Modern warfare works best against relatively advanced societies accustomed to benefits of good housing, good healthcare, good education, good infrastructure, a functioning civil society, institutions for governance, and rule of law. These societies have a lot to lose by going to war.
Outside Kabul, Afghanistan has none of the above. Afghans living outside of Kabul have little to lose and they will keep fighting for the foreseeable future. These are the Taliban.
Madrassa education, providing rote memorising of the ‘holy’ Quran and its doctrines, and little else, has produced a generation of Taliban mired in the dream of a superior Islamic society, conquering or defeating infidel societies, which in the days past provided through slaughter, loot and plunder, immense wealth and expansion of Islam.
Islamic societies have remained static and backward for a millennium. Oil rich Islamic countries have acquired some modernity and may become secular in due course.
Afghanistan has remained staunchly Islamic and untouched by modernity. Tribal culture and warlords remain outside the influence and reach of the American supported Kabul government. American firepower and policies formulated in American think tanks have been completely ineffective in modernising Afghanistan.
One thing that might work is to shut down all madrassas in Afghanistan and replace them with schools that provide modern secular education. That is an expensive proposition and needs a long term commitment.
Outside Kabul, Afghanistan has none of the above. Afghans living outside of Kabul have little to lose and they will keep fighting for the foreseeable future. These are the Taliban.
Madrassa education, providing rote memorising of the ‘holy’ Quran and its doctrines, and little else, has produced a generation of Taliban mired in the dream of a superior Islamic society, conquering or defeating infidel societies, which in the days past provided through slaughter, loot and plunder, immense wealth and expansion of Islam.
Islamic societies have remained static and backward for a millennium. Oil rich Islamic countries have acquired some modernity and may become secular in due course.
Afghanistan has remained staunchly Islamic and untouched by modernity. Tribal culture and warlords remain outside the influence and reach of the American supported Kabul government. American firepower and policies formulated in American think tanks have been completely ineffective in modernising Afghanistan.
One thing that might work is to shut down all madrassas in Afghanistan and replace them with schools that provide modern secular education. That is an expensive proposition and needs a long term commitment.
3
Remember the 60's slogan "make love not war" about the nonsensical Vietnam war? In today's Afghanistan, it could sound like "Provide jobs not war", by educating Afghans based on their culture and a secular non-religious humanism; it may open their minds and enable them to oppose religious fanaticism and the violence derived from it. Bombing the Taliban and ISIS won't cut it. And you know it.
3
Historically Afghanistan's greatest value is its denial to hostile interests. The Russians don't want it. Brits learned that same lesson long ago. We should have declared victory in 2002 once it became obvious that Bush had bungled Bin Laden's capture. Before we commit a single military asset we need to ask what constitutes victory in Afghanistan, when and at what cost. We can't kill our way to victory, there are no military or economic targets to destroy. Likewise, there are no military or economic centers of value to defend.
2
Follow the money. Who's making money on our "foreign policy" in this graveyard of empires? It's got nothing to do with policy and everything to do with money. And if we still had a draft, you'd see a lot more people in the streets protesting this policy. The waste of blood and treasure, a generation of men who are walking wounded, just as with Vietnam. And we change nothing, only enrich the merchants of war. I weep for my country.
2
I wonder what advice McMaster gave to the President. It seems he forgot he wrote in Deselection Of Duty and thought it is different than Vietnam, but it is not.
1
Annexation is the obvious solution. Simply make Afghanistan our 51st state. Then we have the right to stay there as long as we want and build as many military bases as we want. The Afghans could have McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Kabul could have a baseball team named the Kabul Trumps and owned by the Donald himself. Of course there would be a Trump tower in the heart of Kabul. Trump could make the country in his own image --- sort of like rich Biff in the alternate reality of "Back to the Future II". The possiblities are endless.
1
Colin Powell told President Bush before the 2003 Iraq invasion that if we break it then we own it. The same can be said for Afghanistan. After 16 years of little progress, one would think that it was time to pack up and go home. Because of us, the world is experiencing a heroin epidemic fueled by the bumper crop of poppies grown in Afghanistan. Before our invasion in 2001, the Taliban had almost wiped out poppy production and received a seat at the U.N. for their efforts.. After 9/11, the Taliban said they would hand over Bin Laden if we provided proof of his involvement. A white paper providing this proof was promised but never delivered. The FBI later admitted they had no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
In summary, we are asking our brave service people to do the impossible for an apathic Afghanistani populace and an American public who doesn't care anymore. All we have to show for our combat missions and drone strikes in this area is a heroin epidemic and more terrorists. It is time to leave!
" Never get into a ground war in Asia." - General Douglas MacArthur
When will we ever learn!
In summary, we are asking our brave service people to do the impossible for an apathic Afghanistani populace and an American public who doesn't care anymore. All we have to show for our combat missions and drone strikes in this area is a heroin epidemic and more terrorists. It is time to leave!
" Never get into a ground war in Asia." - General Douglas MacArthur
When will we ever learn!
2
Discarding my usual modesty, I will now tell you the "way out"of Afghanistan: ships, planes, maybe cars and trucks, maybe even a few on foot if need be. I guarantee it will work: we will be out.
And I further guarantee that after a very few years, combat deaths in Afghanistan will drop to a very small fraction of their average over the last 16 years!
That's what I call a win.
