Roggio are so convinced that more war is the answer this Viet Nam veteran suggests they go enlist in the Afghan Army. Don't be cowards, standing on the sidelines, cheerleading for sending other American's children off to needless, futile, slaughter.
The two architects of the disaster that is Afghanistan, Reagan and Bush were just that. Literally two guy cheerleaders, at Eureka College and Andover prep, respectively, one who used the studio's influence to dodge WW II and the other who used daddy's influence to dodge Viet Nam.
Cowards cheerleading for war with other people's children.
139
Let all the chickenhawks enlist their children and grandchildren in this worthless war. Do we ever learn?
4
Obama has continued the delusion when he immediately sent 30,000 MORE troops at the beginning of his first term and then followed the delusional "Surge" strategy which did not work permanently in Iraq and never worked at all in Afghanistan. Why is Obama exempt from criticism for continuing these senseless endless Wars draining our country of resources?
Obama should have gotten out back in 2009 or 2010.
Instead he is continuing the delusion and waste of resources forever.
Either Hillary or Joe Biden will do the same if they are elected.
Time to face reality...
Hopefully Bernie Sanders would actually get out of this fiasco!
Obama should have gotten out back in 2009 or 2010.
Instead he is continuing the delusion and waste of resources forever.
Either Hillary or Joe Biden will do the same if they are elected.
Time to face reality...
Hopefully Bernie Sanders would actually get out of this fiasco!
2
One important detail. the aid to the people who would become the Taliban & al Qaeda started under Jimmy Carter BEFORE the Soviets invaded: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Before the United States completely pulls out, we should 'Agent Orange' all of the poppy fields. It is a disgrace that we have left these crops to be harvested. The money from opium goes directly to the bad guys, and the product goes directly into the arms of U.S. citizens.
7
It won't be done because the CIA needs the money from the harvest.
1
I recall bin Laden's reasons for 9/11: to lure the US back into Afghanistan where our country would be drained dry fighting futile battles with everyone and their brother.
The US did even more than bin Laden dreamed: we also used 9/11 as an excuse to illegally attack an innocent bystander country, Iraq. The Iraq invasion which is the root cause of all the disorders now hammering neighboring countries, was a war crime and the Bush family should be put on trial for this but of course, another Bush is running for President.
Various hostile countries wanted to make Muslim nations fall apart. Israel's belief that this will make Israel stronger is the saddest case in this story. Instead of surrounded by carefully run dicatorships, Israel is going to end up surrounded by countries run by Islamic fanatics who have sworn to utterly destroy the place and who will quite likely succeed.
A real historical irony, this.
The US did even more than bin Laden dreamed: we also used 9/11 as an excuse to illegally attack an innocent bystander country, Iraq. The Iraq invasion which is the root cause of all the disorders now hammering neighboring countries, was a war crime and the Bush family should be put on trial for this but of course, another Bush is running for President.
Various hostile countries wanted to make Muslim nations fall apart. Israel's belief that this will make Israel stronger is the saddest case in this story. Instead of surrounded by carefully run dicatorships, Israel is going to end up surrounded by countries run by Islamic fanatics who have sworn to utterly destroy the place and who will quite likely succeed.
A real historical irony, this.
34
Just one more foreign policy failure by our CIC. It's confounding how and why Obama broadcasts US military plans in advance to the enemy.
2
@ Al R.
Obama didn't take us into Afghanistan 14 years ago and only a total fool would believe strategic force levels in Afghanistan could be kept secret in Washington.
Obama didn't take us into Afghanistan 14 years ago and only a total fool would believe strategic force levels in Afghanistan could be kept secret in Washington.
10
And if he didn't you'd be complaining he is not transparent.
1
I'm guessing that if any of the current crop of blustering, tough talking GOP presidential hopefuls attained the presidency (God help us) and did the same thing, you wouldn't be inclined to criticize.
2
There was never a chance of "holding" Afghanistan. To long term change a country, it takes a strong leadership that leads that country. However, western powers insist on bringing democracy, womens rights, humans rights and a whole lot more cultural issues on a society that is simply not able to accept them (yet). As a result, that system will not last long.
