And I repeat: the NY Times's verdict on Barack Obama's smallest decision, to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan: "courageous and sound."
1
Very lame editorial -- textbook case of Times trying to have it both ways, by taking no position at all.
"The Afghans still need help with such basics as managing their motor pool, supplying bullets and gasoline to troops in the field, and administering payrolls. They also need help with intelligence."
There's a good use of American resources!
"It is not unusual for American military commanders to ask for more troops and weapons in pursuit of victory. But can they make a decisive difference?"
The last person to ask and answer that question was LBJ; just watched 'Path to War,' Michael Gambon as LBJ, Alec Baldwin as Robert McNamara, Donald Sutherland as Clark Clifford. LBJ tragically went for it, over Clifford's and George Ball's (Bruce McGill) strenuous objections. That troop escalation started 10,000, I believe. But Westmoreland got what he wanted -- 600,000 troops, and a total disaster.
"The Afghans still need help with such basics as managing their motor pool, supplying bullets and gasoline to troops in the field, and administering payrolls. They also need help with intelligence."
There's a good use of American resources!
"It is not unusual for American military commanders to ask for more troops and weapons in pursuit of victory. But can they make a decisive difference?"
The last person to ask and answer that question was LBJ; just watched 'Path to War,' Michael Gambon as LBJ, Alec Baldwin as Robert McNamara, Donald Sutherland as Clark Clifford. LBJ tragically went for it, over Clifford's and George Ball's (Bruce McGill) strenuous objections. That troop escalation started 10,000, I believe. But Westmoreland got what he wanted -- 600,000 troops, and a total disaster.
2
Time to get out (finally).
Bring our troops home.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-afghanista...?
Bring our troops home.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-afghanista...?
14
Fifty ways to leave Afghanistan. Set yourself free.
16
Deja vu, all over again. One simple question: what is the point??? Get out. A quicksand covered Tarpit. Donald: Ask your Russian friends for their advice, they have local experience.
17
That war was being ended by CIIA surrogates of the Northern Alliance. The
war was extended into Iraq because Israel wanted to get rid of the secular leader Saddam Hussein. We are the American dog who gets painfully and unnecessarily wagged by the Zionist tail. Blame Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocon agents who are responsiblee for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel is not our friend. It is our master.
war was extended into Iraq because Israel wanted to get rid of the secular leader Saddam Hussein. We are the American dog who gets painfully and unnecessarily wagged by the Zionist tail. Blame Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocon agents who are responsiblee for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel is not our friend. It is our master.
16
Afghanistan is a failed war.
No more American blood, treasure, or energy should be spent on this corrupt, medieval country.
We should all contact our Congressmen and women and demand a complete withdrawal from this Godforsaken country now!
No more American blood, treasure, or energy should be spent on this corrupt, medieval country.
We should all contact our Congressmen and women and demand a complete withdrawal from this Godforsaken country now!
23
Declare victory, pack up and go home.
Who was it that said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"? The elimination of the draft has made us blind to this war and the Iraq war and we now have a classic damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
As the Soviets discovered in the 1970s, Afghanistan is an especially backward, tribal country riven by factions. When the Russians left, the Taliban arose; space was created for the development of al Qaeda and the training of terrorists.
Didn't we originally start this war to hunt for Bin Laden and punish the Taliban? What delusion do we use now? $3.1 billion dollars a month and how many lives? American and Afghan?
We have managed to duplicate our Vietnam history in the Middle East.
Have we learned anything? It seems we have morphed into invaders. In sum, we who founded a nation as liberty lovers have lost our way. An early exit is the only answer.
As the Soviets discovered in the 1970s, Afghanistan is an especially backward, tribal country riven by factions. When the Russians left, the Taliban arose; space was created for the development of al Qaeda and the training of terrorists.
Didn't we originally start this war to hunt for Bin Laden and punish the Taliban? What delusion do we use now? $3.1 billion dollars a month and how many lives? American and Afghan?
We have managed to duplicate our Vietnam history in the Middle East.
Have we learned anything? It seems we have morphed into invaders. In sum, we who founded a nation as liberty lovers have lost our way. An early exit is the only answer.
18
Left to some in the military, we would still be fighting in Vietnam. They say we always are fighting the last war. Basically the US is becoming a military dictatorship. Trump copied up to the worst authoritarian thugs in the world; he has dramatically weakened our military alliances. His generals spew bigotry like Kelly's insults of deported immigrants not being valedictorians.
Kelly and McMaster defend the treason of Kushner trying to set up a communications contact through an adversarial state's own embassy or consulate in an obvious attempt to conduct secret national affairs illegally and avoid the scrutiny of national security agencies. Trump was not in power then: President Obama was which made this a major violation of the Logan Act.
Trump's generals have supported his Muslim ban and mass deportation. Like Hitler's generals, they don't care about the citizens of this country but only the man who gives them orders or rather empowers them with little understanding or knowledge of the broader implications. The citizens in the US strongly wanted the wars to end. They do not want their sons and daughters killed in a pointless distant war.
Democracy was overcome in 2016 by Russia's cyberattack on the election, and Trump's legitimacy hangs by a thread, while his popularity is historically the lowest of any president.
Trump's generals like the generals of other dictators are falling into an abyss. They are losing honor and becoming corrupted by dreams of power.
Kelly and McMaster defend the treason of Kushner trying to set up a communications contact through an adversarial state's own embassy or consulate in an obvious attempt to conduct secret national affairs illegally and avoid the scrutiny of national security agencies. Trump was not in power then: President Obama was which made this a major violation of the Logan Act.
Trump's generals have supported his Muslim ban and mass deportation. Like Hitler's generals, they don't care about the citizens of this country but only the man who gives them orders or rather empowers them with little understanding or knowledge of the broader implications. The citizens in the US strongly wanted the wars to end. They do not want their sons and daughters killed in a pointless distant war.
Democracy was overcome in 2016 by Russia's cyberattack on the election, and Trump's legitimacy hangs by a thread, while his popularity is historically the lowest of any president.
Trump's generals like the generals of other dictators are falling into an abyss. They are losing honor and becoming corrupted by dreams of power.
George Bush: Mission Accomplished
Donald Trump: What Mission?
Donald Trump: What Mission?
17
You know, I think that the drug lords and the gun lords are just making wayyyyy too much money to ever let this little war go.
Afghanistan ate and spat out the British Empire....and it crashed.
Afghanistan ate and spat out the USSR.... and it crashed.
Afghanistan ate and spat the US of A..... and we will crash, too.
Happy Memorial Day.
As long as more than half of our tax money goes to the Pentagon, we can expect many more.
Afghanistan ate and spat out the British Empire....and it crashed.
Afghanistan ate and spat out the USSR.... and it crashed.
Afghanistan ate and spat the US of A..... and we will crash, too.
Happy Memorial Day.
As long as more than half of our tax money goes to the Pentagon, we can expect many more.
"the graveyard of empires"
Bring the soldiers home from Afghanistan.
I have had the chance to spend quite a bit of time in AFG and my impression is that the Taliban`s and all of the other players worst nightmare is that we leave. More US troops mean more fuel, surf and turf Thursdays, ice cream imported from the US, A/C, you name it. That means more truckloads of fuel, food, supplies etc. These trucks are rarely, if ever, hit. Why? It is a protection racket. $4000 at J-Bad buys you a safe trip to whatever US base you need to deliver to. In order to keep it going they pay a farmer 200 bucks to plant an occasional IED but the jingle truck drivers know where they are. Based on my experience and that of many others no one knows of a jingle fuel truck being hit......our fuel trucks are hit often but theirs......delivering fuel to us....rarely if ever. The more troops the more US money flows and the better the chance that the Taliban and government leaders will be able to collect enough money to move to Westchester or Santa Barbara or Munich. Neither the government or the Taliban really care about this insanely overpopulated resource poor country. They are looking at an exit strategy to the US as well. Every Afghan I met wants out as illustrated by the millions of Afghans trying to get to Germany.
1
It should be remembered that Alexander, Cyrus, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane failed to subdue the Afghans. The "Great Game" struggle with Russia over Afghanistan in the 19th century culminated with the near annihilation of an British army of 16,000. Afghans don't identify with a country, they identify with a tribe, ethnicity, or a warlord. Outside of Kabul there is simply no government infrastructure.Here are two paraphrased quotes from Edward Girardet's classic book on Afghanistan, "Killing the Cranes", that should tell Americans all we need to know about the existential problems the U.S. faces there. "In Afghanistan there is not one Afghanistan, there are a thousand Afghanistans". "You can rent an Afghan, but never buy him"..."You may think you have them in your pocket, but they have taken your jacket."
1
Buying time in Afghanistan, at 3.1 billion dollars a month of American tax dollars, 5,000 more troops easily brings it up to 3.3 billion per month...
How about buying some health, education, and welfare in the United States, Mr. America First????
How about buying some health, education, and welfare in the United States, Mr. America First????
Practically everybody who isn't on board with the Taliban would prefer to emigrate from Afghanistan.
1
Forget the new troop mini-surge.
Send instead Superboy Jared. He can solve Americas longest war in between negotiating peace in the 100 year Middle East conflict, and setting up Russian back channels while running his real estate business.
There is nothing this guy can't do- including committing treason.
Send instead Superboy Jared. He can solve Americas longest war in between negotiating peace in the 100 year Middle East conflict, and setting up Russian back channels while running his real estate business.
There is nothing this guy can't do- including committing treason.
Let Afghanistan be. Get out US.
They planted less opium before america went there.
People are still too ignorant they allow the worst people to lead them.
In Afghanistan it will be the Taliban.
They planted less opium before america went there.
People are still too ignorant they allow the worst people to lead them.
In Afghanistan it will be the Taliban.
More than 50 years later we haven't learned the lesson of the Vietnam War: nation-building doesn't work...
http://napoleonlive.info/what-i-think/get-out-of-afghanistan/
http://napoleonlive.info/what-i-think/get-out-of-afghanistan/
The Generals' meme...more money, more men, more time.
Obama probably told Trump that it was over, over there!
This war should of ended 14 years ago.
Business is looking up for manufacturers of body bags.
Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in about six months. After spending three years in Afghanistan, in a letter home to his mother he wrote in part about the nature of the Afghans 'They are a lion-like/hearted people who rise from the ground like a wall to kill my soldiers. In this land every man needs to be like Alexander but alas you had only one son.'
During the height of the British Empire as the world superpower under the reign of Queen Victoria the Afghans defeated the British three times. Gorbachev's Soviet Union followed a few Russian Czars who suffered the same fate. About a 100,000 American troops under Bush and fewer under Obama have not brought victory to the aptly named 'graveyard of empires'.
None of the American generals nor Secretary's of Defense who have led the American military effort could ever be confused with Alexander the Great. Or Dwight Eisenhower or George Marshall.
American ignorance, stupidity and hubris is behind and beneath the Afghan failure. Afghanistan is engaged in ethnic sectarian civil war where the 42% of Afghans who are ethnic Pashtun are seeking a nation state where they rule. The Taliban is mostly ethnic Pashtun, but not all Pashtun are Taliban. A majority of the 50 million Pashtun live in Pakistan where they are only 15% of the population. Neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban attacked America on 9/11.
This is the insane lemming day war in Afghanistan. Mass suicidal losing in a war that has no military solution.
During the height of the British Empire as the world superpower under the reign of Queen Victoria the Afghans defeated the British three times. Gorbachev's Soviet Union followed a few Russian Czars who suffered the same fate. About a 100,000 American troops under Bush and fewer under Obama have not brought victory to the aptly named 'graveyard of empires'.
None of the American generals nor Secretary's of Defense who have led the American military effort could ever be confused with Alexander the Great. Or Dwight Eisenhower or George Marshall.
American ignorance, stupidity and hubris is behind and beneath the Afghan failure. Afghanistan is engaged in ethnic sectarian civil war where the 42% of Afghans who are ethnic Pashtun are seeking a nation state where they rule. The Taliban is mostly ethnic Pashtun, but not all Pashtun are Taliban. A majority of the 50 million Pashtun live in Pakistan where they are only 15% of the population. Neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban attacked America on 9/11.
This is the insane lemming day war in Afghanistan. Mass suicidal losing in a war that has no military solution.
Brad Pitt's new movie now on Netflix, "War Machine" says a lot about the war in Afghanistan.
I Have tried to adhere to a variety of simple life rules. One rule is "if it is impossible for you to win then don't play that game" there is no way we can win militarily. We couldn't win militarily in Vietnam Nam why should we expect anything different in Afrganistan ?
STOP!
Declare victory and come home.
Classic INSANITY----continually doing the same thing and expect different results! STOP!
We broke it. We bought it. We can't fix it. STOP!
No more troops! No more gold. No more lives--theirs and ours. STOP!
Of course the military wants just a few more troops and then a few more and then a few more........ but we are supposed to be a nation with civilian control of the military. So, control it! STOP.
STOP!
Declare victory and come home.
Classic INSANITY----continually doing the same thing and expect different results! STOP!
We broke it. We bought it. We can't fix it. STOP!
No more troops! No more gold. No more lives--theirs and ours. STOP!
Of course the military wants just a few more troops and then a few more and then a few more........ but we are supposed to be a nation with civilian control of the military. So, control it! STOP.
"Mission Accomplished" -- this month, some American kid who was 3 years old when the last Republican President said this, may fall in the Middle East.
Just leave. Please. Stick a fork in it. We're done.
Think of what better things we could accomplish for that $3B per month.
Think of what better things we could accomplish for that $3B per month.
Not another American life should be lost in Afghanistan. Our troops must ALL be brought home.
A couple of words that need to be purged from the lexicon: basically and surge. Mini surge, what does that even mean? Basically, oops, I mean essentially it is a move towards re-escilation of a bad idea from 15 years ago. Dumb, dumber, dumbest, most dumbest idea of the decade. Get out, let the chips fall where they may.
What a waste of American blood and treasure ... nearly 16 years -- and counting. When will we ever learn?
They like to make it seem like rocket science, but it isn't. Putting aside the radical notion that attempts to pacify an historically impossible topography have proven Sisyphean over the centuries, not to mention the fact that which tribe controls what landscape of rocks is of zero national interest, the fact is there is no desire to cease military operations - in Afghanistan or any of the other 50 places our military industrial complex plies their trade. Using our children's blood, the taxpayers' treasure and the last vestiges of this country's good will, they fatten their wallets while their stooges - be they democrats, republicans, loudmouths, wallflowers or pederasts - carry on the dirty work of greasing the skids. Wake up - there are no heroes.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of foreign armies aspirations and ideas.
Afghanistan - a war we can no longer afford to win on our terms, but also can't afford to lose. Is there some middle ground in the President's binary worldview?
www.thewaryouknow.com
www.thewaryouknow.com
Mired deeply in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union finally collapsed. Will the same decline happen to the USA?
This needless escalation brings to mind one of the best poems I've had the honor of publishing in Blue Collar Review. --
The Changing of the Guard
At the change of the guard at Arlington,
At the Tomb of the Unknowns, they turn,
Clicking their heels, ticking into position
With mechanical, clock-like precision;
Their eyes behind dark glasses, silver-mirrored,
Reflect an anonymous marble block
In freeze-frame, as the camera shutters click
And the ticking of insects fills the air.
Stepping out smartly, with a sharp "Left-Right!"
The sergeant-at-arms barks his commands,
Inspecting the bolt-action, barrel & sight
And fixed bayonet, with his white-gloved hands.
All spit and polish in patent-leather boots
He snaps to attention, pivots and salutes!
Endless plain stone markers in even rows
Pay tribute to the dead, whose deep repose
Overlooks the Potomac in early spring;
Its banks now in bud, or just burgeoning.
If you listen hard, you can almost hear
The delirious inner-workings of chance
And the hum of history's machine-like gears
Where greed and cruelty mesh tight in a dance
Which, if the innocent young stand too close,
Will catch at their sleeves & turn them to ghosts --
Their faces drained of emotion, mere masks;
Their movements, perfectly choreographed --
Toy soldiers, once lovers & poets, whose dreams
Are ground to stardust in that dark regime.
-- E.P. Fisher
The Changing of the Guard
At the change of the guard at Arlington,
At the Tomb of the Unknowns, they turn,
Clicking their heels, ticking into position
With mechanical, clock-like precision;
Their eyes behind dark glasses, silver-mirrored,
Reflect an anonymous marble block
In freeze-frame, as the camera shutters click
And the ticking of insects fills the air.
Stepping out smartly, with a sharp "Left-Right!"
The sergeant-at-arms barks his commands,
Inspecting the bolt-action, barrel & sight
And fixed bayonet, with his white-gloved hands.
All spit and polish in patent-leather boots
He snaps to attention, pivots and salutes!
Endless plain stone markers in even rows
Pay tribute to the dead, whose deep repose
Overlooks the Potomac in early spring;
Its banks now in bud, or just burgeoning.
If you listen hard, you can almost hear
The delirious inner-workings of chance
And the hum of history's machine-like gears
Where greed and cruelty mesh tight in a dance
Which, if the innocent young stand too close,
Will catch at their sleeves & turn them to ghosts --
Their faces drained of emotion, mere masks;
Their movements, perfectly choreographed --
Toy soldiers, once lovers & poets, whose dreams
Are ground to stardust in that dark regime.