And I further guarantee that after a very few years, combat deaths in Afghanistan will drop to a very small fraction of their average over the last 16 years!
That's what I call a win.
1
I would expect that the reason we are there is that the forces of profit behind the scene lobby to keep us there, ie it has nothing to do with our security.
In any enterprise this huge in $$ value, the flow of skim money to local politicians is many hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not dumb luck that America is awash in heroin and Afghanistan is a poppy agriculture economy. Americans get to know just about nothing on why we are so tight with religious fundamentalist Pakistan, a nuclear state where mobs kill people for Facebook posts. Why are we there? Don't ask our government, they aren't telling because Americans wouldn't support the project.
Hundreds of billions that could go to healthcare support and infrastructure here, and rarely does an American journalist investigate the story behind why the hell the US is devoted to being pinned down in South Asia.
In any enterprise this huge in $$ value, the flow of skim money to local politicians is many hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not dumb luck that America is awash in heroin and Afghanistan is a poppy agriculture economy. Americans get to know just about nothing on why we are so tight with religious fundamentalist Pakistan, a nuclear state where mobs kill people for Facebook posts. Why are we there? Don't ask our government, they aren't telling because Americans wouldn't support the project.
Hundreds of billions that could go to healthcare support and infrastructure here, and rarely does an American journalist investigate the story behind why the hell the US is devoted to being pinned down in South Asia.
2
The inconvenient truth is that there is nothing we can do in Afghanistan except get out immediately. This region has never actually been ruled by an outside power, not the Turks, not the British, not the Russians, not the US. Every life we lose there is wasted, every dollar spent is wasted, every Afghan we kill make hundreds more hate us and every Moslem we kill is a recruitment tool for our enemies. The Afghans will resist to the last person any foreign, especially Christian, invader, just as we would resist a Moslem invader. Nobody can even describe what a victory there might look like. The longer we fool around there the worse it is for us.
1
Nixon's Decent Interval Strategy rebranded...objective, a second term. Cost: who cares.....
Unless and until we put going after the three countries which backed the Taliban when they were in power, we haven't "tried everything." Pakistan's running of Taliban terror attacks has been well documented by Carlotta Gall and others. The Emirates are a conduit for Taliban opium, and therefore a source of their funding. And the Saudis believe in spreading puritan poison all over the world.
Go after these three and then we can say we "tried everything." Otherwise, we have never had the stomach to go to the root of the problem.
Go after these three and then we can say we "tried everything." Otherwise, we have never had the stomach to go to the root of the problem.
2
It is difficult to imagine this latest foray will prove to be more than a proving ground for newer military technologies at a cost of both our and Afghani lives. We will eventually get out but many more will die and the poppies will keep blooming.
1
When referring to Afghanistan one should reflect on the known history of said country. The fact that no foreign force has ever prevailed over the Afghanis in known history should be enough to convince any realistic person to accept the fact that if Genghis Kahn couldn't do it in 1000 AD our military won't do it now.
1
Speaking as a veteran of an earlier faiiled war, and as someone who enjoys the occasional game of poker, I know there is always a time to quietly put your cards face down on the table and walk away. This is very hard to do. Will the next card be the ten you need? Will the next Afghan politician be the white knight we've sought? And so you keep on betting and sooner or later you've got the rent money in the pot and your own son's out there stepping around land mines. I think Trump and the generals might do well (not that they'd do it) to attend a meeting of Gambler's Anonymous. There they might discover that it's not necessary to continue taking the elevator down.
2
I would bet it was Mattis who alighted on this option.
There's definitely a way out. We can get our butts kicked out the way the British and Soviets did. Hope it's sooner than later.
Is it possible that in the two hours of 'debate' Trump is said to have had with mostly generals over this new policy, that it took photos of young Afghan women in miniskirts to convince the president to agree to the military's escalation of the war ostensibly to 'prove' that the fight would be worth it?
Is Trump really that gullible?
Is Trump really that gullible?
Maybe no one wants a way out. Maybe Afghanistan provides a place to blood our armed forces or provide revenue streams to Halliburton and whatever other private contractors we use over there. Unbelievable that the citizens of this country accept a state of war as status quo.
2
"When it comes to Afghanistan, we’ve tried everything. The lesson is: Nothing works."
Only "everything" within the narrow scope of the neocon playbook -- how many troops, what operations, how much nation building money and "advisers."
We did not try, "Declare victory and go home."
We did not try making a deal with the Taliban. After all, the Taliban did not attack us. It merely failed to turn over the Saudi "guests" who did attack us.
We did not go to war with Saudi, we gave their people special privileged passes to go home. So why not make a peace with the Taliban, at the expense of the no-longer-guest Saudis who really attacked us?
No, we did not try "everything." We only tried everything that guys like Bret Stephens and Tom Friedman want to try.
Only "everything" within the narrow scope of the neocon playbook -- how many troops, what operations, how much nation building money and "advisers."
We did not try, "Declare victory and go home."
We did not try making a deal with the Taliban. After all, the Taliban did not attack us. It merely failed to turn over the Saudi "guests" who did attack us.
We did not go to war with Saudi, we gave their people special privileged passes to go home. So why not make a peace with the Taliban, at the expense of the no-longer-guest Saudis who really attacked us?
No, we did not try "everything." We only tried everything that guys like Bret Stephens and Tom Friedman want to try.
4
the only thing i would add to the bottom line is that we need to put pressure on the taliban in their safe havens in pakistan.