To really change a country, a government that most developed countries today would strongly disagree with (and condem) would be needed to develop the country until it is ready for democracy and equal rights.
And juding from the experience of pretty much every developed country today, this takes not decades, but generations.
To really change a country, a government that most developed countries today would strongly disagree with (and condem) would be needed to develop the country until it is ready for democracy and equal rights.
And juding from the experience of pretty much every developed country today, this takes not decades, but generations.
27
"Al Qaeda and like-minded groups were founded on the myth that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because of the mujahedeen’s faith in Allah alone."
These writers don't explain what they think is the real reason the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. They were defeated whatever the reason. And we've been defeated. Over and over again. This illusion that we can stop some new myth from being created sounds like a science fiction fantasy. More troops, they say. Send your own sons. Send your own daughters.
These writers don't explain what they think is the real reason the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. They were defeated whatever the reason. And we've been defeated. Over and over again. This illusion that we can stop some new myth from being created sounds like a science fiction fantasy. More troops, they say. Send your own sons. Send your own daughters.
72
After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union the US totally abandoned the government of Afghanistan even though purportedly the hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons were supplied to the Mujahedin in their fight for the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. Small amounts of aid requested by Afghanistan were denied. The failed state situation that emerged in the 1990s gave birth to Al Qaeda and led to 9-11. While debate raged in US policy circles about the problems of nation building all attention of the Bush (43) administration focused on the blunder into Iraq. This exacerbated the problem in Afghanistan leading to a 14 year war for the US and lengthening the war for the people of Afghanistan to nearly 3 decades. In the aftermath of 9-11 Afghanistan's neighbors were ready to support resolution of the problem. By the end of the first Bush administration Afghanistan would have been stabilized. Now, the US has paid its dues. China is investing heavily in mining operations in Afghanistan and Russia, India and Iran are increasingly involved in business activities in Afghanistan. While a strong argument can be made that the US bears responsibility for the failed state in Afghanistan we have paid our dues. It is time for Afghanistan's neighbors to belly up and do their share to help stabilize their neighborhood. Why not a peace-keeping force for Afghanistan under the UN flag funded by China and other neighbors?
39
I wasn't aware it was ever "ours" to lose.
116
Or to win!
1
To put it another way, you can't lose what you never had.
3
Our leaders of both parties in Washington are pursuring military adventures for their own sake. We are determined to prove the old saying, that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Our leaders can't define a vital reason for us to be half a world away fighting these groups, while our own country implodes with unmet needs and our border with Mexico needs all our attention.
I never imagined our country would end this way, that we would repeat every single mistake and crime of Vietnam. But we are exceptional.
I never imagined our country would end this way, that we would repeat every single mistake and crime of Vietnam. But we are exceptional.
107
Are 'we' 'losing' Afghanistan 'again'? The answer lies in the absurd premises of the question. Who is 'we'? The raggle-taggle coalition of NATO forces pinned down in bases and urban centres? The predatory alliance of ex-Northern Alliance warlords busy looting the nascent Afghan state and all the 'aid' sent there? Certainly not the ordinary Pashtun or Hazara.
What does 'losing' comprise, given we're just one more foreign invading force of the kind that has swept through Afghanistan over thousands of years, promising stability and change before fading into the sands of time? Britain alone is on its' fourth invasion, each and every one undertaken in the name of plausible, self-deluding rationales that all somehow end in bloody massacre.
'Again'? 'We' were never in control of it - at the greatest extent of NATO troop actions the same Talibs who faded into the hills during daylight troop actions and sweeps came back out at night and took up business as usual. How else would 'we' have arrived at a situation where NATO commanders were paying local Talibal commanders, not just to allow supply convoys through but to actually provide protection for them?
This piece says nothing at all about Afghanistan, and everything about the self-delusional geopolitics of Western orientalists, as Edawrd Said would have labelled these two...
What does 'losing' comprise, given we're just one more foreign invading force of the kind that has swept through Afghanistan over thousands of years, promising stability and change before fading into the sands of time? Britain alone is on its' fourth invasion, each and every one undertaken in the name of plausible, self-deluding rationales that all somehow end in bloody massacre.