-- E.P. Fisher
Groundhog Day in Afghanistan, Groundhog Day on our television sets and computer screens. Now it's Trump's turn to pound his chest and live vicariously through the actions of others on 'far-away battlefields'. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon did that so well in Vietnam. Ted Cruz did his fair share of chest pounding during the run-up to the elections. It's seemingly in our DNA to repeat our misdeeds, some maladjusted inner workings that allow us to sew mayhem, death, and destruction. We even have a cadre of support, those who make a living off the carnage. And it's so nauseating to watch the shameless reappearance of players from past administrations, once the dust settles, who re-invent themselves and show up as 'informed sources' to help 'flesh out' what's happening. I was especially offended to see how Nicole Wallace recently got a gig on MSNBC. She was the smooth-talking Communications Director during the George W. Bush Administration who was hired to soothe relations with the Press--all the while with the Middle East still ablaze due to Bush and Cheney's 'ginned-up' Iraq War. She also tried to foist Sarah Palin on us as VP as a Senior McCain Campaign Advisor. (What a resume she has.) Do you know how many men and women she helped lose their arms or legs or both due to IED's, and some who will be in Veterans Hospitals for the remainder of their lives because they left half their brains on a battlefield?. And now she gets a paycheck in the process. They have no shame.
Well, we just picked sides in the great Sunni - Shia conflagration, why not double down in the place where empires go to die? What could possibly go wrong?
They still need help with administering payrolls? What are our accomphisnents in Afghanistan? What are our goals?
Termination of the American occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq should be a priority for the world community.
Afghanistan with the USA propping-up a weak government hasn't been able to reach a peaceful equilibrium. The Taliban culture is impossible for us to stomach but it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to extinguish. It's time for us to let the country come to some form of settlement on its own.
$3.1 billion a month and only 8,000 troops on the ground.
"Almost 16 years after the U.S.-backed ouster of the Taliban, Afghanistan remains in the grip of a war with “shockingly high” death rates among security forces and a record number of casualties among civilians, according to the U.S. government watchdog monitoring the country’s reconstruction efforts."
http://taskandpurpose.com/afghanistan-death-toll-us-troops/
More troops in Afghanistan.....
"What are they going to do that has not been tried over and over again by hundreds of thousands of men and women before them?"
http://taskandpurpose.com/sending-us-troops-afghanistan-shows-little-lea...
"Almost 16 years after the U.S.-backed ouster of the Taliban, Afghanistan remains in the grip of a war with “shockingly high” death rates among security forces and a record number of casualties among civilians, according to the U.S. government watchdog monitoring the country’s reconstruction efforts."
http://taskandpurpose.com/afghanistan-death-toll-us-troops/
More troops in Afghanistan.....
"What are they going to do that has not been tried over and over again by hundreds of thousands of men and women before them?"
http://taskandpurpose.com/sending-us-troops-afghanistan-shows-little-lea...
[[Afghanistan...is where the United States has spent 16 years fighting the longest war in its history at a cost of more than $800 billion and 2,000 American lives.]]
Two thousand dead...but how many more maimed? How many with PTSD and/or TBI? How many suicides?
And at $3.1 billion per month...$100,000,000 per day...which contractors are still getting rich?
How many politicians who dragged us into this mess still have their jobs?
Two thousand dead...but how many more maimed? How many with PTSD and/or TBI? How many suicides?
And at $3.1 billion per month...$100,000,000 per day...which contractors are still getting rich?
How many politicians who dragged us into this mess still have their jobs?
Australia, a country that loves to fight with Americans it seems, today announced 30 more troops to Afghanistan. Non combat they say, operational.
It begins in the wings – the intent to continue this war remains. This happens after Pence visited Australia. The rhetoric remains the same.
be alert. the allies are moving.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/australia-to-send-additional-30-tr...
It begins in the wings – the intent to continue this war remains. This happens after Pence visited Australia. The rhetoric remains the same.
be alert. the allies are moving.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/australia-to-send-additional-30-tr...
And the killing will go on - of our soldiers and the Afghani people. It is another Viet Nam - unwinnable because we do not understand the impenetrable cultural norms of the country and its people. Russia found out and brought its troops home. When will we do the same - or does the warning of Pres Eisenhower of the 'Military/Industrial Complex rule go unheard - so that we sink many more $$$$$ into the pockets of the industries that support war and waste the young men and women who pay the price for our unbounded foolishness?
Maybe they should watch War Machine, Apocalypse Now, read Eisenhower's address on Beware the Military Industrial Complex, or read https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1.
The public should realize unless we are attacked, War is about corporations making money.
War what is it good for? Absolutely Nothing
The public should realize unless we are attacked, War is about corporations making money.
War what is it good for? Absolutely Nothing
It was sooo STUPID to invade Iraq when the war in Afghanistan wasn't done.
And it was sooo STUPID to invade the whole country of Afghanistan just to (try to) catch Bin Laden and its band of silly stuck-up.
And it was sooo STUPID to invade the whole country of Afghanistan just to (try to) catch Bin Laden and its band of silly stuck-up.
The guiding principle for military leadership: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It is very wearying to see our country in a war that has been ceaselessly waged for about a hundred years by various nations in Afghanistan for a multitude of tangled reasons. Is it "winnable?"
So after sixteen years, the Afghans still need help with the distribution of bullets and managing the motor pool and payroll? I guess 5,000 more AMERICAN troops will really get things clicking once and for all? Good Grief!!
1
Why do the generals repeat the same faulty analysis over and over and expect it to result in a different conclusion. We're staying in Afghanistan for the same reason we remained in Vietnam many years and many body bags after we knew it was a lost cause. For purely political reasons they are frozen into inaction by the fear that they will be labeled "the loser " of the Afghanistan War. Ken Burns can start writing the script for his documentary . I wish this were a joke.
Bob Scully
Vietnam, class of 1967
Bob Scully
Vietnam, class of 1967
There is, sadly, only one proven way to deal with an insurgent enemy like the current "Radical Islam," where the enemy is motivated by false beliefs in some higher truth... you can try to wait it out, which is the plan we've been pursuing it this is only prioritizing the preservation of enemy life over the lives of our citizens and allies.
Alternatively, you can completely crush your enemy and remove the stain of his culture from the Earth. This tactic was used successfully by the Romans against Carthage, by The Mongols against various tribes and nations that they encountered and by nearly all of the great civilizations we see today.
The key to the strategy is to stop all strict delineation between the people doing violence and the culture that nurtures and supports them. The culture is like a charging station for the actual fighters so you need to destroy both the fighters and their base station (the villages and towns that produce them and are highly supportive, the radical clerics etc). This process was illustrated perfectly when Rome used its naval power under Scipio to utterly remove Carthage while ignoring the actual attacks of Hannibal. Once the base station was removed, the attackers had little will to continue and were quickly mopped up.
Alternatively, you can completely crush your enemy and remove the stain of his culture from the Earth. This tactic was used successfully by the Romans against Carthage, by The Mongols against various tribes and nations that they encountered and by nearly all of the great civilizations we see today.
The key to the strategy is to stop all strict delineation between the people doing violence and the culture that nurtures and supports them. The culture is like a charging station for the actual fighters so you need to destroy both the fighters and their base station (the villages and towns that produce them and are highly supportive, the radical clerics etc). This process was illustrated perfectly when Rome used its naval power under Scipio to utterly remove Carthage while ignoring the actual attacks of Hannibal. Once the base station was removed, the attackers had little will to continue and were quickly mopped up.
Like that wretched old cliche, "follow the money", all of this can be laid on the bloody doorstep of America's war machine, the corporations that profit from war. And it proves, once again, that EVERYBODY can be bought.
We had won the war in 6 weeks but the war profiteers wanted more tax dollars.
American arrogance continues to drive our foreign policy. Sometimes it's just better to swallow one's pride and do the right thing...retreat.
Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind........John F. Kennedy, 35th President of USA, who would have celebrated his 100th birthday had he been alive today. It is time to bring to an end America's longest war in Afghanistan that began after 911 at the beginning of this century. As we salute, honor and remember the sacrifices made by millions of Americans in uniform ever since US became independent, on this memorial day, let us not forget what they fought for and many who made the ultimate sacrifice. There was a purpose for their sacrifice and it was peace, liberty, freedom, defeat of fascism or communism or extremism or regime change as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen. Brave Americans in uniform along with the armies of the NATO alliance achieved the goals set at the beginning of the Afghan war and that was to drive out the fanatical extremists, the Taliban from power for providing safe haven to the master mind of 911, Osama BL. After that was accomplished there was ample time and several windows of opportunities for diplomacy and lasting peace to be achieved without letting Afghanistan become a safe haven for terrorists Needless to say that "smart diplomacy" promised by Sec. Clinton during the Obama years remained elusive. Why? US mistakenly always thought that a military solution to defeat the Taliban was possible without direct talks. That never happened. Instead, ISIS is preparing for world war III from Afghan soil. God bless the USA.
The US Afghanistan Follies started with the simpleminded support of Afghans to irk and bleed the USSR.
"Friends are enemies of enemies"--until they are not; until they turn on you--after you armed them.
The Afghanistan Follies--like the Iraqi Follies--reprises the Crusades--with the tables turned. Islamic extremists self-righteously hate the West's values--especially its culture of women liberated from male subjugation--and its secularism. So they terrorize it--under the delusion that it's a god's will. How primitive is that?
The problem is not how to defeat them on the battlefield. They problem is re-culturation.
But religious--god-story--delusion is far more general than Islamic extremists. US Christian extremism is also a problem. If the Bible Belt had its way, it really would be the Crusades all over again--the battle of god-story fiction.
God story fiction and it marketing supports an extremely powerful network--with enormous political and economic clout--not unlike the Dark Ages and its "divine right" to select politicians. What's the financial worth of the Catholic church?--for just one example.
At one time "Freedom (from government) of religion" was the way to peace. But each religion takes it to confer their right to suppress all the others and run the government. Such "freedom" really means religious repression--orthodoxy. Religious monopoly.
"Friends are enemies of enemies"--until they are not; until they turn on you--after you armed them.
The Afghanistan Follies--like the Iraqi Follies--reprises the Crusades--with the tables turned. Islamic extremists self-righteously hate the West's values--especially its culture of women liberated from male subjugation--and its secularism. So they terrorize it--under the delusion that it's a god's will. How primitive is that?
The problem is not how to defeat them on the battlefield. They problem is re-culturation.
But religious--god-story--delusion is far more general than Islamic extremists. US Christian extremism is also a problem. If the Bible Belt had its way, it really would be the Crusades all over again--the battle of god-story fiction.
God story fiction and it marketing supports an extremely powerful network--with enormous political and economic clout--not unlike the Dark Ages and its "divine right" to select politicians. What's the financial worth of the Catholic church?--for just one example.
At one time "Freedom (from government) of religion" was the way to peace. But each religion takes it to confer their right to suppress all the others and run the government. Such "freedom" really means religious repression--orthodoxy. Religious monopoly.
What unbelievable hubris on our part to think that we can train the Afghans! They have eventually defeated every occupier for over 2000 years. They could train us.
The point of Memorial Day is not to memorialize more American soldiers. But sending more troops is exactly that.
"...improved governance in Kabul and elicit more cooperation by Pakistan so that a troop surge actually advances the cause of political reconciliation." I totally agree. As do my friends Tooth Fairy and Unicorn.
Dear Editorial Board: What were you thinking? Not only is US troop presence in Afghanistan not on our President's radar, undoubtedly he hasn't a clue about (or any interest in) our troops and what they're doing there. He congratulates the Afghan president about his troops with no mention of ours. Of course Trump has not yet "even begun to develop a strategy." He has no idea that that is something he should be capable of doing. Then in your last paragraph you set the bar even higher for this boy who would be king by outlining what he should do next. Why on earth do you first acknowledge his inability to lead/set policy/devise a strategy and then end your column with what he SHOULD do next. Talk about wishful thinking Time to give it up,
we lost afghanistan when bush went off to iraq and left it to fester. there was a brief window and it has closed.
“And what would victory really look like?” Ratchet up the war and the Taliban will cry “uncle”. Pigs will be able to fly. Our supposed goal in Afghanistan, and every other Middle-Eastern/Southwest Asian country embellished with American troops, is establishment of a secure democratic central government. This goal stands even in the face of consistent failure in every military venture post WWII.
Afghanistan is an excellent poster child for these American attempts. It, much like Iraq, Libya, and Tunisia, has a rich history of democracy. That democracy, unfortunately, is generally not well recognized here since it ‘bottom-up’ as opposed to ‘top-down’ government, with the provinces essentially being self-governing except during emergencies such as invasions. Americans preaching states’ rights for the US essentially are, at best, bottom-up democrats. The Taliban is a creature of the ambiguity occasioned when neither tribal nor central government meets the needs of the people.
We can support both democracy and nation-building in these countries by giving political, military and diplomatic support to the tribal land controllers instead of the central government. This aid can be provided externally since its targets are the tribes, not a far-away central cabal.
Afghanistan is an excellent poster child for these American attempts. It, much like Iraq, Libya, and Tunisia, has a rich history of democracy. That democracy, unfortunately, is generally not well recognized here since it ‘bottom-up’ as opposed to ‘top-down’ government, with the provinces essentially being self-governing except during emergencies such as invasions. Americans preaching states’ rights for the US essentially are, at best, bottom-up democrats. The Taliban is a creature of the ambiguity occasioned when neither tribal nor central government meets the needs of the people.
We can support both democracy and nation-building in these countries by giving political, military and diplomatic support to the tribal land controllers instead of the central government. This aid can be provided externally since its targets are the tribes, not a far-away central cabal.
2
When it come to Third World interventions, the Pentagon has a lengthy track record of poor decision making, Trump is a certified screwball and Afghanistan is another neon-lit rabbit hole. What could go wrong?
Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Donald Trump - which is out of place? The great conquerors also had initial success followed by irrepressible local resistance. Trump the Fabulous should saddle - up Bucephalus and lead our victory charge out of Afghanistan.
It's a difficult problem, leave now and possibly have to go back in ten years or stay forever. The fundamental question is, in a technologically advanced world full of increasingly sophisticated tools for terrorists on the lowest of budgets, can the planet afford to let some regions remain lawless wastelands? The problem needs to be solved by all nations collectively, not just the United States.
The anthem for this ridiculous plan should be the 1960's song, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" It expresses the futility of sending our young men — and now also young women — out as cannon fodder in foreign conflicts. The US cannot win in Afghanistan or in the Middle East. We should limit our involvement to joining whatever allies we have left after Brussels in pressing for peaceful resolutions to these conflicts.
In the last decade, we have poured our limited treasury into Afghanistan and have sacrificed American lives, but for what? We have built roads and highways only to see them blown up. We have built hospitals, only to see them blown up. We have built schools and million dollar fuel stations, only to have them blown up or to be abandoned.
We have built so much in the Middle East that there is nothing left for our own country. Our republican government seeks to rebuild what they call our depleted military to the utter amazement of most of us, instead of the infrastructure of our own nation. Now they want to "try again" to push a democratic way of life on the Afghanis . . .nevermind that this isn't how they want to live. Peoples from the Middle East seem to only want to fight and kill each other, and nothing we do is going to change that.
Knowing how republicans love to go to war, I'm guessing that the generals will get their 5 thousand troops, to what end is what we should demand to know.
We have built so much in the Middle East that there is nothing left for our own country. Our republican government seeks to rebuild what they call our depleted military to the utter amazement of most of us, instead of the infrastructure of our own nation. Now they want to "try again" to push a democratic way of life on the Afghanis . . .nevermind that this isn't how they want to live. Peoples from the Middle East seem to only want to fight and kill each other, and nothing we do is going to change that.
Knowing how republicans love to go to war, I'm guessing that the generals will get their 5 thousand troops, to what end is what we should demand to know.
Inasmuch as ex-President Barack Obama instructed us that the war in Afghanistan is the war that we had to win, one has to question why President Obama didn't take the steps necessary actually to win it.
So, here we are with another mess that Obama left for someone else to have to clean up.
So, here we are with another mess that Obama left for someone else to have to clean up.
If, after all these years, we still have to "help" a country or a faction fight, then they don't want to fight. It is simply irresponsible to put American lives in jeopardy anymore in situations where you can't tell the players, even with a program, and small arms are widespread. Some thoughts:
1) We should not again get involved militarily in foreign civil wars until FMRI technology gets good enough that we can sit something the size of a hair dryer over someone's head and ask them "Are you Taliban?" "or "Are you Cong?" and get a correct output of 99.99% as to whether they are lying.
2) In the meantime, the world could use a couple million cases of really bad AK-47 ammo - stuff that every now and then disables the gun with catastrophic consequences, possibly injuring the user.
3) As with "nation building," blanket defensive postures in the presence of no known enemy position or quantifiable force don't work because they require too many soldiers in too many places. If we insist on maintaining a military presence in the area, we should go to a "Lion in the Desert" mode: a highly capable, armored, air-supported strike force on permanent maneuvers outside urbanized areas, able to overwhelm any conventional force but otherwise in minimal contact. A deadly unknown, constantly on the move.
1) We should not again get involved militarily in foreign civil wars until FMRI technology gets good enough that we can sit something the size of a hair dryer over someone's head and ask them "Are you Taliban?" "or "Are you Cong?" and get a correct output of 99.99% as to whether they are lying.
2) In the meantime, the world could use a couple million cases of really bad AK-47 ammo - stuff that every now and then disables the gun with catastrophic consequences, possibly injuring the user.
3) As with "nation building," blanket defensive postures in the presence of no known enemy position or quantifiable force don't work because they require too many soldiers in too many places. If we insist on maintaining a military presence in the area, we should go to a "Lion in the Desert" mode: a highly capable, armored, air-supported strike force on permanent maneuvers outside urbanized areas, able to overwhelm any conventional force but otherwise in minimal contact. A deadly unknown, constantly on the move.
12
"Graveyard of Empires"
A term not to be taken lightly.
A term not to be taken lightly.
We Americans, us, you, me, we are increasing our defense spending. We almost have use it somewhere right?
In 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq based on the campaign of lies that eventually led to the formation of ISIS, Bush abandoned our troops in Afghanistan with no leadership, no mission and few resources. Although history teaches us that winning in Afghanistan is very tough, we American sealed our LOSS to the Taliban back in 2003.
"How can 3,000 or even 5,000 more American troops ensure victory when the United States at one point had a force of nearly 100,000 in Afghanistan and was unable to defeat the Taliban and stabilize the country? And what would victory look like anyway?"