Strange how all countries are to have self-rule. We insisted on it with Britain, but self-rule for certain countries doesn't apply when it goes against our American (and Western) values. So women must be given equal rights and only secular forms of Islam can be allowed. Further, even if there is a "natural" superiority of say Taliban forces in the country, yet they are to be resisted with the help of foreign (our) intervention. It is also PC or okay that the non-Taliban controlling (or supported) factions sell heroin world-wide, especially to our country and cause a nationwide opiate catastrophe. That can be swept under the rug, just like crack cocaine was a few decades ago. And, of course, our military-industrial complex must be supported and our soldiers sacrificed to maintain Afghan and our goodness.
Just a few other pointers: the total expenditure on these efforts, even if it tops a few trillion should not be mentioned. I mean if you distribute all that money on a per capita basis you couldn't solve anything. Well, maybe everybody in the country would get a house and all the food they could possible eat in their lifetimes, but that wouldn't make them feel any better. It is having armed occupiers present that makes them feel peaceful.
We should spend whatever it takes and kill however many are necessary in order to preserve our way of life. So, for example, the few trillion of dollars should not be spent on healthcare in this country or education: a waste.
Just a few other pointers: the total expenditure on these efforts, even if it tops a few trillion should not be mentioned. I mean if you distribute all that money on a per capita basis you couldn't solve anything. Well, maybe everybody in the country would get a house and all the food they could possible eat in their lifetimes, but that wouldn't make them feel any better. It is having armed occupiers present that makes them feel peaceful.
We should spend whatever it takes and kill however many are necessary in order to preserve our way of life. So, for example, the few trillion of dollars should not be spent on healthcare in this country or education: a waste.
1
We should follow the example of the 1868 Napier expedition in Ethiopia, in which the British launched a punitive force to rescue Europeans being held by the Ethiopian king Theodrus. After freeing the hostages, exacting punishment, including the overthrow and death of Theodrus, the British force departed with the implied message that if Ethiopian rulers again took Europeans hostages, they would return. But they made no attempt to remain and occupy. In a similar vein, we should now leave Afghanistan after causing enormous destruction, with the clear message that we do not wish to occupy, but we will not tolerate their harboring terrorists who seek to cause us harm. If they do allow this to happen, we will be back with even greater destructive force. But if they do not, we will not interfere with how they run their country, as heinous as that may be.
2
As more than a few posters have pointed out, we made many stupid mistakes in the past, thinking we could descend on that country, establish a government to our liking and get out, relatively unscathed.
If we had the wisdom of Solomon we would have left that region alone after WWII and let them work out their own solutions, which would probably have been a fight to the death among all the religious fanatics, but at least we would not lose any of our own in that morass.
But we didn’t, and now we have too much invested to leave and allow everthing to descend into chaos. Besides, our abhorrence of the evils perpetuated by the Taliban draws us in. The innocent deaths, the persecution of women and minorities, cry out to us in our dreams.
Our political situation does not allow any politician to be honest, but truthfully there is nothing we can do—except try to keep the lid on as well as we can, with the minimum number of troops we can get away with, and be prepared to wait, for generations if necessary. As Communism eventually ran out of steam, as the European holy wars finally abated, the warring parties there will eventually tire of killing each other and a sort of equilibrium is the best we can hope for.
If we had the wisdom of Solomon we would have left that region alone after WWII and let them work out their own solutions, which would probably have been a fight to the death among all the religious fanatics, but at least we would not lose any of our own in that morass.
But we didn’t, and now we have too much invested to leave and allow everthing to descend into chaos. Besides, our abhorrence of the evils perpetuated by the Taliban draws us in. The innocent deaths, the persecution of women and minorities, cry out to us in our dreams.
Our political situation does not allow any politician to be honest, but truthfully there is nothing we can do—except try to keep the lid on as well as we can, with the minimum number of troops we can get away with, and be prepared to wait, for generations if necessary. As Communism eventually ran out of steam, as the European holy wars finally abated, the warring parties there will eventually tire of killing each other and a sort of equilibrium is the best we can hope for.
2
One solution would be to drop a nuclear bomb on North Korea, invade Venezuela, increase ICE raids throughout the country, drop huge bombs on Syria, blow up a city in Iraq, poison the waters of Mexico, kill a thousand Iranian civilians at random, have Homeland Security shoot anti--aircraft missiles across the Canadian border, send Navy seals onto the moon and hope the Afghans take the hint.
2
Well gosh and golly, maybe this Trump guy isn't so bad after all.
If the Afghanis don't want to help their own military keep ISIS and the Taliban from taking over the country, then the country will be taken over. Not our problem. Not anymore, after sixteen years, thousands of American lives, thousands more seriously injured not to mention PTSD, and a trillion dollars. Not with the corruption. Not with it being the graveyard of empires, from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the British and Russians unable to control things. Not with the territory, which gives those using guerilla warfare tactics a huge advantage.
Let them have their medieval sharia law utopia. A shame, just half a century ago it was part of the Hippy Trail on the ancient silk road. So was Kashmir, so were Iran and Pakistan. Let them stew in their religious hatred and poverty.
Let them have their medieval sharia law utopia. A shame, just half a century ago it was part of the Hippy Trail on the ancient silk road. So was Kashmir, so were Iran and Pakistan. Let them stew in their religious hatred and poverty.