'Again'? 'We' were never in control of it - at the greatest extent of NATO troop actions the same Talibs who faded into the hills during daylight troop actions and sweeps came back out at night and took up business as usual. How else would 'we' have arrived at a situation where NATO commanders were paying local Talibal commanders, not just to allow supply convoys through but to actually provide protection for them?
This piece says nothing at all about Afghanistan, and everything about the self-delusional geopolitics of Western orientalists, as Edawrd Said would have labelled these two...
154
My understanding is that the original reason for "our" presence was to control and pacify a proposed natural gas or oil pipeline corridor that was to run from fields northwest of Afghanistan, across Afghanistan, and to terminate at the port of Karachi in Pakistan. There also are some copper deposits in Afghanistan that the Chinese were interested in developing -- which is why they may have lent "us" the money to finance this adventure. Anyway, it failed like all such imperialistic attempts before it.
4
This is the same sort of song & dance we heard for years from the Pentagon during the war in Vietnam. Bottom line: the Afghans will settle their disputes among themselves, the US has no business there … except a pipeline that it wants on its own terms.
55
Afghanistan was never really ours to "lose." America under GW Bush went in with no plan. Now it is exiting with no plan. The one window of opportunity for real "nation-building" -which Bush said "we don't do" but is probably the only viable alternative to Talibanesque oppression- was squandered during the mad bungled rush to invade Iraq in 2003.
48
It's been said before but it deserves to be said again. If you Americans had focused on the mission in Afghanistan instead of embarking on that extremely ill-thought out venture in Iraq, maybe this editorial wouldn't have to be written today, and American troops would be back home safe.
30
Actually the Soviets in Afghanistan were defeated by Jesus.
1
Taking the advice of these co-authors of what to do in Afghanistan is like listening to a 0-16 football coach talk about what it takes to win a championship.
77
Did we ever win Afghanistan? I don't think so. Thanks for the mess, George.
22
Only Afghanistan?
* Obama virtual world- policy and results:
- issued the Presidential Directive 11, concluding that USA should shift its policy and back “moderate” Islam
- claims - "there is no Islamist terror’'
- said that Islam contributed a lot to the USA creation, values and democracy.(give me one example)
- never mention the poll showing that most of U.S. Muslims support that 'Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion'
** And in the real world Obama’s:
- pro-Islamic agenda didn't work with his darling Muslim brotherhood- the mother of modern times Sunni Islamism and terror
- didn't join the Paris walk of world leaders opposing Islamist terror killings of the caricaturists and Jews.
- worked secretly to boost the NUK program of Islamist Iran- the mother of worldwide Shia terrorism .Argentina president disclosed in the UN that Obama asked Argentina to supply Islamist Iran with Nuclear fuel
- didn’t .put to test the fighting forces of Iraq- Afghanistan- Syria- and checked if they are ready to fight terrorists. He just removed US army.ISIL took over parts of Iraq and Syria
Russiaarmy fights in Syria helping Assad the Boucher.
Taliban is conquering parts of Afghanistan
- Islamist Iran is fighting in Iraq- Syria-Lebanon- Gaza and supports terror organizations in 42 countries.
* Obama virtual world- policy and results:
- issued the Presidential Directive 11, concluding that USA should shift its policy and back “moderate” Islam
- claims - "there is no Islamist terror’'
- said that Islam contributed a lot to the USA creation, values and democracy.(give me one example)
- never mention the poll showing that most of U.S. Muslims support that 'Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion'
** And in the real world Obama’s:
- pro-Islamic agenda didn't work with his darling Muslim brotherhood- the mother of modern times Sunni Islamism and terror
- didn't join the Paris walk of world leaders opposing Islamist terror killings of the caricaturists and Jews.
- worked secretly to boost the NUK program of Islamist Iran- the mother of worldwide Shia terrorism .Argentina president disclosed in the UN that Obama asked Argentina to supply Islamist Iran with Nuclear fuel
- didn’t .put to test the fighting forces of Iraq- Afghanistan- Syria- and checked if they are ready to fight terrorists. He just removed US army.ISIL took over parts of Iraq and Syria
Russiaarmy fights in Syria helping Assad the Boucher.