Thank you. These are the right questions to ask. There should never be a commitment of troops to battle if there aren't answers to these questions.
WWII had these answers. Not one American military intervention since then did. Not Korea, or Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is inexcusable for a country to go to war without defined objectives, and a clear definition of what "victory" would mean. 100,000 Americans died in these wars. And these deaths were all for... what? Literally, they were for nothing, caused by misguided and incompetent politicians.
Of course, what else but requests for more troops could be expected from such a militarily top-heavy administration as Trump's? Smart, historically aware political leaders need to be in place to guide the military, which is the Constitution's intent. But not for Trump. Mattis is certainly a capable war tactician, but not a national defense leader at a policy level. The same is true for McMaster. Neither should be in place. Both positions should be held by non-military politicians who know that military action is the last resort of international policy.
But first, there needs to be cogent policy in place, not a willy-nilly increase in troop strength.
Thank you. These are the right questions to ask. There should never be a commitment of troops to battle if there aren't answers to these questions.
WWII had these answers. Not one American military intervention since then did. Not Korea, or Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is inexcusable for a country to go to war without defined objectives, and a clear definition of what "victory" would mean. 100,000 Americans died in these wars. And these deaths were all for... what? Literally, they were for nothing, caused by misguided and incompetent politicians.
Of course, what else but requests for more troops could be expected from such a militarily top-heavy administration as Trump's? Smart, historically aware political leaders need to be in place to guide the military, which is the Constitution's intent. But not for Trump. Mattis is certainly a capable war tactician, but not a national defense leader at a policy level. The same is true for McMaster. Neither should be in place. Both positions should be held by non-military politicians who know that military action is the last resort of international policy.
But first, there needs to be cogent policy in place, not a willy-nilly increase in troop strength.
28
There is an agent client problem here. Generals are dedicated careerists, or they wouldn't become generals. Failed military missions damage careers, and a general who can "kick the can down the road" and avoid failure on his watch gets promoted. What is good for a general's career is not necessarily good for the United States, or Afghanistan.
17
In my cynical view, sending more troops/trainers/equipment to prolong the war in Afghanistan is essentially a jobs program--for U.S. military manpower and arms manufacturers, and for the Afghan government to accept them because they provide employment and dependence on their corrupt government rather than domestic alternatives more suitable for their own culture.
What would victory look like? For whom?
Leaving the generals to decide, and abandonment of U.S. emphasis on human rights and diplomacy will not be cured by a mini-surge.
What would victory look like? For whom?
Leaving the generals to decide, and abandonment of U.S. emphasis on human rights and diplomacy will not be cured by a mini-surge.
12
We are at-risk of losing the historical lesson of Vietnam. Now, in Afghanistan we find ourselves mired in another war that the generals tell us we must win. As with Vietnam, the military narrative seems to be to win for the sake of winning with no articulated political goal.
Afghanistan is unwinnable. None of the viable factions there appreciate American political or military involvement in their internal affairs except perhaps to prop up a corrupt, unsustainable regime that, at the core, will hate us for pulling their puppet strings.
We need to get out of that country and stay out, finding a way to contain terrorism without occupying territory. The alternative is perpetual political bloodshed and death at a cost of billions, if not trillions. Someone in Washington needs to respect history.
Afghanistan is unwinnable. None of the viable factions there appreciate American political or military involvement in their internal affairs except perhaps to prop up a corrupt, unsustainable regime that, at the core, will hate us for pulling their puppet strings.
We need to get out of that country and stay out, finding a way to contain terrorism without occupying territory. The alternative is perpetual political bloodshed and death at a cost of billions, if not trillions. Someone in Washington needs to respect history.
17
No disrespect intended but when you ask a military commander in a combat situation "what do you need?" the answer will almost always be "more". More troops, more airstrikes, just more. They are trained to win and when there is no clear direction from their civilian leadership, the military will persevere.
We have learned nothing from the three thousand years of foreign incursions into what we call Afghanistan. Foreigners have been trying to subdue the various tribes that live there for all these years with no success. As recently as the 1980's we watched the Soviet Union hurl a very impressive war machine against the Afghan people (to be fair, the Afghans got military assistance from two unlikely allies - the U.S. and Iran) only to be chased out after 10 years of fighting with their tails between their legs.
Over the past 15-plus years we have supported a number of leaders who purportedly represent the "Afghan people" only to find that they barely can control the small area around Kabul and not much else. And now we want to send more troops there to provide support? I remember 50 plus years ago when we called them "advisors" and within 5 years we had 500,000 boots on the ground in Vietnam.
We are wasting our blood, time and treasure in the Afghan countryside. We need to resist this call for more and begin our exit phase.
We have learned nothing from the three thousand years of foreign incursions into what we call Afghanistan. Foreigners have been trying to subdue the various tribes that live there for all these years with no success. As recently as the 1980's we watched the Soviet Union hurl a very impressive war machine against the Afghan people (to be fair, the Afghans got military assistance from two unlikely allies - the U.S. and Iran) only to be chased out after 10 years of fighting with their tails between their legs.
Over the past 15-plus years we have supported a number of leaders who purportedly represent the "Afghan people" only to find that they barely can control the small area around Kabul and not much else. And now we want to send more troops there to provide support? I remember 50 plus years ago when we called them "advisors" and within 5 years we had 500,000 boots on the ground in Vietnam.
We are wasting our blood, time and treasure in the Afghan countryside. We need to resist this call for more and begin our exit phase.
13
Before the generals get 5,000 more troops for Afghanistan, let them define the meaning of "victory" in that war. What exactly is the goal, how long will it take and how will 5,000 more troops help to achieve it?
7
Every other country's attempt to"fix" Afghanistan has ended in abject failure. America has failed as well, the difference being that our outsized ego will not allow us to admit defeat. We're not going to "win". The only question is how long we're willing to accommodate the charade and how we will spin our inevitable departure.
9
Did I read it right, $3.1 billion a month?! And we are debating how much this country should pay for people with preexisting conditions! I really hope that I can choose which government projects to support when I file my taxes return.
It is ironic that I watched the Netflix movie War Machine last night. President Trump, please spend two hours of your valuable time on watching this movie. I bet you will make up your mind afterwards and you will have a real chance to make America great again. A great country should serve it's citizens' interests and needs first and foremost. I disagree with liberals' concept of redistribution. However, a different kind of redistribution is also happening under the watch of GOP. They are just smarter by bundling it with "patriotism".
It is ironic that I watched the Netflix movie War Machine last night. President Trump, please spend two hours of your valuable time on watching this movie. I bet you will make up your mind afterwards and you will have a real chance to make America great again. A great country should serve it's citizens' interests and needs first and foremost. I disagree with liberals' concept of redistribution. However, a different kind of redistribution is also happening under the watch of GOP. They are just smarter by bundling it with "patriotism".
8
What folly. There is a documentary on Netflix that clearly documents how Afghanistan has repelled foreigners for hundreds of years. What do these generals really hope to accomplish? Don't they recall the quagmires of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? Folly at the expense of young lives and taxpayer dollars.
5
Perhaps another decade of stalemate at $3B per month and a steady trickle of casualties is the lowest price we can hope to pay at this point.
If we leave, slaughter ensues, Afghan women are forever cursed, warlords rule, and it will be a haven for extremism for a hundred years. Leaving really isn't an option.
Going all-in to win isn't an option, either. We can't win a major guerrilla war and build a functioning nation simultaneously. The costs are far too high and odds of success near nil...a secular, stable Afghanistan is a pipe dream...not gonna happen in this century.
So hold on, America, because this will not change. In our lifetimes, Afghanistan will always be a place for new US military recruits to go and gain combat experience.
If we leave, slaughter ensues, Afghan women are forever cursed, warlords rule, and it will be a haven for extremism for a hundred years. Leaving really isn't an option.
Going all-in to win isn't an option, either. We can't win a major guerrilla war and build a functioning nation simultaneously. The costs are far too high and odds of success near nil...a secular, stable Afghanistan is a pipe dream...not gonna happen in this century.
So hold on, America, because this will not change. In our lifetimes, Afghanistan will always be a place for new US military recruits to go and gain combat experience.
1
I don't pretend to have the answer for peace in Afghanistan, but more troops and more war destruction hardy seems the right answer.
At the end of the long and costly war in Vietnam, we simply quit and evacuated all of the Americans and some of the South Vietnamese. Vietnam rebuilt itself without our help and are now in a trading relationship with the U.S. This relationship didn't come about because of the war, but in spite of it.
At some point the Afghan people will have to decide what type of government they prefer. We cannot make that decision for them.
At the end of the long and costly war in Vietnam, we simply quit and evacuated all of the Americans and some of the South Vietnamese. Vietnam rebuilt itself without our help and are now in a trading relationship with the U.S. This relationship didn't come about because of the war, but in spite of it.
At some point the Afghan people will have to decide what type of government they prefer. We cannot make that decision for them.
4
President Trump has favored the military over the diplomatic in his approach to foreign policy. HIs main advisers have been recently-retired generals--Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly. The Secretary of State, Tillerson, has no diplomatic experience, and has agreed with the plan to cut the State Department's budget by about 30 per cent.
These facts suggest that he will commit more American soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.
These facts suggest that he will commit more American soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.
3
Everything in this piece rightly points to the reality of an American failure in Afghanistan despite a mostly valiant effort.
At the heart of this seemingly intractable situation is the lack of fundamental Afghan societal and political mechanisms and institutions capable of spring-boarding off the American and NATO efforts to foster and facilitate an indigenous opportunity for peace and credible and unified nationhood.
Unquestionably time to end American military presence and ineffective intervention. It is patently not the solution, it may in fact be an enabler of the persistent Afghan organic dysfunction.
At the heart of this seemingly intractable situation is the lack of fundamental Afghan societal and political mechanisms and institutions capable of spring-boarding off the American and NATO efforts to foster and facilitate an indigenous opportunity for peace and credible and unified nationhood.
Unquestionably time to end American military presence and ineffective intervention. It is patently not the solution, it may in fact be an enabler of the persistent Afghan organic dysfunction.
4
American policy in Afghanistan can only be described as
ridiculous. It is not based on the understanding of
Afghanistan's history and regional politics of South
Asia. Afghanistan is a tribal society with the history of
fighting among themselves and the foreign invaders.
It is a bad assumption that infusion of 5000 more troops
can turn the situation around. At one time USA had
100,000 troops and NATO another 50,000 If this large
number couldn't control Tliban and forced them to
negotiated settlement, a small contigent of 5000 would
make no difference Generals are asking for the surge
as they always do and hate to admit they couldn't succeed.
Pakistan could have helped but USA alienated it by
inviting India and creating fear of India playing a
destabilizing role in Balochistan, adjacent to Afghanistan,
and sandwiching it from both East and West. What India
could do that USA and Europe couldn't? American policy of
throwing money at Pakistan and buying its loyalty hasn't worked. Pakistan's rivalry and fear of India outweigh
the money. Trump administration will do well to reject the
request for surge, not count on Pakistan and bring the
troops home. It is waste of money particularly when
Trump wants to cut food stamps and medicaid. Depriving
poor Americans to help corrupt Afghans is stupid.
ridiculous. It is not based on the understanding of
Afghanistan's history and regional politics of South
Asia. Afghanistan is a tribal society with the history of
fighting among themselves and the foreign invaders.
It is a bad assumption that infusion of 5000 more troops
can turn the situation around. At one time USA had
100,000 troops and NATO another 50,000 If this large
number couldn't control Tliban and forced them to
negotiated settlement, a small contigent of 5000 would
make no difference Generals are asking for the surge
as they always do and hate to admit they couldn't succeed.
Pakistan could have helped but USA alienated it by
inviting India and creating fear of India playing a
destabilizing role in Balochistan, adjacent to Afghanistan,
and sandwiching it from both East and West. What India
could do that USA and Europe couldn't? American policy of
throwing money at Pakistan and buying its loyalty hasn't worked. Pakistan's rivalry and fear of India outweigh
the money. Trump administration will do well to reject the
request for surge, not count on Pakistan and bring the
troops home. It is waste of money particularly when
Trump wants to cut food stamps and medicaid. Depriving
poor Americans to help corrupt Afghans is stupid.
11
Maybe on this issue, Mr. Trump should follow the example of his hero, Mr. Putin, and just tell his generals to pack up and leave; the sooner, the better.
Let Afghanistan be Afghanistan and save the nation $3 billion a day and lots of heartache.
Let Afghanistan be Afghanistan and save the nation $3 billion a day and lots of heartache.
5
America's political leadership is flawed and divided and corruption is rampant.
Total lack of serious State Department background knowledge and personel lend diplomatic efforts futile. We are no longer prepared to take on the 'problem'
of Afghanistan. We have nothing but a military strategy. Is somebody profiting from this "war' financially? Because our spending is not bringing in value on the dollar in any other way. Trump will not be the man to 'fix' this ongoing disaster.
Total lack of serious State Department background knowledge and personel lend diplomatic efforts futile. We are no longer prepared to take on the 'problem'
of Afghanistan. We have nothing but a military strategy. Is somebody profiting from this "war' financially? Because our spending is not bringing in value on the dollar in any other way. Trump will not be the man to 'fix' this ongoing disaster.
2
The 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan are only the tip of the iceberg ... Most of the $3.1 BILLION PER MONTH ($35 - 40 BILLION PER YEAR) spending is for private contractors providing logistical support for those troops and the Afghans. (And to keep an eye on our "friends" in Pakistan.)
Total waste of time and money. Instead of pouring it down the drain, put the money back in the Social Security Fund where it was stolen from.
Time for some letters to our Representatives and Senators. If they continue to support this war in the "Graveyard of Nations", then they need to be voted out in the next election.
Total waste of time and money. Instead of pouring it down the drain, put the money back in the Social Security Fund where it was stolen from.
Time for some letters to our Representatives and Senators. If they continue to support this war in the "Graveyard of Nations", then they need to be voted out in the next election.
4
"Some experts say there are signs that the Taliban could be persuaded to talk if Afghan and American forces ratchet up the military pressure."
That has to rank among the most willfully stupid things I have ever read. The peoples of Afghanistan -- let's not pretend it is just those counted as Taliban -- have withstood over a quarter century of war with two global superpowers, over 9 years of war with the Soviet Union and 16 years with the United States. There is zero evidence, after what must be called exhaustive testing, that they any more than people anywhere respond favorably to "military pressure."
A veteran quoted in Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's piece today remarks, "The Vietnam War drove a stake right into the heart of America." Evidently not deep enough, because here we are half a century later, once again, trying to reshape the world to our liking by killing people and laying waste to their homeland.
That has to rank among the most willfully stupid things I have ever read. The peoples of Afghanistan -- let's not pretend it is just those counted as Taliban -- have withstood over a quarter century of war with two global superpowers, over 9 years of war with the Soviet Union and 16 years with the United States. There is zero evidence, after what must be called exhaustive testing, that they any more than people anywhere respond favorably to "military pressure."
A veteran quoted in Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's piece today remarks, "The Vietnam War drove a stake right into the heart of America." Evidently not deep enough, because here we are half a century later, once again, trying to reshape the world to our liking by killing people and laying waste to their homeland.
8
"The Afghans still need help with such basics as managing their motor pool, supplying bullets and gasoline to troops in the field, and administering payrolls. They also need help with intelligence."
This was true during George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now under Trump. And this scenario is also true in Iraq. This war will never be won by Americans. It can only be "won" if the people in that part of the world embrace something called democracy. It has never really existed there, and to expect them to suddenly embrace it is probably the hardest sell imaginable. It really hasn't worked in Russia for the same reason.
We also need to press Congress and the president to read and follow the Constitution. We have been in Afghanistan for 16 years without a declaration of war. Congress and the President have no moral courage - they'd rather hide behind a AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) and blame they other side if things go south.
On this Memorial Day, we should honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and throw out the politicians who are more concerned with their careers.
This was true during George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now under Trump. And this scenario is also true in Iraq. This war will never be won by Americans. It can only be "won" if the people in that part of the world embrace something called democracy. It has never really existed there, and to expect them to suddenly embrace it is probably the hardest sell imaginable. It really hasn't worked in Russia for the same reason.
We also need to press Congress and the president to read and follow the Constitution. We have been in Afghanistan for 16 years without a declaration of war. Congress and the President have no moral courage - they'd rather hide behind a AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) and blame they other side if things go south.
On this Memorial Day, we should honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and throw out the politicians who are more concerned with their careers.
2
Having just read the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick editorial, this editorial is like deja vu -- America in Vietnam all over again. Never let it be said that America learns from its mistakes.
Part of the original creed of the United States was something to the effect of no "foreign entanglements." There have probably been only two wars, WWI, and WWII, where America was correct in participating.
We should not be isolationist, but as we have seen in nation after nation, other countries around the globe have to work out their own destiny just as the United States has done and continues to do.
Even now there are rumblings that current states in the United States will secede and go their own way. For some this is highly feasible. Just because we have 50 states now does not mean we will always have 50 states. Whatever this life is on planet Earth, it is always changing and always evolving. That process may be progression or regression. The only thing that stays the same is change.
Part of the original creed of the United States was something to the effect of no "foreign entanglements." There have probably been only two wars, WWI, and WWII, where America was correct in participating.
We should not be isolationist, but as we have seen in nation after nation, other countries around the globe have to work out their own destiny just as the United States has done and continues to do.
Even now there are rumblings that current states in the United States will secede and go their own way. For some this is highly feasible. Just because we have 50 states now does not mean we will always have 50 states. Whatever this life is on planet Earth, it is always changing and always evolving. That process may be progression or regression. The only thing that stays the same is change.
1
What is the definition of insanity? We all know the answer...except, perhaps, the Pentagon and the "leadership" of the United States. At what point do the rational people in the United States finally take charge? Or are we doomed, like Sisyphus, to continue ad finitum this pointless endeavor. Truly. I despair of this country.