1
How about legalizing heroin?
1
Legalizing heroin (along with all other drugs) would do wonders for depriving funds to warlords in Afghanistan and it would do so much to end misery in the U.S. that has been brought on by The War on Drug-users. It would also save countless American lives that will be lost to overdoses. Lack of correct information is a big problem preventing legalization. Most incorrectly believe that heroin is so addicting that everyone who tries it is hooked -- the truth is that the real amount who become addicted is about the same as alcohol ... roughly 15%. Standardization and regulation would stave of many overdoses and that's becoming more important than ever now that fentanyl and even more powerful carfentanyl are becoming commonly mixed into heroin. But it doesn't seem like officials or the media have any appetite to explain the truths to Americans so that people understand. Lastly, we have now created massive systems of law enforcers, prison workers, court workers, the bail industry, attorneys and judges (and the list goes on) full of people who make their livings playing roles in the caging of Americans. The whole thing is a giant, immoral stain on the country and a counter-productive use of resources but those people will prove to be a huge obstacle to change since ending the injustice of the War on Drug-users will mean many of them lose their paychecks. Therefore they'll tell anyone who'll listen that ending it will be a big mistake and it'll make America very unsafe.
A ragtag army of rebels held itself together over a winter as the enemy wined and dined in a nearby major city. Guess who won in less than eight years.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
The recurring reason for maintaining or expanding American power in Afghanistan is that if we leave, Al Quaeda or ISIS will fill the void which would lead to another 9-11. That thinking ignores the context of a lack in American readiness in 2001. We haven't plugged all the gaps in our defense against terrorism but we've done a lot in the last 16 years. In fact, since then, terrorist attacks in the US have been perpetrated only by white Christians and American Muslims.
To repeat the efforts of Bush and Obama to pacify Afghanistan for the purpose of keeping our country safe from terrorists is an overly expensive lunacy. Even if we could defeat the Taliban, which I think is doubtful, terrorists would simply find an alternative staging ground to plot attacks on America. The work we've done since 2001 to keep our country safe should not be discounted when planning our next steps in Afghanistan.
To repeat the efforts of Bush and Obama to pacify Afghanistan for the purpose of keeping our country safe from terrorists is an overly expensive lunacy. Even if we could defeat the Taliban, which I think is doubtful, terrorists would simply find an alternative staging ground to plot attacks on America. The work we've done since 2001 to keep our country safe should not be discounted when planning our next steps in Afghanistan.
4
Regardless of whatever the US does now, it just does not matter until the US withdraws because the Taliban will not be defeated.
This is another lesson for Americans, especially American political leadership. It's easy to start a war. It's virtually impossible to end it or end it by winning it. I
This is another lesson for Americans, especially American political leadership. It's easy to start a war. It's virtually impossible to end it or end it by winning it. I
1
The U.S cannot win in Afghanistan. It's been proven time and again by historians that over many thousands of years the peoples in what is now called Afghanistan will eventually outlive any occupiers.
And yet our generals wish to wage war, and the "war machine" must be fed, so we continue to fight. Our patriotic soldiers do as commanded and many come home in coffins or missing limbs. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All lunacy.
And yet our generals wish to wage war, and the "war machine" must be fed, so we continue to fight. Our patriotic soldiers do as commanded and many come home in coffins or missing limbs. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All lunacy.
1
The first principle of warefare is the need for a clearly defined and achievable objective. What is our goal? To remove the Taliban because of their abysmal human rights record? It seems unlikely. Before 9/11 the Taliban had the same brutal reputation, but the GW Bush administration was giving the Taliban government foriegn aid in return for their interdiction of the opium trade. The invasion was carried out to defeat Bin Laden and ultimately he was driven out of the country, but we have remained.
What did we do 16 years ago? What we did was get attacked by land, sea and air by Osama bin Laden's taliban. That is what we did. We were targets then, just the same. Doing nothing is not an answer.
I was a military surgeon who has treated veterans of WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. One can argue that the lasting trauma and pain inflicted on the veterans and the families of WWII was worth the sacrifice. For everyone else, I think the damage far outweighed the benefit.
It sickened me that weekend warriors, such as GW Bush and arm chair warriors such as Cheney started this mess. It is even more disgusting to see "I didn't go to Vietnam because of a bone spur on My left? My Right? foot" Trump sending more troops into a meat grinder that will only destroy lives and not solve the issue.
It sickened me that weekend warriors, such as GW Bush and arm chair warriors such as Cheney started this mess. It is even more disgusting to see "I didn't go to Vietnam because of a bone spur on My left? My Right? foot" Trump sending more troops into a meat grinder that will only destroy lives and not solve the issue.
1
1996 Taliban take Kabul leads to Bin Laden returns leads to 9/11/2001. You are saying that we cannot leave or risk a repeat of this scenario. I think we can only stop another 9/11 with better homeland security. The Bin Ladens of the world can be anywhere, Syria, Pakistan, or their home country, Saudi Arabia. I don't see how keeping troops in the failed narco-state of Afghanistan makes a difference.
1
A thoughtful commentary, but only from a military perspective. How's America's aid to Afghan civilians going ?
Remember those civilians not mentioned in this analysis ? Trying to survive in a country riven with land mines and other explosive ordinance ?