Taliban is conquering parts of Afghanistan
- Islamist Iran is fighting in Iraq- Syria-Lebanon- Gaza and supports terror organizations in 42 countries.
3
>
It simply is not winnable. The leaders of empires are always the last to figure this out.
“Afghanistan—where empires go to die. ”
Mike Malloy
Everyone knew this before going in, now people seem surprised????
It simply is not winnable. The leaders of empires are always the last to figure this out.
“Afghanistan—where empires go to die. ”
Mike Malloy
Everyone knew this before going in, now people seem surprised????
50
"Are We Losing Afghanistan Again?"
The title itself presumes we have ever been "winning" in Afghanistan, or have ever had a chance to "win."
Can anyone even honestly say what "winning," or "losing," Afghanistan, means for the U.S.?
The title itself presumes we have ever been "winning" in Afghanistan, or have ever had a chance to "win."
Can anyone even honestly say what "winning," or "losing," Afghanistan, means for the U.S.?
32
This was all predicted by the experts when Bush first blundered in. Endemic corruption at Government level, no democratic history and the lack of a committed force to contain the Taliban who have always had time on their side and don't care if they are killed.
14
I really do believe we had been very close to a sustainable contentment.
Afghans are a nation of opportunistic tribes. We at first made a big mistake when we tried to beef up a corrupt and inept government. But we also managed to maintain a broad alliances of all parties, and i also do believe we made a better job than their own government.
Now a million afghans have aquired passports and are on their way to the west, what is this telling about ? Yes, we are loosing afghanistan again, and that's so stupid, because we don't realize that we had been gaining in every aspect deep in the islamists territory.
Now let's just hope, that loosing the momentum to the islamists will stop when they recaptured afghanistan, but i really do doubt that.
Afghans are a nation of opportunistic tribes. We at first made a big mistake when we tried to beef up a corrupt and inept government. But we also managed to maintain a broad alliances of all parties, and i also do believe we made a better job than their own government.
Now a million afghans have aquired passports and are on their way to the west, what is this telling about ? Yes, we are loosing afghanistan again, and that's so stupid, because we don't realize that we had been gaining in every aspect deep in the islamists territory.
Now let's just hope, that loosing the momentum to the islamists will stop when they recaptured afghanistan, but i really do doubt that.
1
"Losing" not loosing. But it's close, ironically.
@Herr Weitz
You write “I really do believe we had been very close to a sustainable contentment.”
I assume you mean a “sustainable containment” as opposed to “contentment?” And Germany has diverted its fighting troops to Africa since late 2014.
“We” is now mostly the US troops who are fighting an impossible never-ending war in Afghanistan. And it’s time that ALL NATO troops got out of Afghanistan.
You write “I really do believe we had been very close to a sustainable contentment.”
I assume you mean a “sustainable containment” as opposed to “contentment?” And Germany has diverted its fighting troops to Africa since late 2014.
“We” is now mostly the US troops who are fighting an impossible never-ending war in Afghanistan. And it’s time that ALL NATO troops got out of Afghanistan.
1
You can't lose what you've never had,
Corrupt sink, unbearably bad,
With our blood and treasure
It's steeped in full measure,
To stay is an action that's mad!
Corrupt sink, unbearably bad,
With our blood and treasure
It's steeped in full measure,
To stay is an action that's mad!
70
Facing isolation, even survival threat in their home turf, Afghanistan too, from a new rival- ISIS, the al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance, having loosened over the years was bound to be revived and cemented again, specially in the wake of US withdrawal and given the fragility of the Ghani-Abdullah Abdullah ruling dispensation in Kabul. The renewed insurgency threat and rapid advances of the al Qaida backed Taliban to various parts of Afghanistan do reveal that the combined US/NATO force is perhaps no match to the determined offensives by the al-Qaeda-Taliban. The US has practically lost its Afghanistan mission, and should quit to avoid further losses.
18
We have been fighting there longer than it took us to win World War II without achieving anything that looks like victory. Is that because we have never devoted the resources to this conflict that are necessary to pacify and secure the country? Probably. So why continue at all? To put it succinctly, our leaders are fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win. They don't believe the public will support the effort necessary to win, and they are almost certainly right about that. Someone should explain that to the authors of this column.