2
The original goal in Afghanistan was to destroy Al Qeada and punish the Taliban for sheltering Al Qaeda. If those goals have been accomplished the U.S. either must decide to take over the country and reform it or get out.
1
Maybe Trump can call up his buddy Putin and convince him to stop funding the Taliban, rather than donating 5,000 more American lives to a quagmire.
17
I for one, can say with great emphasis that the "war" being waged by American generals in Afghanistan, a "war" that has managed to suck sixteen years worth of blood sweat and tears from the young men who are inevitably sent in to it, as well as sixteen years of the wasted billions of dollars spent which could have been used for far more important domestic matters of concern, is why I feel alienated from my own country. Politically and culturally.
Why bother to vote anymore when you realize your vote isn't one that will bring this hideous war to the close it needed ten years previous. Matter of fact, my vote ends up killing more young men. By proxy. Outrageous. None of these politicians, Obama unfortunately included, have the chutzpah to do the right thing, by ending the drip drip drip federal money pit losses, never mind ending the loss of lives. Americans want out of Afghanistan. We wanted out many, many years ago. What on earth is wrong with us.
Why bother to vote anymore when you realize your vote isn't one that will bring this hideous war to the close it needed ten years previous. Matter of fact, my vote ends up killing more young men. By proxy. Outrageous. None of these politicians, Obama unfortunately included, have the chutzpah to do the right thing, by ending the drip drip drip federal money pit losses, never mind ending the loss of lives. Americans want out of Afghanistan. We wanted out many, many years ago. What on earth is wrong with us.
60
I agree completely. Lynn wrote it eloquently, but eloquence in the matter of Afghanistan appears hollow when, and most importantly if, we simply consider history. No one wins wars in Afghanistan regardless of what we call them, and to suggest that there are ways for the United States to foster democracy there is pitifully ridiculous.
3
Please be my guest and refuse to vote in the future.
It is clear that you have little or no interest in participating in our democratic form of republic, so why should you trouble yourself.
And while you are at it, you might as well cease commenting here on the NY Times' site, Lynne, since it is your stated aim not to take part in determining the solutions to our problems.
It is clear that you have little or no interest in participating in our democratic form of republic, so why should you trouble yourself.
And while you are at it, you might as well cease commenting here on the NY Times' site, Lynne, since it is your stated aim not to take part in determining the solutions to our problems.
The human body may have a disease at one moment or a condition at another, the latter lasting forever.
If you are a reader of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, you may remember Sherlock’s partner Dr. John Watson.
He was a medic in the Afghanistan war of the eighteen nineties between the Brits and the Afghanis. After being wounded, he returned to London and shared Mr. Holmes’ flat and sleuth activities.
At the time, everybody thought that the war was a disease that would go away. Unfortunately, the disease became a condition still affecting us in the 21st century. While Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Watson were fictional characters, the war was not and still being not.
I don’t know how you end conditions, but it is obvious that we are still trying to find the cure and cannot. But, of course, it is always easy to blame previous administrations for the quagmire.
If you are a reader of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, you may remember Sherlock’s partner Dr. John Watson.
He was a medic in the Afghanistan war of the eighteen nineties between the Brits and the Afghanis. After being wounded, he returned to London and shared Mr. Holmes’ flat and sleuth activities.
At the time, everybody thought that the war was a disease that would go away. Unfortunately, the disease became a condition still affecting us in the 21st century. While Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Watson were fictional characters, the war was not and still being not.
I don’t know how you end conditions, but it is obvious that we are still trying to find the cure and cannot. But, of course, it is always easy to blame previous administrations for the quagmire.
27
History repeats itself. Again. And again. The British could not learn from their mistakes, and fought three devastating and futile wars in Afghanistan in the 1800's. The story of the second war reads just like this article here. Of course the Soviets didn't learn from those well-document failures, and neither did the US. It seems extraordinary that lessons of Afghanistan should have to be repeated not once, but five, and now six times by the great powers. Hopkirk's "The Great Game" is essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the Afghan conflict.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it...
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it...
40
We got Bin Laden after 10 years--and after stirring up the whole Middle East by invading Iraq. Why are we still in Afghanistan? There is no good reason for an occupation there--certainly not longer than that of the USSR. They eventually faced the ignominy of retreat. It's about time we did, as in Vietnam. There are limits to military invasion, as we should know by now. Good grief already.
34
Afghanistan is a problem that never should have happened. It is the result of the disastrous "war on terror' implemented by George W. Bush.
If we had stayed and finished the job and not invaded Iraq we would not now be talking about Afghanistan.
Every problem tearing away at life in that part of the world has roots in that decision, and we are still paying for it, in money, toil, and blood.
If we had stayed and finished the job and not invaded Iraq we would not now be talking about Afghanistan.
Every problem tearing away at life in that part of the world has roots in that decision, and we are still paying for it, in money, toil, and blood.
19
Nope, Afghanistan became a problem when William Jefferson Clinton chose not to do anything significant about the rise of Bin Laden and is Al Qaeda band of insurgents.
He treated that situation the same way he treated the situations in Rwanda and Bosnia...he ignored them.
He treated that situation the same way he treated the situations in Rwanda and Bosnia...he ignored them.
It is my understanding we are fighting the Taliban, a group that is not on the terrorist list, not the ISIS, last I heard about 1,000 in number, or Al Quida who I had not heard about but am not surprised about. We are losing to the Taliban. Russia lost once to them too but were not stupid enough to prolong it to 16 years. We cannot afford to prop up a government. They will sell poppies regardless. They make a lot of money on it. During this time we should have helped them figure out other crops to make a living on. Look, let's just beat the groups that are on the terrorist list and get out of there. Sixteen years is outrageous. While cutting off Medicaid we should cut off our out of the country war expenses. A start would be to get out of there, we got Osama, and out of Yemen. It is a proxy war. We don't belong there. Cut out those expenses and we could keep our education expenses and compete with others in the world.
12
In another section of the NYT there is a great article about the wounds of the Vietnam war. Sadly the war in Afghanistan is headed in the same catastrophic ending as the Vietnam war. The only difference here is that the price paid in blood and guts, has been done by a small segment of our society which has been exploited to the hilt. Like Vietnam there is no end in sight in Afghanistan. The real fight is with Jihadist who get their reward from their religion and Americans who think that we can somehow magically change a whole generation of mostly "uneducated" Afghans to follow a democratic process just like ours. This is not going to happen. In the end we will leave (just like Vietnam) and Afghanistan will once again plunge into whatever chaos persisted before we intervened. Let us stop the carnage (for us) and pull out now!!
9
Over and over and over again we make the same neocon mistake.
When will we ever learn that we cannot remake other countries and cultures into our own image? Each country, each people, must find their own path.
We have every right to defend ourselves against attack from other countries. So do other countries have every right to defend themselves against attack from us. The question isn't what to do after we topple a regime, the answer is don't topple regimes or interfere in other countries' civil wars in the first place.
Enough arrogance. Enough hubris. Enough folly. Enough!
When will we ever learn that we cannot remake other countries and cultures into our own image? Each country, each people, must find their own path.
We have every right to defend ourselves against attack from other countries. So do other countries have every right to defend themselves against attack from us. The question isn't what to do after we topple a regime, the answer is don't topple regimes or interfere in other countries' civil wars in the first place.
Enough arrogance. Enough hubris. Enough folly. Enough!
15
The British Empire met its match in Afghanistan in the nineteenth century. The Soviet Union crashed and burned in the mountains of Afghanistan in the twentieth century. The United States has been rolling a stone sisyphus-like up the hill of Afghanistan for most of the twenty-first century.
As the old anti-war song from the Vietnam era asked, "When will they ever learn, Oh when will they ever learn?"
As the old anti-war song from the Vietnam era asked, "When will they ever learn, Oh when will they ever learn?"
14
Indeed, Afghanistan needs to resolve its issues of governance for a political and diplomatic solution; for that it needs to eradicate corruption...rather than escalating U.S.-backed brute force. Just do not look to the United States as a role model in competence and resolve, at least not right now.
9
What was the objective? Remind me again. One trillion dollar later we have nothing to show for it what ever it was. Defeat the Taliban? Was that it? I don't really remember and I'm pretty up to speed on current events.
500 more troops may have a microscopic impact but overall it will be insignificant and hard to measure. Time to end this thing...
500 more troops may have a microscopic impact but overall it will be insignificant and hard to measure. Time to end this thing...
12
As I recall, we sent troops to Afghanistan because the Taliban would not cough up bin Laden after 9/11. We never really had any fight with the Taliban specifically, especially since we supported them when they were fighting with the Russians.
Now that bin Laden is long gone, there is absolutely no reason to have troops in Afghanistan, except pure dumb habit.
Now that bin Laden is long gone, there is absolutely no reason to have troops in Afghanistan, except pure dumb habit.
1
Let's remember why we're in Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban supports terrorist organizations hostile to the United States. These organizations, left to their own devices, are capable of physically attacking the United States. Our continued presence in Afghanistan is propping up the Afghan army and preventing a Taliban resurgence hostile to American interests. Furthermore, a continued American presence keeps our intelligence networks alive and the enemy busy. The lights go out without our continued support.
So how do we "win" this war? The best way to win in Afghanistan is to never fight a war in Afghanistan. Too late for that one. A negotiated peace is certainly an option but seems highly unlikely. The war has been going on for 16 years and only one side is expressing fatigue. That really only leaves two options.
1) Keep fighting with an indefinite strategic purpose while keeping our investment in resources to an absolute minimum.
2) Stage an organized retreat and let the chips fall wherever knowing this will weaken U.S. security by at least some degree.
President Obama settled for option one. We'll see what Trump does. If I had to guess, he'll approve the 5,000 troops but the political and economic avenues of attack will remain quietly ignored. When someone asks for justification, he can blame the generals for making the request. Essentially, I expect a continuation of option one. The definition of minimum resources simply went up again.
So how do we "win" this war? The best way to win in Afghanistan is to never fight a war in Afghanistan. Too late for that one. A negotiated peace is certainly an option but seems highly unlikely. The war has been going on for 16 years and only one side is expressing fatigue. That really only leaves two options.
1) Keep fighting with an indefinite strategic purpose while keeping our investment in resources to an absolute minimum.
2) Stage an organized retreat and let the chips fall wherever knowing this will weaken U.S. security by at least some degree.
President Obama settled for option one. We'll see what Trump does. If I had to guess, he'll approve the 5,000 troops but the political and economic avenues of attack will remain quietly ignored. When someone asks for justification, he can blame the generals for making the request. Essentially, I expect a continuation of option one. The definition of minimum resources simply went up again.
3
What are the benefits if we somehow win or at least maintain the status quo?
What are the consequences if we leave and the Afghan government falls apart?
Does ISIS or the Taliban take over? If so, what does that mean for us and our allies?
Would that create a danger to us (terrorism, a threat to the stability of Muslim allied countries) that would prompt us to go back in with more troops later?
Afghanistan is not the type of country where other allies will worry about our loyalty to them if we abandon it - everyone knows it is a country foreigners have never succeeded in subduing.
With our modern technology couldn't we attack terrorist bases if/when we need to without having soldiers on the ground there?
What are the consequences if we leave and the Afghan government falls apart?
Does ISIS or the Taliban take over? If so, what does that mean for us and our allies?
Would that create a danger to us (terrorism, a threat to the stability of Muslim allied countries) that would prompt us to go back in with more troops later?
Afghanistan is not the type of country where other allies will worry about our loyalty to them if we abandon it - everyone knows it is a country foreigners have never succeeded in subduing.
With our modern technology couldn't we attack terrorist bases if/when we need to without having soldiers on the ground there?
3
It is easy to see the attraction of this war for the US military. Virtually no interest from the American public or its politicians. A 'reasonable cost', that is mostly kept of the books. A place to 'bloody' the troops and allow young officers to gain combat experience. No expectation or consensus about what 'victory' would look like.
Plus, a geopolitical narrative that, objectively speaking, is not without truth: Afghanistan does sit on a crossroads, is close to Russia and China, holds vast amounts of natural resources, etc, and it "would be folly" to pack up and go home. So, expect to be stuck in Afghanistan for a while yet.
On the other hand, in the 21st century version of the Great Game, it would be surprisingly easy for a strategically thinking opponent to use the continued presence of American troops to escalate this conflict very quickly and suck in resources and attention, thereby creating opportunities elsewhere.
The cards are not looking good for the men and women of the US armed forces, who must seriously be wondering in what way their ongoing hardship in Southwest Asia makes the world any safer...
Plus, a geopolitical narrative that, objectively speaking, is not without truth: Afghanistan does sit on a crossroads, is close to Russia and China, holds vast amounts of natural resources, etc, and it "would be folly" to pack up and go home. So, expect to be stuck in Afghanistan for a while yet.
On the other hand, in the 21st century version of the Great Game, it would be surprisingly easy for a strategically thinking opponent to use the continued presence of American troops to escalate this conflict very quickly and suck in resources and attention, thereby creating opportunities elsewhere.
The cards are not looking good for the men and women of the US armed forces, who must seriously be wondering in what way their ongoing hardship in Southwest Asia makes the world any safer...
7
Truly we see history repeating itself. The Frontier Scouts by Charles Chenevix Trench describes in detail how the British army used the North West Frontier as a training ground for its officers.
Foreign invaders since Alexander have been seen off by the Afghans. When eventually the latest set of foreign invaders leave, the Afghans will resume their feuds with one another.
Perhaps the best result would be each local tribe in charge of its territory without heavy weaponry, tanks and artillery, that enable a single faction to ride roughshod over the others.
In the mean time, US policies have produced Afghanistan like conditions in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Foreign invaders since Alexander have been seen off by the Afghans. When eventually the latest set of foreign invaders leave, the Afghans will resume their feuds with one another.
Perhaps the best result would be each local tribe in charge of its territory without heavy weaponry, tanks and artillery, that enable a single faction to ride roughshod over the others.
In the mean time, US policies have produced Afghanistan like conditions in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Without sound moral leadership and exceptional world-savvy in Washington — both lacking in the Trump administration — any US foreign endeavor is doomed to falter. Why? There is nothing to fall back on, nothing to inspire trust and confidence. Donald Trump is the living antonym of Honest Abe.
Why this sudden interest in a country which has been making headlines for some time about resurgent Taliban and IS entry in to Afghanistan? It's questionable whether the Taliban and the local IS could be in such obviously good health without some help. Like a notable lack of effort on the part of those fighting them. It's naive to assume that the Taliban are somehow naturally un-findable and un-fightable, It's absurd to think they're somehow invisible, while they're cornering the best land in the country in plain sight.
Why would military force be needed, if a military solution is beyond the great minds in Washington? Why a small force to deal with a large, difficult country? Why the sudden optimism that all that's needed is a few good men to achieve a result which obviously isn't being considered by the Taliban? Why would they talk to a flawed and corrupt government which they know is barely able to function effectively? Do you think it would be nice if someone suddenly got honest about this situation and explained why this is the solution?
Why would military force be needed, if a military solution is beyond the great minds in Washington? Why a small force to deal with a large, difficult country? Why the sudden optimism that all that's needed is a few good men to achieve a result which obviously isn't being considered by the Taliban? Why would they talk to a flawed and corrupt government which they know is barely able to function effectively? Do you think it would be nice if someone suddenly got honest about this situation and explained why this is the solution?
3
This war can not be won on the battlefield. That has been obvious for some time. It will only be settled when the people of Afghanistan agree on a power sharing arrangement.
In the meantime we continue to spend billion of dollars and American lives to prop up a corrupt government. When are we going to learn that we cannot impose our will on the rest of the world, that our powerful military cannot solve all the world's problems.
On this Memorial Day, we owe it to those who gave their lives for this country to never spend another American life unless there is a clear threat to our country or one of its allies and then only when there is a clear endgame. It's time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghanistan people and bring out troops home. NOW!!
In the meantime we continue to spend billion of dollars and American lives to prop up a corrupt government. When are we going to learn that we cannot impose our will on the rest of the world, that our powerful military cannot solve all the world's problems.
On this Memorial Day, we owe it to those who gave their lives for this country to never spend another American life unless there is a clear threat to our country or one of its allies and then only when there is a clear endgame. It's time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghanistan people and bring out troops home. NOW!!
6
Does the Editorial Board seriously believe that Trump and his advisors, especially in view of their lack of experience in international affairs, will be able to “find a way to encourage improved governance is Kabul and elicit more cooperation with Pakistan so that a troop surge actually advances the cause of political reconciliation?” Talk about wishful thinking! How about some thoughts as to new ways of attempting to bring this about as none of the previous ones have worked, including the usual sending in of more troops.
5
Why are troops present in Afghanistan now ? What is the goal of the involvement ?
Can we redefine clearly the why ? And from that the how ?
Besides showering money to corrupt further more a country with no checks and balances whatsoever.
Can we redefine clearly the why ? And from that the how ?
Besides showering money to corrupt further more a country with no checks and balances whatsoever.
1
Today's generals have had 40 years to digest the lessons of Vietnam. Apparently what some have concluded is that the only reason we didn't win in Vietnam was that they weren't there to lead the war effort.
5
It is not the generals who have missed the lessons of Vietnam, it is the political leaders, the most prominent of which has been Barack Obama.
Note that it was Obama that stated quite often that the war in Afghanistan was one that we had to win. He sadly, then, ignored the Powell Doctrine, the one lesson that should have been learned: If you go to war, go in it to win.
Obama's feckless policies of acquiescence, apology, and indifference has allowed that war to fester on.
It remains the war that needs to be one since allowing a hostile Islamic tyranny to gain a large, mostly unseen base would be a disaster for those of us in the Western World.
Note that it was Obama that stated quite often that the war in Afghanistan was one that we had to win. He sadly, then, ignored the Powell Doctrine, the one lesson that should have been learned: If you go to war, go in it to win.