New mines are constantly added as territorial control shifts between Afghan government forces and militia groups, and there are more than 4,300 minefields remaining. The presences of mines and explosives reduce the economic potential of affected areas, as land and resources remain unusable for growing food or generating income, and restricting access to market routes and infrastructure.
Remember the lives of Afghanistan's people: its widows and their children and their lives beyond war. Many Afghan women still lack basic rights. Forced marriages and domestic abuse are common and it's almost impossible for a woman to get a divorce.
Australia once helped, funding the training of women as paralegals, acting as defence counsel in cases of domestic violence. I helped fund the training of 40 women. Afghan paralegals successfully defended a 16-year old girl imprisoned for being raped, ensuring her release to a women's shelter.
If the military forces are there to protect civilians and make their lives better - it’s not mission accomplished. How are America's civilian assistance programs going, then ?
Remember those civilians not mentioned in this analysis ? Trying to survive in a country riven with land mines and other explosive ordinance ?
New mines are constantly added as territorial control shifts between Afghan government forces and militia groups, and there are more than 4,300 minefields remaining. The presences of mines and explosives reduce the economic potential of affected areas, as land and resources remain unusable for growing food or generating income, and restricting access to market routes and infrastructure.
Remember the lives of Afghanistan's people: its widows and their children and their lives beyond war. Many Afghan women still lack basic rights. Forced marriages and domestic abuse are common and it's almost impossible for a woman to get a divorce.
Australia once helped, funding the training of women as paralegals, acting as defence counsel in cases of domestic violence. I helped fund the training of 40 women. Afghan paralegals successfully defended a 16-year old girl imprisoned for being raped, ensuring her release to a women's shelter.
If the military forces are there to protect civilians and make their lives better - it’s not mission accomplished. How are America's civilian assistance programs going, then ?
1
The graveyard of empires.
It has defeated several invaders and attempts to bring it under control.
Just read Kipling.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm
WHEN the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
............
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
It has defeated several invaders and attempts to bring it under control.
Just read Kipling.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_youngbrit.htm
WHEN the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
............
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
2
This is ridiculous. What is it with Afghanistan? It's a worthless place, yet "Empires go to to die" there, as was famously said. The British (twice, I think), the Russians (leading to the dissolution of the USSR), now us and NATO.
How can one not see the similarity to Vietnam? A hostile populace (the Taliban) with refuge and support from Pakistan (like North Vietnam.) We keep bleeding and dying there and spending billions.
My bet: a few are getting very very rich off the U.S. sacrifice. This would be the NEOCON network that wants perpetual war. President Eisenhower warned us about the "military-industrial complex" in the 1950s. That's what is functioning here.
How can one not see the similarity to Vietnam? A hostile populace (the Taliban) with refuge and support from Pakistan (like North Vietnam.) We keep bleeding and dying there and spending billions.
My bet: a few are getting very very rich off the U.S. sacrifice. This would be the NEOCON network that wants perpetual war. President Eisenhower warned us about the "military-industrial complex" in the 1950s. That's what is functioning here.
1
So what? We are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea after 70 years.
The Afghan speech strikes me as historic as the Truman Doctrine because it applies everywhere. Lander had it right. It is the Biden strategy, but I would call it the George Washington-2nd Amendment strategy of a weak central government and strong armed states.
Join the Iranian-Russian coalition who are already fighting to pacify the Farshi-Tajik lands. He really announced that in the speech as well as the need for a military coup in Kabul.
Give the Pashtuni to Pakistan and push them into alliance with China by getting an alliance with India. Have our Chinese allies control Pakistan as they are in North Korea, and tell Pakistan to accept the deal or else.
We have already divided Libya with the Russia--totally unreported. We are doing it in Syria, and Iraq is on the way. Jared is in Jerusalem starting the division of Palestine and Israel (Netanyahu just returned from Moscow for his 8th trip in 5 years. Mattis is in Kyev to crunch the Ukrainians, and negotiations should be announced before Sept. 1.
Lander is absolutely right. It is the Biden strategy around the world. He should be appointed National Security Adviser. And I really do think the speech is close to the Truman doctrine in importance. The Trump Doctrine.
And except for Lander, the DNC press has no idea what is happening and what steamroller is rolling over the Democratic Party Domestic comes next.
The Afghan speech strikes me as historic as the Truman Doctrine because it applies everywhere. Lander had it right. It is the Biden strategy, but I would call it the George Washington-2nd Amendment strategy of a weak central government and strong armed states.
Join the Iranian-Russian coalition who are already fighting to pacify the Farshi-Tajik lands. He really announced that in the speech as well as the need for a military coup in Kabul.
Give the Pashtuni to Pakistan and push them into alliance with China by getting an alliance with India. Have our Chinese allies control Pakistan as they are in North Korea, and tell Pakistan to accept the deal or else.
We have already divided Libya with the Russia--totally unreported. We are doing it in Syria, and Iraq is on the way. Jared is in Jerusalem starting the division of Palestine and Israel (Netanyahu just returned from Moscow for his 8th trip in 5 years. Mattis is in Kyev to crunch the Ukrainians, and negotiations should be announced before Sept. 1.
Lander is absolutely right. It is the Biden strategy around the world. He should be appointed National Security Adviser. And I really do think the speech is close to the Truman doctrine in importance. The Trump Doctrine.
And except for Lander, the DNC press has no idea what is happening and what steamroller is rolling over the Democratic Party Domestic comes next.
Broker peace between India and Pakistan. As part of that peace treaty, give Afghanistan to Pakistan since only Pakistan can truly manage that multi-tribal region. In the end, Pakistan has been fully involved via maintaining porous borders with Afghanistan.
1
Perpetual war in Afghanistan. Is that the best we can do? That's what Trump and the generals who are advising him want. So why not listen to what the Afghan PEOPLE want and to what a Pakistani journalist in today's (Aug. 24) Democray Now program has to say? https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/24/pakistani_journalist_why_is_trump...
The Afghan people want a peaceful democracy. No question about that. But what they're getting is effective rule by corrupt warlords for much of the country and rule by the anti-US Taliban for the rest of the country.
But there can be no peace until the US STOPS providing no-strings-attached foreign aid to the corrupt Afghan government and STARTS helping Afghan farmers convert their Taliban supported poppy fields to other crops such as wheat and pomegranates (which the Afghans have been growing for centuries).
Then and only then will the Afghan people start saying NO to the Taliban and YES to a non-corrupt democratically elected government.
The Afghan people want a peaceful democracy. No question about that. But what they're getting is effective rule by corrupt warlords for much of the country and rule by the anti-US Taliban for the rest of the country.
But there can be no peace until the US STOPS providing no-strings-attached foreign aid to the corrupt Afghan government and STARTS helping Afghan farmers convert their Taliban supported poppy fields to other crops such as wheat and pomegranates (which the Afghans have been growing for centuries).
Then and only then will the Afghan people start saying NO to the Taliban and YES to a non-corrupt democratically elected government.
2
I worked at one time in an Afghan hospital with very fine persons, pleasant, friendly and competent.
But they left no doubt about their attitude to foreigners. Visitors were welcomed but invaders were not. Their recurring theme was."no foreigner had succeeded in conquering their land since the time of Alexander, and his was only a temporary stay".
It seems to me that the expensive lesson from Viet Nam has to be learnt all over again, at the cost of many lives -- there are countries in this world that simply wish to rule themselves and will not tolerate the West telling them what to do.
Eventually we will pull out of Afghanistan as we were driven from Viet Nam, then when they are left to govern their own country in their own way, we can become trading partners and eventually friends.
But they left no doubt about their attitude to foreigners. Visitors were welcomed but invaders were not. Their recurring theme was."no foreigner had succeeded in conquering their land since the time of Alexander, and his was only a temporary stay".
It seems to me that the expensive lesson from Viet Nam has to be learnt all over again, at the cost of many lives -- there are countries in this world that simply wish to rule themselves and will not tolerate the West telling them what to do.
Eventually we will pull out of Afghanistan as we were driven from Viet Nam, then when they are left to govern their own country in their own way, we can become trading partners and eventually friends.
3
"...avoiding the political race to the exits when combat fatalities rise."
Political? Sounds humanistic to me.
Political? Sounds humanistic to me.
2
The solution: Make Afghanistan a U.S Territory, impose U.S. Constitutional Law and flood the country with 500,000 Federal Marshals. It would have been the only solution in the post Civil War Southern U.S. to prevent crimes against the freed slaves and to establish a democratic society and is the only solution in Afghanistan. It was the solution in the western territorial U.S.
1
Everything in this article is true except for your conclusion. We know after 16 years how pointless this war has become. By your numbers, we can say for roughly every terrorist we've killed, we've created 10 more. Leaving these unwinnable wars is about the only thing the voters on the right and left can agree on, but somehow our politicians fail us on this. Trump won't withdraw because of his ego, despite his campaign promises. He doesn't want to be seen as "losing" a war so he'll just kick the can down the road to the next president. A vacuum was created in Syria because that civil war became a proxy war between the US and Russian (and a few respective allies), and one of the biggest GOP lies is that ISIS's primary goal is destruction of the West. That's a distant third behind overthrowing Saudi royal family and killing other Muslims that deny their teachings.
3
Its not "incredibly". He has three excellent military men with in country experience. Whatever one thinks of Trump, these guys are very good. So long as he listens to them, as he seems to do, we should be OK on these issues.
History teaches the handful of us who are not history-illiterate that no country invades, occupies and changes Afghanistan.
Certainly what tiny chance for success evaporated that day in 2003 (14 years ago) Bush sent our troops in Iraq...while abandoning our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy.
However, what is *most* striking about most NY Times articles on Afghanistan, written by NY Times with experience in Afghanistan, is how little these writers know about the country they have been covering for years.
Afghanistan is a LOST cause. It is Bush's lost war. It is Obama's lost war. And now it will become Trump's lost war. Most NY Times correspondents just can't bring themselves to recognize this basic fact.
Certainly what tiny chance for success evaporated that day in 2003 (14 years ago) Bush sent our troops in Iraq...while abandoning our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy.
However, what is *most* striking about most NY Times articles on Afghanistan, written by NY Times with experience in Afghanistan, is how little these writers know about the country they have been covering for years.
Afghanistan is a LOST cause. It is Bush's lost war. It is Obama's lost war. And now it will become Trump's lost war. Most NY Times correspondents just can't bring themselves to recognize this basic fact.
6
There are no good strategies and no good outcomes in our Afghanistan involvement. Our own hubris will not allow us to think that America is not the ultimate answer to every problem in the world. We continue to waste the lives of our military men and women, our treasure, our resources, and our time on a fight we cannot and will not win. If after 16 years we have not been able to create a viable and valuable outcome in this war, then only our pride and stubbornness are keeping on this battlefield. Is what we are spending in American lives alone worth continuing?