Obama's feckless policies of acquiescence, apology, and indifference has allowed that war to fester on.
It remains the war that needs to be one since allowing a hostile Islamic tyranny to gain a large, mostly unseen base would be a disaster for those of us in the Western World.
I am not an expert - and much of what I know about our history in the region is based on a movie I saw. That said, please don't pillory me for this, but: pulling out of Afghanistan in the 70s is what lead to a vacuum that created space for the Taliban, no? And isn't part of the reason we still have a presence in that country to ensure that the next Osama Bin Laden doesn't gain a foothold without our having some awareness of it, in advance of another potential 9/11? And even if it takes a long time - an incredibly long time - isn't it in America's, and the world's, best interest for us to help all parties in that country find a way to come together in peaceful (even marginally peaceful) co-existence? Isn't that what our troops have been putting their lives on the line for these many years? I don't know how many American troops we need to have in the region to make this happen - but doesn't the idea of pulling out entirely make our entire effort, and the lives of so many fallen and wounded soldiers, a waste? And doesn't a complete withdrawal of our soldiers create the space for the next Bin Laden?
I saw this up close in the vietnam war. Our presence and killing one of our enemies makes a half a dozen new enemies. There is nothing to be won here. We listen to generals whose job it is to fight wars. We spend the treasure of our nation. The politicians send young people off to die for a lost cause. The Republicans are absolutely awful but the Democrats are just a step behind. There was much to be admired in Obama but he did not stop this awful carnage. In the 1960s my bootcamp experience as a high school graduate was exposure to minorities, the poor, and a couple of individuals with MA degrees and one Ph.D. It is time for us to get back to a draft that takes all, including the sons and daughters of the wealthy. I would like to see Jared and Ivanka serving in Afghanistan. And while I'm on the subject, we all know that a single payer medical system would eventually save money and serve all Americans. Model it after Australia. Time to really take on global warming. We really need a third party that serves all of the American people because the Republican and Democratic politicians only serve themselves.
14
You said it, pal.
If you evaluate the investment of $3 billion / month and American lives in the context of Chinese one belt, one road $1 trillion dollar investment in the infrastructure of over 60 countries, you have to ask, which strategy will ultimately prevail.
The Chinese peaceful economic approach appears to produce few enemies, while our militaristic approach has been an incubator for terrorist for 16 plus years.
The Chinese investment in their economy first will ultimately prevail, while our military industrial complex leadership will ultimately weaken our economy to the extent that our world leadership will be doomed.
These two remarkably divergent strategies and their outcomes must come to the forefront of our geopolitics. A failure to comprehend these fundamental differences will be our downfall.
The Chinese peaceful economic approach appears to produce few enemies, while our militaristic approach has been an incubator for terrorist for 16 plus years.
The Chinese investment in their economy first will ultimately prevail, while our military industrial complex leadership will ultimately weaken our economy to the extent that our world leadership will be doomed.
These two remarkably divergent strategies and their outcomes must come to the forefront of our geopolitics. A failure to comprehend these fundamental differences will be our downfall.
12
A different way of looking at it that I think is right on the mark.
"The Chinese peaceful economic approach appears to produce few enemies"
Very true. See China's history in Cuba, for one example.
Very true. See China's history in Cuba, for one example.
Why can 't Americans have healthcare?
Why can't Americans have a secure retirement ?
Why can't Americans be paid a living wage?
Why can't Americans have good inexpensive
education?
Why? Because most of our tax revenue goes for
a bloated military and never ending wars.
Why can't Americans have a secure retirement ?
Why can't Americans be paid a living wage?
Why can't Americans have good inexpensive
education?
Why? Because most of our tax revenue goes for
a bloated military and never ending wars.
33
In my two tours in Afghanistan I came to the conclusion the only reason the war continues is for Colonels and Generals to punch a ticket in hopes of another promotion and contractors to continue making money. I guarantee you decisions were not made to help the Afghans get on their feet and us out of there.
35
I think that's a really insightful comment, Angela, which means a lot coming from a veteran who was there on the ground for an extended period. The military leadership seems to have its own culture in mind - kind of like corporate management in the business world - rather than the population of the country we're supposed to be saving or the troops who are supposed to do it.
I agree with another earlier commenter, who suggested the public back home would have a completely different attitude if we had the draft. "Hell no, we won't go," might once again become a common slogan. The citizens of the USA have been ready to sacrifice in situations that were more valid, such as World War II, but not in more dubious ones - take your pick as examples.
As it is, with our all-volunteer military, young kids who know absolutely nothing about geopolitics get seduced into signing on. I work in a high school and see the recruiters coming in and talking to the students. None of these kids could find Afghanistan on a map in a minute if you paid them a thousand bucks. Their parents are uneducated. No one is going to stand up for them. The general public isn't going to get too excited about absurd overseas military engagements until the middle class begins losing lives.
I agree with another earlier commenter, who suggested the public back home would have a completely different attitude if we had the draft. "Hell no, we won't go," might once again become a common slogan. The citizens of the USA have been ready to sacrifice in situations that were more valid, such as World War II, but not in more dubious ones - take your pick as examples.
As it is, with our all-volunteer military, young kids who know absolutely nothing about geopolitics get seduced into signing on. I work in a high school and see the recruiters coming in and talking to the students. None of these kids could find Afghanistan on a map in a minute if you paid them a thousand bucks. Their parents are uneducated. No one is going to stand up for them. The general public isn't going to get too excited about absurd overseas military engagements until the middle class begins losing lives.
Didn't give up the British in this country, and the Soviets? Why not the Americans? Afghanistan is a hopeless enterprise. Better leave it alone.
Ok, let's do the math. 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan at a cost of $3.1 billion a month. Not even Trump could say these are fake facts. So that's $369,047 per month for each US soldier to be there. That is spending out of control! I doubt the wages and benefits are more than $15,000 per month for a US soldier. So where does the remaining $354,000 go! Who is getting rich here?!?
3
The headline points out that the war in Afghanistan was "supposed" to be ended, for the US at least, 8 years ago. Who was POTUS 8 years ago and until Jan 2017? It wasn't Trump, was it? I'm just pointing that out now, because I know everyone will immediately jump to their keyboard to blame Trump for Afghanistan. So, just trying to add a little accuracy.
3
Here's the myth to which the U.S. subscribes: If we pull out now, all our boys and girls will have died in vain. It's the only reason our military and politicians keep killing people and dropping bombs; They cannot face up to the fact it's a lost cause, and always has been. Their constituents will never want to hear their best and brightest were sent into battle in an unwinnable war.
Memorial Day: When the U.S. reaffirms its patriotism and rattles its sabres and prepare more cannon fodder. Will Trump bite when the generals dangle those gaudy rising poll numbers and shiny new bombs and drones and death and destruction? Sure he will. U.S. Presidents cannot resist the never-ending war.
Memorial Day: When the U.S. reaffirms its patriotism and rattles its sabres and prepare more cannon fodder. Will Trump bite when the generals dangle those gaudy rising poll numbers and shiny new bombs and drones and death and destruction? Sure he will. U.S. Presidents cannot resist the never-ending war.
2
These types of wars always fail because they presuppose the people we are fighting for want the same thing as we do. They don't. First, there really isn't a country called Afghanistan. There is instead warring tribes thrown together by 19th century imperialism. The various groups hate each other and yearn for independence or domination over the others. Second, free elections, human rights and rule of law are western concepts not understood by a largely poor, illiterate and deeply religious populace. Our policies need to refect these limitations rather than "help" the Afghans by imposing our ideals in their "country."
3
It is beyond my comprehension what a mini-surge in troops would accomplish. Ignoring the quotidian realities of fighting a war such as this has only led to a never ending conflict. The British, Soviets, and now we ourselves are learning that Afghanistan truly is where "Empires go to die".
1
The people in the pentagon haven't won a war since 1945. Why should we listen to them? They put 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam and got 58,000 of them killed. And they lost.
Afghanistan is the size of Texas and has and has a population of 33 million. The pentagon couldn't hold I with over 100,00 during the surge. And now they want to add 5,000 to a losing effort.
Shouldn't supporting troops mean not getting them killed is useless wars?
Afghanistan is the size of Texas and has and has a population of 33 million. The pentagon couldn't hold I with over 100,00 during the surge. And now they want to add 5,000 to a losing effort.
Shouldn't supporting troops mean not getting them killed is useless wars?
4
I was not prepared for the beauty of Vietnam.
Perhaps death's edge sharpens the senses, but no, the country's smokey mystery, checkerboard paddys, the angelus of flare fireworks each night opened a piece of my mind which has never closed.
Perhaps death's edge sharpens the senses, but no, the country's smokey mystery, checkerboard paddys, the angelus of flare fireworks each night opened a piece of my mind which has never closed.
1
$3 billion a month, so that's $36 billion a year, or just about three times what the GOP plans to save by cutting Medicaid to vulnerable children, the disabled, and elderly Alzheimer's victims in nursing homes.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Do we have our priorities straight?
11
Is this the way we we "support our troops" by sending them to fight another unwinnable war? Go figure.
2
How are we defining victory in Afghanistan? What was the purpose of invading years ago? Why cant we just declare victory and leave them to destroy themselves? We cant have our tax dollars going for women's health, but it is ok to throw billions away on a worthless cause? Why do we allow this in our country?
3
The purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush demanded that the Taliban government turn bin Laden over. In response, the Taliban asked for evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the attacks. Rather than comply, Bush invaded.
Bin Laden fled Afghanistan for Pakistan shortly after the invasion, maybe even before the end of 2001. Yet the war continued. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan six years ago this month, and the war still continued.
I have always believed that the stated purpose for invading Afghanistan was a farce: American intelligence, combined with special forces and cruise missiles, could have located and killed bin Laden without a full-scale ground war. But even accepting the stated purpose for the invasion, that purpose was achieved when bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan, and surely when he was killed.
Since then, the de facto purpose of the war has become the creation of a stable, pro-Western Afghan regime with some semblance of democratic legitimacy. But that objective is absurd; Afghan society is largely illiterate, hopelessly tribal, barbaric in its treatment of women, and utterly unfamiliar with concepts such as free speech that are necessary to responsible self-government. Afghanistan is many decades from democracy.
This is a war that should not have been fought. And it is a war that if fought should have been abandoned years ago.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Bin Laden fled Afghanistan for Pakistan shortly after the invasion, maybe even before the end of 2001. Yet the war continued. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan six years ago this month, and the war still continued.
I have always believed that the stated purpose for invading Afghanistan was a farce: American intelligence, combined with special forces and cruise missiles, could have located and killed bin Laden without a full-scale ground war. But even accepting the stated purpose for the invasion, that purpose was achieved when bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan, and surely when he was killed.
Since then, the de facto purpose of the war has become the creation of a stable, pro-Western Afghan regime with some semblance of democratic legitimacy. But that objective is absurd; Afghan society is largely illiterate, hopelessly tribal, barbaric in its treatment of women, and utterly unfamiliar with concepts such as free speech that are necessary to responsible self-government. Afghanistan is many decades from democracy.
This is a war that should not have been fought. And it is a war that if fought should have been abandoned years ago.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
2
Let's see. $800 billion divided by 16 years = $50 billion a year. Well, I guess the pentagon and policymakers are right. This country has nothing better to do with $50 billion a year. We might just as well throw more money at this war. We're all good. Move along. Nothing to see here.
1
Also we should remind ourselves of what Smedley Butler, Major General, WWI and most decorated Marine wrote in his book, "War is a Racket." War is exactly that, a racket, many suffer and die, while a few get very rich.
4
You can't impose democracy by force. And it doesn't start with national elections. It starts with local democracy.
1
Pull our troops and money out of Afghanistan. Use the manpower and money instead to build an underground Maglev rail line between NYC and DC. We'll have fewer casualties and we'll have something to show for our money.
1
I just finished reading Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's opinion piece, "Vietnam's Unhealed Wounds"in today's NYT. Now as I read this opinion piece, I ask myself don't we ever learn? Sadly, I think the answer is "no."
Having just finished Farrell's excellent book, "Richard Nixon, The Life" and McMaster's, "Dereliction of Duty" (LBJ's great lie regarding Vietnam), I find myself so cynical about our federal government over the past 5 decades up to and including today. This is not where I want to be in the twilight of my life.
Yet, my wife and I will go the Memorial Day service today for the fallen and missing who kept the faith and believed in America. My heart aches for my country.
Having just finished Farrell's excellent book, "Richard Nixon, The Life" and McMaster's, "Dereliction of Duty" (LBJ's great lie regarding Vietnam), I find myself so cynical about our federal government over the past 5 decades up to and including today. This is not where I want to be in the twilight of my life.
Yet, my wife and I will go the Memorial Day service today for the fallen and missing who kept the faith and believed in America. My heart aches for my country.
2
How can the US be so stupid, with the lessons of Vietnam and the Soviet/Afghan war so recent, to continue this war? It is the amazing arrogance and idiocy of American leadership that has led the US down this path.
1
What happens if we leave? We know what happens if we stay.
One thing I never hear mentioned in any discussion involving Afghanistan: one assumes the U.S. military maintains a rapid response special ops force on perpetual readiness to deploy in the event Pakistan would ever lose control of one (or more) of its nuclear weapons. One further assumes this force would be based and continually training in Afghanistan. What I'd like to know: how large is this force? Is their number included in reported troop totals? What does NYT know about this mission? Thanks, Carl
Our enemy in Afghanistan was al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. W's failure to recognize this turned a 6-weeks victory in a decades-long defeat.
3
Let's call this conflict what it is...."the forever war".....supported by the military industrial complex and careerist generals. At what point do we acknowledge what the British and Russians long ago learned.....you cannot win a long term conflict in that part of the world as an occupying foreign force.
1
Of course expanding our longest war ever is crazy, and we forget that 150 years ago Britain fought three wars in Afghanistan and in more recent times the Russians pulled out too. We helped defeat the latter by training Muslim fighters, some of whom became Al Qaeda. Today Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of illegal opium. But don't blame our generals for doing the job that three presidents have ordered them to do.
Until the American people say no more the War will continue. And it is so far from our citizens minds the Pentagon could add 50,000 more troops and all you would get would be a few protesters and a ho-hum from the rest of the citizenry.
This is just another Vietnam except we're not killing as many on each side. You have a corrupt government and a resilient insurgency. Perfect ingredients for a long term slog.
No easy solution. We should have gone in to Afghanistan with the sole objective of getting Bin Laden but we didn't. We let the Iraq War take hold and ignored our original objective. And now we're paying a heavy price for our folly.
This is just another Vietnam except we're not killing as many on each side. You have a corrupt government and a resilient insurgency. Perfect ingredients for a long term slog.
No easy solution. We should have gone in to Afghanistan with the sole objective of getting Bin Laden but we didn't. We let the Iraq War take hold and ignored our original objective. And now we're paying a heavy price for our folly.
It's time to admit that Afghanistan is Vietnam revisited -- only longer, and more expensive, and quite a bit more difficult to win. If "win" even is the objective.
Time to pull up our pants and go home.
Time to pull up our pants and go home.
The original mission in Afghanistan was to kill or capture the al-Qaeda leaders who plotted the 9-11 Attacks. The United States should have withdrawn its forces from Afghanistan immediately after the Battle of Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001. U.S. forces destroyed the al-Qaeda headquarters complex and training base, but failed to capture bin Laden, who fled to Pakistan. Instead, we became entangled in a nation-building campaign in a country that has no strategic value to America.
2
As Rudyard Kipling said years ago, when you fight in Afghanistan, save the last bullet for yourself.
"In The Graveyard of Empires" (Title of Seth Jones book) we can find the remains of Macedonians, French, British, Russian and, now, Americans with a war that has no end in sight.
Even a losing gambler knows when his luck has run out and if 2000 American dead (How many Afghans?), 800 billion in lost dollars, graft and corruption still a problem, when are we going to figure out that luck's not with us?
But Mr. Bush and his children didn't have to fight there, Mr. Obama and his daughters didn't eagerly wade into the bloodbath and now, the "Supreme Chicken Hawk" probably will continue this conflict as long as somebody else's kids do the fighting.
If "saving face" for our sadly misinformed military and political leaders is more important than "saving lives" for a hopeless cause, then we can expect to be stuck in Afghanistan as long as there is a United States.
In short, unless we kill every single Afghan alive (An impossibility and morally reprehensible) then we are doomed to continue losing. Our goal of dismantling Al Qaeda has morphed into half hearted "nation building" with hardly any results in that score for 16 years unless one counts corrupt leaders and a dangerous countryside as progress.
Get out now!
"In The Graveyard of Empires" (Title of Seth Jones book) we can find the remains of Macedonians, French, British, Russian and, now, Americans with a war that has no end in sight.
Even a losing gambler knows when his luck has run out and if 2000 American dead (How many Afghans?), 800 billion in lost dollars, graft and corruption still a problem, when are we going to figure out that luck's not with us?
But Mr. Bush and his children didn't have to fight there, Mr. Obama and his daughters didn't eagerly wade into the bloodbath and now, the "Supreme Chicken Hawk" probably will continue this conflict as long as somebody else's kids do the fighting.
If "saving face" for our sadly misinformed military and political leaders is more important than "saving lives" for a hopeless cause, then we can expect to be stuck in Afghanistan as long as there is a United States.
In short, unless we kill every single Afghan alive (An impossibility and morally reprehensible) then we are doomed to continue losing. Our goal of dismantling Al Qaeda has morphed into half hearted "nation building" with hardly any results in that score for 16 years unless one counts corrupt leaders and a dangerous countryside as progress.
Get out now!
Alexander the Great was defeated there. The British Empire was defeated there. The Soviet Empire was defeated there. Make no mistake, America, too, has been defeated there.
2
To win is to be successful.
We "won" the Vietnam war when we finally learned the lesson that we didn't belong there, that they didn't want us, and that it was a civil war that needed to run its course.
We will finally win the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Syria, when we finally understand that we don't belong in the middle of the centuries old civil war between religious factions. We need to leave, just leave, and try to be friends with all. We need to stop arming this faction or that faction.
Let's try winning for a change. Success can be ours, and eventually theirs, though since Israel introduced atomic weapons of mass destruction and aimed them at her enemies, there may be a few mushroom clouds.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
We "won" the Vietnam war when we finally learned the lesson that we didn't belong there, that they didn't want us, and that it was a civil war that needed to run its course.
We will finally win the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Syria, when we finally understand that we don't belong in the middle of the centuries old civil war between religious factions. We need to leave, just leave, and try to be friends with all. We need to stop arming this faction or that faction.
Let's try winning for a change. Success can be ours, and eventually theirs, though since Israel introduced atomic weapons of mass destruction and aimed them at her enemies, there may be a few mushroom clouds.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
None of the above matters. We will be in Afghanistan until Islamic Extremist groups are no longer at threat there. September 11 was orchestrated from Afghanistan. Any president who allows that to happen again will destroy himself and his party. No one will risk it. Get used to it. We will be in Afghanistan for decades.
1
I never thought in my lifetime we would ever repeat the mistakes we made in Vietnam---here we are again, stuck in the middle of a conflict where we do not understand the political, cultural, or social context we are in. Actually, and I hate saying this, Trump, could have been the President to pull the plug on this mess. One of his campaign themes was isolationism and no nation building--perfect. I had the same hope for President Obama. But it appears that no President has the courage to say, we can't win this ---whatever winning means---so, good bye. What is most tragic about these interventions are those parents who lose a son or daughter in a conflict that continues searching for a clearly articulated outcome.
76
Sadly I agree. Trump could greatly enhance his chances of reelection if he told the generals no more war in Afghanistan. Pack up and pull the troops out tomorrow.
There are soldiers sent to Afghanistan who were in diapers when that war started. Soon, we'll be sending people who were not even born when it started.
That is a human measure of Forever War. Like the wars of Orwell's 1984, they become permanent parts of life, instead of a war fought to an end and for a purpose.
That is a human measure of Forever War. Like the wars of Orwell's 1984, they become permanent parts of life, instead of a war fought to an end and for a purpose.
3
"Washington concluded long ago that a military solution is out of the question."
Too bad they didn't figure it out before Bush/Cheney invaded while those who spoke out at the time to point it out were shouted down as unpatriotic.
Too bad they didn't figure it out before Bush/Cheney invaded while those who spoke out at the time to point it out were shouted down as unpatriotic.
25
The hubris of people who believed the US could accomplish in Afghanistan what the Soviet Union could not do across its shared land border with that nation is one of the greatest conceits of military history.
1
At a cost of 3.1 billion dollars a month already , if Republicans want to ADD to that , then they better figure out a way to pay for it . It's as if this party has two sides of the brain that don't work together . In the midst of all of the military commitments we have and will have in the future , I can't see how they can keep a straight face as they once again allow the very wealthy to have MORE tax cuts . It's unbelievable really .
It is absurd on its face and completely nonsensical . But there they are , pushing their agenda of tax cuts and more military spending while they actually try to make some kind of moral argument for the wealthy not contributing to this country 's needs . Our roads and bridges are crumbling , they want an increase in military boots on the ground , but once again somehow the wealthy in this country get a free ride at the expense of everyone else and especially of those who need it the most . Cutting meals on wheels , really ? Disgraceful .
This is an awful time to be an American.
It is absurd on its face and completely nonsensical . But there they are , pushing their agenda of tax cuts and more military spending while they actually try to make some kind of moral argument for the wealthy not contributing to this country 's needs . Our roads and bridges are crumbling , they want an increase in military boots on the ground , but once again somehow the wealthy in this country get a free ride at the expense of everyone else and especially of those who need it the most . Cutting meals on wheels , really ? Disgraceful .
This is an awful time to be an American.
172
Red states can pay for it with an extra tax on gun sales and all the money they're saving from cutting Medicaid.
1
It is not only the Afghans that need help with intelligence, it is US, and we need intelligence that we are clearly not capable of. While it has been clear for some time that this war is a total failure, we keep throwing money and lives at it, while all the time we continue to alienate the very people we are trying to 'help'. Didn't we originally start this war in our hunt for Bin Laden? What excuse do we use now?
76
Bush invaded Afghanistan rather than accept the Taliban's offer to deport Osama bin Laded to a neutral country for trial.
The 16-year war merely produced more misery for Afghanistan and the region, without tangibly reducing the risk of a terrorist attack on the American homeland. But great powers do not like to publicly accept defeat in mission. And therefore the Administration will go through the predictable set of moves: bombing, half-hearted negotiation, keeping the puppets in place, pressuring Pakistan, until it's time to hand over the mess to the next administration. This game could easily go on for decades to come. Maybe we should refer to the Groundhog Day movie to find out how the US will break out of this monotony.
24
At least the editorial suggests that there is a strategy. It might not be workable, but it is present.
It is occupation - holding the line until a stable government and military can take over. But is there a stable government? Is there a military to defeat the Taliban and impose a nation with a rule of law?
There has not been anything to fill the vacuum for a decade which is why the Taliban is back. Democracy is hard. It doesn't just pop up out of the ashes and out of the poppy fields of old warlords. In the western world it started from roots planted in 1215 with the Magna Cart and took almost another 500 years to gel into a political system.
If winning means occupation, we cannot win. Get out.
It is occupation - holding the line until a stable government and military can take over. But is there a stable government? Is there a military to defeat the Taliban and impose a nation with a rule of law?
There has not been anything to fill the vacuum for a decade which is why the Taliban is back. Democracy is hard. It doesn't just pop up out of the ashes and out of the poppy fields of old warlords. In the western world it started from roots planted in 1215 with the Magna Cart and took almost another 500 years to gel into a political system.
If winning means occupation, we cannot win. Get out.
30
Yes and in our fear of terrorism, which in the US has killed less than 3,400 people since 1990, we are gutting the Magna Carta, making exceptions to the basics of democracy, like holding citizens indefinitely without trial.
1
They are a primitive people incapable of any kind of different lifestyle. Those that are outliers are welcome here. Lovely people really.
As viet vet I am amazed at how we have managed to replicate history in the middle east. Did we not learn from Vietnam that General's always want more men and what the eventual outcome will be.
140
And don't we know from history that every military adventure into Afghanistan resulted in failure and catastrophe for the invader?
It does seem that we've learned nothing from Vietnam and Iraq. Particularly the Generals.
It does seem that we've learned nothing from Vietnam and Iraq. Particularly the Generals.
This is a poor use of $3.1Billion per MONTH. How to exit gracefully is not clear, and one must remember that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Some way to maintain some American influence may be desirable, if only to prevent a takeover by China, which has plans for Afghan raw materials.
1
Wasn't it "discovered" that Afghanistan was littered with mineral wealth soon after Bush/Cheney invaded? They were after other peoples natural resources, as usual, just like in Iraq. Wrap the theft in the flag and the public eats it up. God, are we dumb!
perhaps, this is the time Washington needs to rethink its Afghan policy, inclusive of all stakeholders' interests and move beyond 'transactional' nature of its relations with Pakistan.
"you've got to stop this war in Afghanistan" by simply realizing that restricting India expand its influence in Afghanistan will not clash with core American interests.
The Us is imperiling its core interests in Afghanistan by letting a not-so-great partner influence and drive its Afghan policy.
"you've got to stop this war in Afghanistan" by simply realizing that restricting India expand its influence in Afghanistan will not clash with core American interests.
The Us is imperiling its core interests in Afghanistan by letting a not-so-great partner influence and drive its Afghan policy.
1
It's well past the time when we look to Pakistan as the driver of the conflict in Afghanistan. Pakistan is center mass of the problem and needs to be center mass of any solution.
What does victory look like? In a counter-insurgency, only one thing is needed to win. To win you must not quit, that’s all. Yes, this is our longest war, but the American casualties from the war are a tiny fraction of our casualties in most wars. Unless we want to abandon Afghanistan to terrorists again, we need to maintain enough troops in the country to stave off the insurgents and the terrorists until the government of Afghanistan is self-sufficient. This will not happen next year, and it may not happen in ten years. We may need to stay in Afghanistan for fifty years or more, but that is the only way to win. That is what we signed up for in 2001. If you break it, you own it. Five thousand more troops in Afghanistan indefinitely will not put a major strain on the United States in terms of strategic position or financial commitment or loss of life, but it may make all the difference in the world to keeping Afghanistan stable. The Afghans are already paying the heaviest cost in lives in the protection of Afghanistan, and Afghans have now been in the lead in defending the country for over two years.
1
Perhaps the best way to fix what we broke is to leave it alone. If you continue to beat your head against a wall but the wall does not break, how long do you continue to do it? Our wars have not only failed but helped ruin our already poor reputation abroad. Afghanistan is still broken, in part, because we're trying to fix it. The days of colonialism and empire should be over. Let's take all that money and use it on giving our school teachers a raise.
3
Your argument is as good as any in the lose-lose situation that exists in Afghanistan.
But is this really what we signed on for after 9/11? I never had any interest in breaking or owning Afghanistan. I signed on for bringing bin Laden to justice, not regime change and endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Yemen and...
Those who pursued our foreign policy and committed our troops around the world after 9/11 were not implementing policy that the American people signed on for, they were making decisions that guaranteed decreasing supoort among the American people for policies that required long term American commitment of blood and treasure. They were presented as being short, decisive wars with limited, recognizable objectives, when they were exactly the opposite.
In fact, our leaders did not take actions that we signed on for at all. Is it any wonder that so many Americans just want to bring our troops home?
"The belief in the possibility of a short, decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
-Robert Wilson Lynd
But is this really what we signed on for after 9/11? I never had any interest in breaking or owning Afghanistan. I signed on for bringing bin Laden to justice, not regime change and endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Yemen and...
Those who pursued our foreign policy and committed our troops around the world after 9/11 were not implementing policy that the American people signed on for, they were making decisions that guaranteed decreasing supoort among the American people for policies that required long term American commitment of blood and treasure. They were presented as being short, decisive wars with limited, recognizable objectives, when they were exactly the opposite.
In fact, our leaders did not take actions that we signed on for at all. Is it any wonder that so many Americans just want to bring our troops home?
"The belief in the possibility of a short, decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
-Robert Wilson Lynd
Aren't the 'insurgents' actually, simple put, the Pashtun, the people who inhabit that environ and have done so for hundreds of years in their present configuration.
Americans do not approve of what we think of as their barbaric tribal culture but the notion that we will eventually impose our imperialistic will on these people is fantasy. Who was it that opined "Afghanistan is where empires go to die". The Soviets at the height of their power ran out of there with their tale between their legs having had enough and we will eventually declare victory and leave as well. At that point scores will need to be settled as they were with Mohammad Najibullah
who was said to have been castrated, dragged through the streets Kabul behind a truck and the hanged by a piano wire noose from a tree after having been hold up at the Un Headquarters from 1992 till 1996. The US can't even keep Puerto Rico solvent but we are going to turn Afghanistan into a pro western democratic state?
Americans do not approve of what we think of as their barbaric tribal culture but the notion that we will eventually impose our imperialistic will on these people is fantasy. Who was it that opined "Afghanistan is where empires go to die". The Soviets at the height of their power ran out of there with their tale between their legs having had enough and we will eventually declare victory and leave as well. At that point scores will need to be settled as they were with Mohammad Najibullah
who was said to have been castrated, dragged through the streets Kabul behind a truck and the hanged by a piano wire noose from a tree after having been hold up at the Un Headquarters from 1992 till 1996. The US can't even keep Puerto Rico solvent but we are going to turn Afghanistan into a pro western democratic state?
1
What does even "victory" look like in Afghanistan? What kind of "nation building" will work in a place that may never have met the definitions of a modern nation state? Assuming that some kind of "victory" is even theoretically possible, what is the strategy to get such a victory? How long will it take? How many deaths? How many trillions of dollars? Finally, what are the chances that such "victory" will last? i haven't seen a single answer to a single question, all of which logically says "Just. Get. Out."
13
"Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s political leadership remains deeply flawed and divided; corruption is rampant ..."
In a 2013 NY Time article, "With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan," an US official was quoted as saying, "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States.”
I wonder if that is still the case. Regardless, it is long past time to get out of Afghanistan.
Trump once said, “If I become president, the era of nation-building will be ended."
Considering the dizzying number of 180s he has done after assuming office, it is a safe bet that our involvement in Afghanistan will continue. It is a question of how many more MOABs will be dropped on the poor people of Afghanistan before it is all over.
In a 2013 NY Time article, "With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan," an US official was quoted as saying, "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States.”
I wonder if that is still the case. Regardless, it is long past time to get out of Afghanistan.
Trump once said, “If I become president, the era of nation-building will be ended."
Considering the dizzying number of 180s he has done after assuming office, it is a safe bet that our involvement in Afghanistan will continue. It is a question of how many more MOABs will be dropped on the poor people of Afghanistan before it is all over.
8
Every, I repeat every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie.
1
Today I'll mourn the loss of a friend who stepped on a land mine in Vietnam. I'll mourn the loss of my father who never recovered from PTSD from the Korean Conflict. I'll grieve along with my friend whose son came home from Afghanistan in a coffin. But even more than those deaths, I'll mourn that our nation no longer seeks to find peace but would rather continue to build the war machine. I mourn that we have sanitized wars so that now there's little skin in it for most Americans. People no longer see the bodies transported back and question the validity of war. The same people are signing up and re-upping. They get to play Russian roulette with their lives while we sit back and watch TV. While we listen to the new generation of 'leaders' who deliberately skipped out on wars seek to bomb nations as the answer to complex problems. We willingly support any war, any President proposes with little thought to the consequences. Guns don't win wars - not in the Korean conflict, not in Vietnam, not in Iran and not in Afghanistan.
We've supplanted our rights for an illusion of safety while we continue to finance the war machine with little regard for the end game. After 9-11 many of us asked "why do they hate us" yet we fail to look at the destruction our war machine responses have left behind around the world. We've grown ever more hateful of others who differ yet never seek what we have in common. War is not diplomacy! War is not the answer!
We've supplanted our rights for an illusion of safety while we continue to finance the war machine with little regard for the end game. After 9-11 many of us asked "why do they hate us" yet we fail to look at the destruction our war machine responses have left behind around the world. We've grown ever more hateful of others who differ yet never seek what we have in common. War is not diplomacy! War is not the answer!
148
I could not agree more - extremely well said.
I am sorry for your losses.
I am sorry for your losses.
1
The rich have no skin in the game in Afghanistan. But they do have enormous investments in the corporations that build and operate the war machine.
Until their children are returning in coffins don't look to see this end.
Until their children are returning in coffins don't look to see this end.
2
First it was Bush's VietNam.
When Obama was elected the whole Afghan mess was studied and the very bad decision was made to do a "surge" as requested by the then commanders to finish the war.
Now sixteen years later it is Trump's VietNam and the commanders want a troop increase.
Who was it that said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" ?
Today is Memorial Day and I do support the troops who are brave and honorable Americans. I do not support the mission or the murderous fools who define that mission.
It is past time to end this longest of American wars.
When Obama was elected the whole Afghan mess was studied and the very bad decision was made to do a "surge" as requested by the then commanders to finish the war.
Now sixteen years later it is Trump's VietNam and the commanders want a troop increase.
Who was it that said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" ?
Today is Memorial Day and I do support the troops who are brave and honorable Americans. I do not support the mission or the murderous fools who define that mission.
It is past time to end this longest of American wars.
30
Asking someone who has no knowledge of history to make life and death decisions of our troops is a no win situation to begin with. But that was done on November 8. We are now stuck with that decision. One can only hope that Trump will stick with one campaign promise, to get us out of Afghanistan. I am not hopeful.
At what point do we realize our invasion into Afghanistan was to capture and punish those responsible for 9/11. Or was it really? Were there other factors, such as access to natural resources that the Taliban government was in our way. The Taliban had absolutely zero role in 9/11. It was carried out by Al Qaeda. But that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, who also had zero to do with 9/11. As I said, I'm not hopeful. So sad.
At what point do we realize our invasion into Afghanistan was to capture and punish those responsible for 9/11. Or was it really? Were there other factors, such as access to natural resources that the Taliban government was in our way. The Taliban had absolutely zero role in 9/11. It was carried out by Al Qaeda. But that didn't stop us from invading Iraq, who also had zero to do with 9/11. As I said, I'm not hopeful. So sad.
37
If the United States army, at times with large numbers of troops, could not subdue the Taliban in 16 years or stabilize the the corrupt Afghani government, what is the purpose of sending in 5,000 more soldiers or staying any longer? Afghanistan has been waiting out and swallowing up invaders for thousands of years. They hate occupiers and the so-called battle of hearts and minds was lost a long, long time ago. The Taliban continue to operate and have no interest in cutting a deal with the US, unless it is one they will quickly break. As long as American troops stay, more will be killed, often by Afghani soldiers.
6
We should now only focus on securing and exploiting
rare earth materials mining operations and sign a
a 50 year lease on the land.
US Military personnel should be assigned to protect the mining operations for two year stints.
They each get a piece of the action out of the royalty payments as hazard pay.
rare earth materials mining operations and sign a
a 50 year lease on the land.
US Military personnel should be assigned to protect the mining operations for two year stints.
They each get a piece of the action out of the royalty payments as hazard pay.
2
"How can 3,000 or even 5,000 more American troops ensure victory when the United States at one point had a force of nearly 100,000 in Afghanistan and was unable to defeat the Taliban and stabilize the country? And what would victory look like anyway?"
This is why the feelings of deja vu arise: Recent U.S. history, at least as far back as Vietnam, indicates that military leadership is not interested in facing such tough questions. They just want more troops.