2
In Viet Nam the choices were drug lord authoritarians vs communist nationalists with a heavy measure of Catholics vs Buddhists.
The choices in Afghanistan are just as unpalatable.
Afghanistan is where empires go to die and where reputations are ruined. Let the Iranians, Pakistanis and Saudis decide the issue, if they can...
The choices in Afghanistan are just as unpalatable.
Afghanistan is where empires go to die and where reputations are ruined. Let the Iranians, Pakistanis and Saudis decide the issue, if they can...
4
I know little about this, and after all these years still do not understand why the U.S. has to be in Afghanistan at all.
Does the U.S. have any real allies there to support?
Will global terror be significantly diminished by there being a U.S. presence in Afghanistan?
Does the U.S. have any real allies there to support?
Will global terror be significantly diminished by there being a U.S. presence in Afghanistan?
5
Shalom: We in America are trying to figure out the same thing, thanks for pointing this out. Ted
Well, originally we were in Afghanistan to kill Bin Ladin since he attacked us, but we did that so I don't know why we're still there. Something about propping up an incompetent government from the sound of it, like that ever works.
If we are unable and unwilling to thoroughly change the culture and tradition of Afghanistan, then we ought to leave.
Regardless of whether there is a publicized withdrawal date, the Afghans are the indigenous people and we are the short-timers. They know that we will definitely leave within their lifetime; just like the Soviets did. Why should they change their thousand-year-old way of life, since Alexander the Great, knowing we will soon leave?
This surge of 3900 troops is for an orderly withdrawal within 18 to 24 months. It is not to win or the break anyone's fighting spirit. To claim otherwise is to lie.
The only way to even have a glimpse of winning is a massive occupation in military, industrial, economic and educational terms. Massive construction projects of roads, railways, towns well into all rural areas behind every strategic range, atop every strategic ridge. Access precedes control. Massive influx of experts and professionals at all levels. Massive rebuild of elementary, middle, high school education and University systems. Draconian laws prohibiting Islamic education and requiring secular education for all. Brainwashing! Financial support and subsidies to force all children from the most remote village to attend state schools. Basically a colonial government or a "benevolent" dictatorship for two to three generations.
Until then, win? Break? Must be a five year old with pea-size brain.
Regardless of whether there is a publicized withdrawal date, the Afghans are the indigenous people and we are the short-timers. They know that we will definitely leave within their lifetime; just like the Soviets did. Why should they change their thousand-year-old way of life, since Alexander the Great, knowing we will soon leave?
This surge of 3900 troops is for an orderly withdrawal within 18 to 24 months. It is not to win or the break anyone's fighting spirit. To claim otherwise is to lie.
The only way to even have a glimpse of winning is a massive occupation in military, industrial, economic and educational terms. Massive construction projects of roads, railways, towns well into all rural areas behind every strategic range, atop every strategic ridge. Access precedes control. Massive influx of experts and professionals at all levels. Massive rebuild of elementary, middle, high school education and University systems. Draconian laws prohibiting Islamic education and requiring secular education for all. Brainwashing! Financial support and subsidies to force all children from the most remote village to attend state schools. Basically a colonial government or a "benevolent" dictatorship for two to three generations.
Until then, win? Break? Must be a five year old with pea-size brain.
10
The way to get out of Afghan is to get out.
General Petraeus wrote an Army counterinsurgency manual.
In that manual he wrote that 20 US troops were needed for each 1K of native population.
Population of Afghan is 33 m.
That scales to 660K troops.
You will not get that number of troops without a draft.
Does Stephens want a draft.
A draft is politically impossible and a draft is also nuts.
So our choice is to just get out or continue a stalemate wasting lives and money.
Listening to Trump's speech I recall the Vietnam nonsense.
The domino theory.
"Light at the end of the tunnel"
"We have turned a corner"
I also recall Pete Seeger's song
"Trapped in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on"
LBJ and Tricky Dick knew the Vietnam Wart could not be won but continued for US domestic political reasons.
Donald is continuing this war for the same stupid type reason.
General Petraeus wrote an Army counterinsurgency manual.
In that manual he wrote that 20 US troops were needed for each 1K of native population.
Population of Afghan is 33 m.
That scales to 660K troops.
You will not get that number of troops without a draft.
Does Stephens want a draft.
A draft is politically impossible and a draft is also nuts.
So our choice is to just get out or continue a stalemate wasting lives and money.
Listening to Trump's speech I recall the Vietnam nonsense.
The domino theory.
"Light at the end of the tunnel"
"We have turned a corner"
I also recall Pete Seeger's song
"Trapped in the big muddy and the big fool says to push on"
LBJ and Tricky Dick knew the Vietnam Wart could not be won but continued for US domestic political reasons.
Donald is continuing this war for the same stupid type reason.