This is why the feelings of deja vu arise: Recent U.S. history, at least as far back as Vietnam, indicates that military leadership is not interested in facing such tough questions. They just want more troops.
3
We have no strategy and therefore no tactic will work. What does the Middle East look like when we have finished our work there? If we were able to create that vision (on our wall chart) would any of us agree on it? Would there be any answer to "Why?"?
Begging to differ on one mostly irrelevant point in the editorial - the Taliban have been defeated in Afghanistan several times. As has been observed over and over, Afghanistan is easy to conquer but impossible to occupy.
Begging to differ on one mostly irrelevant point in the editorial - the Taliban have been defeated in Afghanistan several times. As has been observed over and over, Afghanistan is easy to conquer but impossible to occupy.
2
I did a lot of research on why we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for a book on corruption and the laundering of its proceeds. The real reasons are well hidden in the wings for Afghanistan. They are two and can be pieced together from scattered reports from officialdom and journalists of various countries.
The Taliban had choked off the production of heroin because it wasn't "Islamic" and the Mafias wanted it opened again. The Mafias are not some movie bad guys or good guys, they are real people and have an influence that is both subtle and powerful in our national politics that no one really dares talk about.
The second reason is that our military and intelligence bureaucracies feed their power and profits from actual war and the fear of war. In the Middle East, actual war has reigned supreme - very profitably.
The evidence of these two factors are scattered in official documents from various countries and in diverse journalists' articles. No one has put it all together publicly for fear of disappearing.
Think for a moment about the expenditures cited in this article. It brings tears of joy to the eyes of the entire Military Industrial Complex, to certain echelons of the intelligence community and the politicians related to them.
Afghanistan, post-invasion, immediately began producing 80% of the world's heroin again and as a kicker, has become one of the world's top producers of marijuana. That's why the flood of cheap dope exists.
The Taliban had choked off the production of heroin because it wasn't "Islamic" and the Mafias wanted it opened again. The Mafias are not some movie bad guys or good guys, they are real people and have an influence that is both subtle and powerful in our national politics that no one really dares talk about.
The second reason is that our military and intelligence bureaucracies feed their power and profits from actual war and the fear of war. In the Middle East, actual war has reigned supreme - very profitably.
The evidence of these two factors are scattered in official documents from various countries and in diverse journalists' articles. No one has put it all together publicly for fear of disappearing.
Think for a moment about the expenditures cited in this article. It brings tears of joy to the eyes of the entire Military Industrial Complex, to certain echelons of the intelligence community and the politicians related to them.
Afghanistan, post-invasion, immediately began producing 80% of the world's heroin again and as a kicker, has become one of the world's top producers of marijuana. That's why the flood of cheap dope exists.
12
Has it been 16 years already? Unfortunately, this is/was an entirely knowable situation. Based on history, any intervention, like the Post 9/11 effort against Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, would have entertained, by any mildly studied intellect, the requirement to have limited objectives entailing nothing involving a protracted commitment of forces in this Country. How did we get here, again? Somebody is making money on this. Find those people and find the reason.
7
Just like surgeons look for reasons to operate, generals look for reasons to fight. But sometimes you have to accept that no matter how much you want to help, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries just doesn't work. Sounds like the time has come to let them reach equalibrium on their own.
4
The British. The Soviet Union. And now the U.S. At least they had the good sense (finally) to throw in the towel and save themselves further involvement in what everyone knows is a bottomless pit of lost lives and money wasted. Obama should have ended this waking nightmare on the first day of his presidency. He's such an intelligent and thoughtful man; I'm still surprised and disappointed that he allowed this disaster to continue. I have ZERO faith in our current president for anything. I can only hope that through blind ignorance he'll stumble into the realization that the only thing we should do regarding Afghanistan is to leave.
5
50 years ago it was the expansion of Communism that we were fighting in Southeast Asia. Today it is the expansion of radical Islamic ideology in the form of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. In 1967 the US political establishment saw it as an existential threat if Vietnam became a fallen domino, but the truth is that after the North won against our political and militarily flawed intervention, Vietnam has prospered, has never become the bogeyman we feared, and now enjoys civil relations with the US. I dare say the same if the Taliban succeeds in Afghanistan, but I do say that our political and military strategy against radical Islam may be equally as flawed by equally as arrogant and myopic strategists in Washington.
4
I fear our experience with Vietnam is affecting our judgement when it comes to Afghanistan. Should we be hesitant to get involved in a seemingly never-ending war? Yes, but that doesn't mean we never should. The Vietnam War was a very different than Afghanistan. The Afghanistan War started because of 9/11. America didn't start it. Super-hardocore radical jihadists did. Whenever jihadists get their own military territory, they create trouble for the entire world. The fight against Islamist terrorism is not just our war-- it's a war to protect the peaceful people of all countries and religions. The unfortunate fact is that groups like the Taliban and ISIS still have a ton of support. If we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over, just as ISIS rose to power when we left Iraq. We have a moral obligation to stop that from happening, even if it means a decades long war with no clear-cut victories. We need to come to terms with the reality that there are certain parts of the world that DO need a "world police" of sorts. Some will say putting troops on the ground will lead to terrorists retaliating-- but terrorists will retaliate regardless. What terrorists can't have is their own "country" to organize. No one wants to see American troops die-- but when you factor in everything-- the terror attacks, the persecution of muslims and non-muslims, the threat of Jihadists getting nukes-- this war is as important as any in history. If we pull out now, we are just punting the problem.
1
Well put, and I simply take it to the next level, as the case may be, in my posting if you read it.
The isolationism/defeatism argued for by the Times will be no more successful to defeat aggressive, radical jihadism than the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. There is a way to win these wars, but in the interest of world stability and to hold back the casualties and costs, so far we have not embarked on WW III to do it. The truth is, General Curtis Le May was right, much as he was mocked at the time for what he said. The choice is the enemy's, if another 9/11 or worse occurs, or even a sustained series of lower-level terror attacks which start seriously to sap democratic (not just Western) morale and prosperity, the gloves will come off. Tactical, relatively clean nuclear weapons will become part of it, probably.
The point is, is to avoid this cataclysm, we need robust leadership to shore up those who want to defend against the barbarians at, and already inside, the gate.
It would help if the NYT made constructive suggestions how to do that rather than pretend the problem, including the serious precedent of 9/11, did not exist.
The isolationism/defeatism argued for by the Times will be no more successful to defeat aggressive, radical jihadism than the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. There is a way to win these wars, but in the interest of world stability and to hold back the casualties and costs, so far we have not embarked on WW III to do it. The truth is, General Curtis Le May was right, much as he was mocked at the time for what he said. The choice is the enemy's, if another 9/11 or worse occurs, or even a sustained series of lower-level terror attacks which start seriously to sap democratic (not just Western) morale and prosperity, the gloves will come off. Tactical, relatively clean nuclear weapons will become part of it, probably.
The point is, is to avoid this cataclysm, we need robust leadership to shore up those who want to defend against the barbarians at, and already inside, the gate.
It would help if the NYT made constructive suggestions how to do that rather than pretend the problem, including the serious precedent of 9/11, did not exist.
The USA is adding no value to the Afghan people by its presence in Afghanistan. It should arrange a decent withdrawal immediately.
16
"During the campaign, Mr. Trump showed an inclination to oppose extended overseas adventures."
To be fair, he was busy making up cutesy and offensive nicknames for the other candidates, spewing nonsensical venom to lather up the masses, and figuring out ways to dismantle our democracy.
To be fair, he was busy making up cutesy and offensive nicknames for the other candidates, spewing nonsensical venom to lather up the masses, and figuring out ways to dismantle our democracy.
8
One one has to wonder how much of the Taliban's support in Afghanistan comes from Saudi Arabia, whether through official or unofficial channels. Couldn't our president put some pressure on his new BFF King Salman to make sure that support is withdrawn? Wouldn't that be more cost effective than a "micro-surge" of US troops?
5
How about, as a few others suggested, we pull out most of the military and start building hospitals, and schools. Let's start with hospitals, Afghanis certainly need that. Now, what group will take the first shot at a hospital? How about increasing farming technology, with particular solutions for that area, i.e., soil conditions, water needs, etc.? OK, opium tops all, but maybe a new crop might help bring profits opium brings. How about improving transportation in the hinterlands? How about just rebuilding essentials of life, rather than tearing down their world. That's a non-win situation. Let's let them fight it out with each other and simply show another side of...yes, defeat turned into a concept of caring. We've lost the war. It's never going to be a war that can be won. No more American lives dying for a lost cost. No more billions burned in waste of lives and our own security. This won't happen, but what a way to win a people! It's another Marshall Plan and how successful that was!!
Afghanistan is a good lens to look at what we now have in the way of a government. Leaderless and devoid of staff at State military figures in charge of some of the most important levers in the White House, and a leader with no knowledge, understanding, or interest in world affairs except as business opportunities. We have stumbled along for a little over 100 days, but the damage of four years of this slow motion crisis in our country is almost unfathomable.
3
Who is counting the cost in blood and treasure in this fight on "terrorism" - which had been around for a hundred years and will be around for another hundred or more. In the end, we cannot impose our will on others regardless of our best intentions.
Just what are we sacrificing and for how long will we continue because some disgruntled and angry "jihadist" will improvise a bomb and blow himself up?
We are all "victims" of the military Industrial complex now. The price we pay and the opportunity costs will reveal themselves in the coming decades. No empires, no matter how they style and define themselves and their intentions, last for ever.
Just what are we sacrificing and for how long will we continue because some disgruntled and angry "jihadist" will improvise a bomb and blow himself up?
We are all "victims" of the military Industrial complex now. The price we pay and the opportunity costs will reveal themselves in the coming decades. No empires, no matter how they style and define themselves and their intentions, last for ever.
4
This will be a stalemate for the next hundred years unless our military commanders and the white house reassess our approach to this conflict. As history indicates 100,000 troops and 16 years later the situation is as bad as it was when we started. Haven't we learned anything from our experience in Vietnam? That's not to say just give up and walk away, but we better figure out a different approach because what we're doing obviously isn't working. Our military leaders will disagree and say progress is being made, to admit otherwise would sound defeatist.
The article doesn't mention a day ago previous article about the Taliban's murdering of dozens of religious leaders that don't tow the expected line. The fact that has to be accepted is we are in their country, the Taliban will not give in or compromise in the slightest way if Americans are involved. It's really very simple, if we Americans were invaded by Russians and they demanded we live by their rules would we EVER surrender much less seek a peace by compromising with them? Why expect the Taliban to do so?
The article doesn't mention a day ago previous article about the Taliban's murdering of dozens of religious leaders that don't tow the expected line. The fact that has to be accepted is we are in their country, the Taliban will not give in or compromise in the slightest way if Americans are involved. It's really very simple, if we Americans were invaded by Russians and they demanded we live by their rules would we EVER surrender much less seek a peace by compromising with them? Why expect the Taliban to do so?
4
Wars don't end because a Barack Obama promised it. They end when the enemy is defeated. You want a WW II-style result but are not willing to support fighting the war in the way it took to win WW II.
Victory will occur when western-style democracy is installed, not because of imperialism, but because it is necessary self-defence in the way the defeats of Japan and Germany were. Since becoming democracies those countries have ceased to be aggressive. (A pact with the Taliban is not the way to go to achieve this, needless to add).
Sooner or later this has to happen in Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan, and anywhere else encouraging or causing aggression against America and other western or democratic countries.
If troop surges can't help achieve it, a massive third world war will, not because anyone here wants it, but because there will be: no. other. choice.
Victory will occur when western-style democracy is installed, not because of imperialism, but because it is necessary self-defence in the way the defeats of Japan and Germany were. Since becoming democracies those countries have ceased to be aggressive. (A pact with the Taliban is not the way to go to achieve this, needless to add).
Sooner or later this has to happen in Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan, and anywhere else encouraging or causing aggression against America and other western or democratic countries.
If troop surges can't help achieve it, a massive third world war will, not because anyone here wants it, but because there will be: no. other. choice.
"The Decline and Fall of the American Empire."
When this book is written, the ideas and policies described in this post will figure prominently in the chapter chronicling the factors that caused the downfall of the United States.
When this book is written, the ideas and policies described in this post will figure prominently in the chapter chronicling the factors that caused the downfall of the United States.
1
You don't say why. You don't convince by simply asserting. Say why, and why (presumably) you think WW II was different.
Generals always want more troops. And tanks. And guns. And supplies. And bombs. etc. etc. And for some reason, our Congress usually gives them what they want. Since the Korean War, how many weeks have we NOT been in a war or a "police action", and how many times have you heard wars referred to as "boots on the ground"? How many of our children have died in foreign lands and for what reasons? America, it is time to stop the incessant insanity about wars. The Generals do not need more troops - they need more peace.
4
If this point of view is correct, I wonder how people who agree with it consider that WW II was justified, a war in which the generals certainly wanted more troops, tanks, guns, etc. (Good thing they did, else we might have lost).
In 1940, no part of America came under attack domestically, nothing remotely similar to 9/11 which was hatched and financed in Afghanistan. Pearl Harbor was far away, an outpost to defend certain commercial and strategic interests.
In any case Germany never attacked America anywhere, so why did we fight them?
I don't see the difference, essentially, between the 9/11 attack and Pearl Harbor + moral imperative to defeat Germany, if anything 9/11 was much worse.
In 1940, no part of America came under attack domestically, nothing remotely similar to 9/11 which was hatched and financed in Afghanistan. Pearl Harbor was far away, an outpost to defend certain commercial and strategic interests.
In any case Germany never attacked America anywhere, so why did we fight them?
I don't see the difference, essentially, between the 9/11 attack and Pearl Harbor + moral imperative to defeat Germany, if anything 9/11 was much worse.
Generals are there to fight wars and not to prevent conflicts and or wars. That function of preventing conflicts and ensure peace is the domain of the Department of State; this is an arena where the current President has made/recommended deep cuts in his budget. However in order to look like alpha male have increased the War Department, Pentagon's budget by over $54 billion dollars.
Selling US weapons to the Saudis to the tune of $110 Billion on one hand and fighting the same ideology on the other in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq leaves a lot of us flabbergasted as to our foreign policy, be it Democratic President or the current incumbent. There seems to be no consistency coming out of this White House on either the Domestic Policies or the Foreign policy arena, with the exception of cutting taxes for the rich and stick it to the helpless.
Wars are never the answer, it appears that the people who are supposed to keep us safe – are busy as some fire fighters, ensuring that there are fires to be put out so that they are not out of a job.
The Commander in Chief cannot delegate his responsibility to the Generals as there is an inherent conflict of interest in their recommendations and if he or his advisors cannot challenge/question recommendations we are in deep trouble. The Congress is too timid to look soft on wars.
Maybe it is time to cut our loses and bring our Boys/Girls back home. Afghanistan has been our longest war, history is against our continued involvement.
Selling US weapons to the Saudis to the tune of $110 Billion on one hand and fighting the same ideology on the other in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq leaves a lot of us flabbergasted as to our foreign policy, be it Democratic President or the current incumbent. There seems to be no consistency coming out of this White House on either the Domestic Policies or the Foreign policy arena, with the exception of cutting taxes for the rich and stick it to the helpless.
Wars are never the answer, it appears that the people who are supposed to keep us safe – are busy as some fire fighters, ensuring that there are fires to be put out so that they are not out of a job.
The Commander in Chief cannot delegate his responsibility to the Generals as there is an inherent conflict of interest in their recommendations and if he or his advisors cannot challenge/question recommendations we are in deep trouble. The Congress is too timid to look soft on wars.
Maybe it is time to cut our loses and bring our Boys/Girls back home. Afghanistan has been our longest war, history is against our continued involvement.
4
Afghanistan never was going to be a war in the traditional sense of the word. It was and is going to be a struggle, a disruption, the goal of which is to deny space and time to those who would plan and train for attacks on unarmed civilians. At best, it was going to be a decades long reality. And now we know that the real mistake of Afghanistan is spelled Iraq.
2
Thanks for including the cost of this horrible and endless war - $3.1 billion per month. You might also give examples of the opportunity cost of that amount of money.
4
i think it is safe to leave Afghanistan. it's not like they are going to attack anyone. plus face it the world needs a secure source for pain medication. maybe that is the addiction of humanity. thinking Afghanistan can be tamed. come on how many more armies and their representative governments need to flounder there. leave. do not increase one soldier for this idiotic quixotic mess.
3
Remind me again - when is President Obama (D) bringing the troops home? At least President Nixon (R) carried out that promise.
The US has never fought a war in Afghanistan. Because our soldiers were never allowed to actually fight a WAR. Instead, they were building hospitals, schools, and soccer fields, and consulting US Army lawyers to figure out when and where to fire every bullet.
A WAR, in case you've all forgotten, is when you bring all the inhabitants of an enemy nation - which is what Afghanistan was in 2001 and still is today - to their knees in crushing, unconditional surrender. In 1945, the US utterly, massively, and unconditionally destroyed the Empire of Japan - and today, the nation of Japan is peaceful, prosperous, and poses no threat to the US. And that was after merely four years. Four times that duration, and Afghanistan still has not surrendered. Building schools, hospitals, and soccer fields DOES NOT WORK. Showering our enemy with food DOES NOT WORK. [The Japanese faced starvation and a cold winter and the US did nothing to help.]
Those - Liberals and Conservatives alike - who refuse to remember the past, deserve the pain and suffering that attends. Unfortunately, it's the children of everyone else that Liberals and Conservatives send to die.
The US has never fought a war in Afghanistan. Because our soldiers were never allowed to actually fight a WAR. Instead, they were building hospitals, schools, and soccer fields, and consulting US Army lawyers to figure out when and where to fire every bullet.
A WAR, in case you've all forgotten, is when you bring all the inhabitants of an enemy nation - which is what Afghanistan was in 2001 and still is today - to their knees in crushing, unconditional surrender. In 1945, the US utterly, massively, and unconditionally destroyed the Empire of Japan - and today, the nation of Japan is peaceful, prosperous, and poses no threat to the US. And that was after merely four years. Four times that duration, and Afghanistan still has not surrendered. Building schools, hospitals, and soccer fields DOES NOT WORK. Showering our enemy with food DOES NOT WORK. [The Japanese faced starvation and a cold winter and the US did nothing to help.]
Those - Liberals and Conservatives alike - who refuse to remember the past, deserve the pain and suffering that attends. Unfortunately, it's the children of everyone else that Liberals and Conservatives send to die.
2
Afghanistan is at the bottom of the bottomless pit. The people who know this, are those that have been there, toiled there, fought and bled there, and worked with the Afghans directly -- I number myself as one. Fundamentally, the western-mentality doesn't not understand what Afghans want and it's nothing we have to give them. Moreover, they don't want it for themselves. As for the Pentagon, being charitable, they want to do the right thing. Being uncharitable and cynical, general officers want to do what they are trained to do -- kill people and break things, and with it all the spoils and glamor of war: medals and promotions with American blood and treasure down the loo. We broke it, we can't fix it and we have bigger fish to fry. Best is to just let it go. It will take an Islamic reformation before this or similar cultures will live in civility like the balance of the educated and enlightened world.
5
Surgeons want to cut. Generals want more troops and armaments. It is ever so. From their standpoint, I suppose it makes sense. If we send them their to fight and win a war, then give them the tools to do just that. But this is not such a war and never will be. As a beachhead against terrorists it seemed to make sense at the time, but that fight is so broad and diffuse now that a 20-something kid from Manchester can find his way to murder more than twenty souls. "Stabilizing" Afghanistan is tantamount to "Vietnamization," and we all know how well that worked....
3
The Army counter insurgency manual written by General Petraeus and others says that 20 troops per 1000 native population are required.
Afghan population = 33 m.
660,000 troops required.
You will not get that number without a draft and full mobilization.
That is neither politically possible nor desireable.
The US should just get out.
Afghan population = 33 m.
660,000 troops required.
You will not get that number without a draft and full mobilization.
That is neither politically possible nor desireable.
The US should just get out.
87
"It is not unusual for American military commanders to ask for more troops and weapons in pursuit of victory. But can they make a decisive difference? How can 3,000 or even 5,000 more American troops ensure victory when the United States at one point had a force of nearly 100,000 in Afghanistan and was unable to defeat the Taliban and stabilize the country?"
This is the crux of the dilemma. My heart sank when I heard about the request for more troops. Afghanistan is the land of no return, a boondoggle on the scale of Brave New world or 1984 where war was a way of life and it mattered little what the strategy was or who the sides were, as long as somebody was fighting somewhere.
Afghanistan drew out of a response to 9/11. We knew from the start that the Russian's had failed there. Osama bin Laden hid out for years in its inconquerable system of caves.
What are we doing there? Haven't so many, from yes, Obama to Trump, taken the stance that a country with medieval terrain and mores is a money pit, a no-win situation?
I hope the president doesn't listen to his generals as they attempt to find success where nobody ever has. But, as is his wont, he may just throw them a bone in order to keep their allegiance on other points, like defending the indefensible on Sunday morning talk shows.
Afghanistan is a lost cause that doesn't fit into our national interest. If Trump is focused on "America First," then more middle east meddling is the last thing he should do.
This is the crux of the dilemma. My heart sank when I heard about the request for more troops. Afghanistan is the land of no return, a boondoggle on the scale of Brave New world or 1984 where war was a way of life and it mattered little what the strategy was or who the sides were, as long as somebody was fighting somewhere.
Afghanistan drew out of a response to 9/11. We knew from the start that the Russian's had failed there. Osama bin Laden hid out for years in its inconquerable system of caves.
What are we doing there? Haven't so many, from yes, Obama to Trump, taken the stance that a country with medieval terrain and mores is a money pit, a no-win situation?
I hope the president doesn't listen to his generals as they attempt to find success where nobody ever has. But, as is his wont, he may just throw them a bone in order to keep their allegiance on other points, like defending the indefensible on Sunday morning talk shows.
Afghanistan is a lost cause that doesn't fit into our national interest. If Trump is focused on "America First," then more middle east meddling is the last thing he should do.
57
Why doesn't he put Jared in charge of Afghanistan? OK, bad joke--but it would get him out of the country and ensure he'll be permanently out of the public eye, while his Russia woes mount,
27
Why don't we give Jared a gun and station him in some forward operating base?
1
We have indeed a classic damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. As the Soviets discovered in the 1970s, Afghanistan is a very backward, tribal country riven by factions. When they left, the Taliban arose; space was created for the development of al Qaeda & the training of terrorists. Pakistan, though on the surface a more stable country with a functioning government, also has a whole tribal region near Afghanistan which the gov't does not fully control and were terrorists are trained and flourish.
Given recent terrorist history, the remaining strength of ISIS, and struggles between Sunni and Shi'ite nations for control of the region, we do not have the option to simply pull out. Yet, there is also no military solution for us.
Even with excellent, experienced, culturally sensitive diplomats supported by military pressure, getting Afghanistan to any kind of Western friendly stability would be a long shot. With the current administration, a president who has no verbal filters, and far too few quality diplomats on board, the best we can hope for is to limp along at status quo until Trump's time is done.
Given recent terrorist history, the remaining strength of ISIS, and struggles between Sunni and Shi'ite nations for control of the region, we do not have the option to simply pull out. Yet, there is also no military solution for us.
Even with excellent, experienced, culturally sensitive diplomats supported by military pressure, getting Afghanistan to any kind of Western friendly stability would be a long shot. With the current administration, a president who has no verbal filters, and far too few quality diplomats on board, the best we can hope for is to limp along at status quo until Trump's time is done.
29
There is no military solution, but we can't pull out?
If there is no military solution, having the military there, fighting and dying and making enemies out of the locals is insane.
Afghanistan is where we helped the Saudis create Al Queda by arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Through all of our export of weapons and military "experts" and chasing Al Queda with armies and drones, we have only managed to spread the problem to more failed states. with the cancer now matasticized into thousands of individual cells recruiting our citizens, using the obvious heavy handiness of our response as a recruiting tool and excuse for more violence on their side. ISIS is a direct descendant of the Mujahideen.
The Washingfton Post estimates that 149,000 people have been killed in the war in Afghanistan. Wikipedia says 29,000 were civilians. In Iraq, even the most conservative estimate, a leaked US military report counted over a hundred thousand deaths (not including the 5,000 US service members), including 66,000 civilians.
In comparison, according to an exhaustive list of terror attacks in the US on wikipedia, about 3,335 people have been killed since 1990, including Christian Terrorist attacks. Meanwhile 600,000 Americans die from heart disease every year, but we need to increase military spending and cut healthcare?
Centrist Democrats always trying to play the middle against both ends enable these ill considered Republican forays into lands we don't understand.
Take a stand.
If there is no military solution, having the military there, fighting and dying and making enemies out of the locals is insane.
Afghanistan is where we helped the Saudis create Al Queda by arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Through all of our export of weapons and military "experts" and chasing Al Queda with armies and drones, we have only managed to spread the problem to more failed states. with the cancer now matasticized into thousands of individual cells recruiting our citizens, using the obvious heavy handiness of our response as a recruiting tool and excuse for more violence on their side. ISIS is a direct descendant of the Mujahideen.
The Washingfton Post estimates that 149,000 people have been killed in the war in Afghanistan. Wikipedia says 29,000 were civilians. In Iraq, even the most conservative estimate, a leaked US military report counted over a hundred thousand deaths (not including the 5,000 US service members), including 66,000 civilians.
In comparison, according to an exhaustive list of terror attacks in the US on wikipedia, about 3,335 people have been killed since 1990, including Christian Terrorist attacks. Meanwhile 600,000 Americans die from heart disease every year, but we need to increase military spending and cut healthcare?
Centrist Democrats always trying to play the middle against both ends enable these ill considered Republican forays into lands we don't understand.
Take a stand.
2
Afghanistan is a tribal society ruled by an Islamic religous sect. Its primary crop is poppies from which it makes Opium for export to the West. The British tried to change its society in the conflicts in the 1800's, USSR tried and failed to change its society in the 1970's and now the US has also failed. This country is known as "the Graveyard of Empires" for a reason.
The US owes no debt nor responsibility to continue, after 16 years, to pour our treasure and the lives of our young into this failed nation-state that has no desire to change on its own. We should simply learn our lesson and let Pakistan & China deal with this, should they so desire.
The US owes no debt nor responsibility to continue, after 16 years, to pour our treasure and the lives of our young into this failed nation-state that has no desire to change on its own. We should simply learn our lesson and let Pakistan & China deal with this, should they so desire.
1
"...limp along at status quo..." at $3.1 billion a month is not a good idea.
Memorial Day is a day we should remember our wounded and fallen Heroes. But we should also remember to be sure we don't send our troops into a Fools encounter.
The war in Afghanistan, history tells us, is such a war. Every modern nation that has gone there has failed. The latest was Russia.
I'm afraid that the elimination of the draft has made us blind to this war and the Iraq war, that the pope at the time called unjust.
Enough, after our longest war it is time to seek a peaceful settlement with what has become a civil war with us in the middle.
It is hard to enjoy my hot dogs and burgers with the thought of our senseless killing and being killed in the middle east. But I do pray for and support our brave volunteers. My grand daughter among them.
The war in Afghanistan, history tells us, is such a war. Every modern nation that has gone there has failed. The latest was Russia.
I'm afraid that the elimination of the draft has made us blind to this war and the Iraq war, that the pope at the time called unjust.
Enough, after our longest war it is time to seek a peaceful settlement with what has become a civil war with us in the middle.
It is hard to enjoy my hot dogs and burgers with the thought of our senseless killing and being killed in the middle east. But I do pray for and support our brave volunteers. My grand daughter among them.
104
As always, it’s nice to agree with editors.
Afghanistan is a war lost like Vietnam through a lack of understanding of realities on the ground and an excess of innocence about how possible it is to redeem or even to save an entire people. Trump should deny the request for additional soldiers and just bring our people home. Whether it’s with 8,400 or with 13,400, the Taliban are going to win because for US to win would require that we replace the population of Afghanistan with a cohort that was more amenable to being redeemed and willing and capable of participating in that redemption. For generations.
Nobody is willing to make those sacrifices who have such pressing challenges to address at home. And we do not owe such sacrifices to Afghanis.
In the end, what could be effective from a regional perspective was Biden’s ignored suggestion of a cordon sanitaire, within which Afghanistan was left to conduct its own affairs but kept from exporting mischief anywhere else. Some of us remember the horrific excesses of the Taliban when in power, but perpetual armies merely to hold them in check? Ineffectively? This would be a dreadful mistake: Trump would take a failed war Obama made his through similar mistakes and make it just as historically a Trump catastrophe. Trump doesn’t owe that to Afghanistan or to Obama.
If you ask our military what they need to secure a mission, they’ll tell you what they think. That doesn’t mean that you must continue to buy the mission.
Afghanistan is a war lost like Vietnam through a lack of understanding of realities on the ground and an excess of innocence about how possible it is to redeem or even to save an entire people. Trump should deny the request for additional soldiers and just bring our people home. Whether it’s with 8,400 or with 13,400, the Taliban are going to win because for US to win would require that we replace the population of Afghanistan with a cohort that was more amenable to being redeemed and willing and capable of participating in that redemption. For generations.
Nobody is willing to make those sacrifices who have such pressing challenges to address at home. And we do not owe such sacrifices to Afghanis.
In the end, what could be effective from a regional perspective was Biden’s ignored suggestion of a cordon sanitaire, within which Afghanistan was left to conduct its own affairs but kept from exporting mischief anywhere else. Some of us remember the horrific excesses of the Taliban when in power, but perpetual armies merely to hold them in check? Ineffectively? This would be a dreadful mistake: Trump would take a failed war Obama made his through similar mistakes and make it just as historically a Trump catastrophe. Trump doesn’t owe that to Afghanistan or to Obama.
If you ask our military what they need to secure a mission, they’ll tell you what they think. That doesn’t mean that you must continue to buy the mission.
78
For every president there is pressure to fade toward war, as this is the best image booster there is for a president under fire at home. They all do it, no matter the cost in blood and money to Americans. We stupidly go along. The generals and the rest of the career military officers see it as their job to promote war. They grind up enlisted folks like so much sawdust. They are building their own egos, most of them. There are a few exceptions among career military leaders, some more blind and potentially corrupt (read Flynn). The military should be completely under the control of righteous political leaders, like Ike ("military-industrial complex"). Kennedy served in combat, and we have deteriorated as a country since him. We failed to elect presidents with combat experience since then, to our detriment - chicken hawks instead.
2
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
1
Dear Richard,
Great attitude.
Afghanistan is, Politics 101, crucial for global security.
Perhaps you missed that lecture.
Nazi Germany was none of US business, nor were the Japanese atrocities in China.
The US President has trashed the NATO section 5 agreement as noted by Ms Merckel.
Good deal for Russia.
Americans are timid and confused about NATO
Enjoy Russian Propaganda freely available on the net:
Vide this copy from Pravda:
Russian nuclear cruiser scares off NATO warships in English Channel
Pravda::
Many flaws were detected during the examination of Peter the Great missile cruiser.
The Commission of Russian Navy finished the ship check-up and pointed at the flaws related to organizing the service on the ship and personnel military training.
Lenta.ru quoted the source in the Navy that the number of the ship lodgers are maintained with violating the fleet regulations, some military posts and offices are maintained contrary to the regulations either. The only compartment which is a perfect order is the reactor compartment.
The boat is near 30 years old .
Be cool.
I was an American I would feel good.
Trust your NATO allies.
It will be OK.
The Taliban are an example of a military, strategic and tactical dead end.
Great attitude.
Afghanistan is, Politics 101, crucial for global security.
Perhaps you missed that lecture.
Nazi Germany was none of US business, nor were the Japanese atrocities in China.
The US President has trashed the NATO section 5 agreement as noted by Ms Merckel.
Good deal for Russia.
Americans are timid and confused about NATO
Enjoy Russian Propaganda freely available on the net:
Vide this copy from Pravda:
Russian nuclear cruiser scares off NATO warships in English Channel
Pravda::
Many flaws were detected during the examination of Peter the Great missile cruiser.
The Commission of Russian Navy finished the ship check-up and pointed at the flaws related to organizing the service on the ship and personnel military training.
Lenta.ru quoted the source in the Navy that the number of the ship lodgers are maintained with violating the fleet regulations, some military posts and offices are maintained contrary to the regulations either. The only compartment which is a perfect order is the reactor compartment.
The boat is near 30 years old .
Be cool.
I was an American I would feel good.
Trust your NATO allies.
It will be OK.
The Taliban are an example of a military, strategic and tactical dead end.
The Vietnam quagmire analogy has finally come to fruition
144
Yes it has, Bos. As was the case in Vietnam, there is no possible way there will be some sort of military "victory" in Afghanistan; nor, frankly, a workable diplomatic solution. The ultimate outcome -- one that we will have no control over -- will be the same Taliban dominated state we supposedly overthrew 16 years ago.
16 years and counting. Another 50 will make no difference. It was said about Vietnam long ago that we declare "victory" and go home. I believe that is where we find ourselves today in Afghanistan. Enough is enough.
16 years and counting. Another 50 will make no difference. It was said about Vietnam long ago that we declare "victory" and go home. I believe that is where we find ourselves today in Afghanistan. Enough is enough.
7
Yes, and we made it happen. We've done it to ourselves. I always knew we had it in us to be supremely stupid. That's the lesson of Vietnam, well and truly unlearned.
3
It is 'tragedy' not 'quagmire' since in both cases leaving at once is, and was, always available.
A prizefighter who can last 15 rounds at the expense of their body is known as a bleeder.
A prizefighter who can last 15 rounds at the expense of their body is known as a bleeder.
In the face of the imponderables like the emerging China-Pakistan-Russia alliance to neutralise the US presence and influence in Afghanistan; absence of a trusted political interlocutor; corrupt dispensation in Kabul; intra-Afghan Taliban dissensions with the Quetta based Haqqani network dictating it's own dominance; the Pentagon demand for more troops is a sure recipe for disaster that would deeply drag the US into the Afghan quagmire with no easy escape. It's time US admits the failure of its 16-year long Afghan mission, and save future loss of young lives and the treasury, whatever the pressure of its powerful military-industrial complex for more money, weapons, and troops.
184
So what exactly according to you would be a 'good enough' solution. We all agree I suppose that there is no ideal solution . Would you rather USA turn a blind eye to Afghanistan ?
What could possibly be a 'positive' outcome if they do that ?
Quite simply , Taliban would then grow stronger / pakistan as usual would not do 'enough' about it and orchestrate that insurgency against India from time to time . Eventually this would entirely destabilize the region . Where it stands , would continuing to destabilize taliban by US forces from time to time be the right solution ? maybe not ! But is that a better solution that just quitting and walking out ? Maybe yes !
What could possibly be a 'positive' outcome if they do that ?
Quite simply , Taliban would then grow stronger / pakistan as usual would not do 'enough' about it and orchestrate that insurgency against India from time to time . Eventually this would entirely destabilize the region . Where it stands , would continuing to destabilize taliban by US forces from time to time be the right solution ? maybe not ! But is that a better solution that just quitting and walking out ? Maybe yes !
1
The chaotic violent mess Afghanistan does find itself in today is mainly due to the external power play with different strategic game plans, but converging on common lust of each to establish control over its geo-political advantage of gaining power and the bounty of natural resources Afghanistan does offer. Such great games of power by the external powers have always been played since the 19th century, though ultimately Afghanistan has proved the graveyard for the empires. There is no easy solution to the Afghanistan conundrum, except the one to be found by the Afghans themselves through the Loya Jirga, the native tribal dispute settlement mechanism consisting of the tribal chiefs.
Time to leave.