7
If one goes into the details concerning Afghanistan one realizes that Afghanistan and the adjacent tribal areas of Pakistan are in no way, shape, or form nation states where the people have any grasp of what a state happens to be. They live in extended families in small communities where the biggest group with which they identify are tribes. The Taliban is not one force but many which are fighting the same enemies but they have no overall organization that speaks for all. This means that to leave a stable country means transforming it into the kind of place where the people actually think of themselves as Afghans rather than Pashtun et al, and that is something that nobody seems to know how to do. In addition, when the U.S. invaded the country and removed the regime, the Taliban, the country's economy was about evenly divided between the growth and traffic of opium, and international assistance for humanitarian aid or for fighting wars in that country. Those kinds of economic activities support lawlessness and disorder without any hope of the country joining in peaceful commercial endeavors with the rest of the world. To end the problems from the dysfunctional state, means creating a stable and self sufficient one where everyone are Afghans before they are members of the separate ethnicities and tribal groups.
5
"But because the surge had a predetermined deadline, the Taliban knew they could wait us out."
It's disingenuous to suggest the Taliban would not wait us out if we don't say when we'll leave. They've been alternately fighting and waiting out the entire Western world for centuries.
It's disingenuous to suggest the Taliban would not wait us out if we don't say when we'll leave. They've been alternately fighting and waiting out the entire Western world for centuries.
5
Lets accept they are living there........................... you are right.
I am a retired army lieutenant colonel. I served in Vietnam, Bosnia and Haiti with active and reserve service over 27 years.
Our service members in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria are heroic and tactically they are brilliant.
The generals are another thing. There are no successful examples of "nation building" except South Korea and Taiwan. South Korea has a defensible border. The 7th Fleet protected Taiwan. Even then it took both of those countries 40 years to become functioning democracies. There are no examples in Southeast Asia, the Mid East, South America or Africa for such a transition.
These stupid generals do not realize the difference between Post WW2 Japan and Germany and the failed post colonial states where our forces are now dying. Colonialism stripped the countries of natural and human resources. Once the fascists were removed Japan and Germany thrived.
There is a revolving door of "expert" generals, diplomats and scholars who recycle the same rubbish on the editorial pages.
Democracy is a learned, not imposed social model that solves the problems the countries confront. America and other democracies could model these interrelated behaviors.
Fighting an industrial war in a post colonial society just kills a lot of people and puts a lot of holes in the ground.
We have become adept at killing ants with a hammer.
NATO and the EU are the best examples of successful nation building in the Post WW2 era and they started at an advance position.
Our service members in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria are heroic and tactically they are brilliant.
The generals are another thing. There are no successful examples of "nation building" except South Korea and Taiwan. South Korea has a defensible border. The 7th Fleet protected Taiwan. Even then it took both of those countries 40 years to become functioning democracies. There are no examples in Southeast Asia, the Mid East, South America or Africa for such a transition.
These stupid generals do not realize the difference between Post WW2 Japan and Germany and the failed post colonial states where our forces are now dying. Colonialism stripped the countries of natural and human resources. Once the fascists were removed Japan and Germany thrived.
There is a revolving door of "expert" generals, diplomats and scholars who recycle the same rubbish on the editorial pages.
Democracy is a learned, not imposed social model that solves the problems the countries confront. America and other democracies could model these interrelated behaviors.
Fighting an industrial war in a post colonial society just kills a lot of people and puts a lot of holes in the ground.
We have become adept at killing ants with a hammer.
NATO and the EU are the best examples of successful nation building in the Post WW2 era and they started at an advance position.
12
The US also doesn't fire Generals for combat ineffectiveness like we did in in WWII and Korea. If we did, perhaps more brass would own up to the fact that this is an unwinnable war with no escape instead of looking forward to their chance to add an Afghan campaign to their resume.
As a conservative, your advice is shrug our shoulders, strap it up (around the backs of kids from poor and immigrant families) and keep on pouring blood and gold into the sand, because we've tied it all.
Point: it was you conservatives got us into this mess, just as it was with our second longest disaster--Vietnam. Learning from our mistakes would be my first suggestion.
Point: The local madrasa around the Islamic world likely preaches a violent ignorant, medieval version promoted by the Saudis, whom Western oil interests-that wellspring of 'conservatism'- have worn as a glove for three generations. Want to defuel Islamism, promote alternative energy, and impoverish the oil lords.
Point: The tribes in the area feast on opium money. Legalize, regulate and heavily tax their product. The Presbyterian bankers will put them out of business in far less time than we have wasted consuming the products of the arms industry and the lives of volunteer soldiers.
See, there's ideas laying around. But conservatives will never stumble over them.
Point: it was you conservatives got us into this mess, just as it was with our second longest disaster--Vietnam. Learning from our mistakes would be my first suggestion.
Point: The local madrasa around the Islamic world likely preaches a violent ignorant, medieval version promoted by the Saudis, whom Western oil interests-that wellspring of 'conservatism'- have worn as a glove for three generations. Want to defuel Islamism, promote alternative energy, and impoverish the oil lords.
Point: The tribes in the area feast on opium money. Legalize, regulate and heavily tax their product. The Presbyterian bankers will put them out of business in far less time than we have wasted consuming the products of the arms industry and the lives of volunteer soldiers.
See, there's ideas laying around. But conservatives will never stumble over them.
5
And the perpetrator, W, blissfully paints his pictures, rakes in tons of money giving speeches, and sees his popularity rise.
4
We won't make much progress in Afghanistan without Pakistan's cooperation, and that's not going to happen. So, we should kill as many terrorists as possible in both Afghanistan and Pakistan over the next year or so and then leave. Maybe our departure would actually improve the chances some kind of accommodation between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
No more money for Pakistan. Not one cent.
No more money for Pakistan. Not one cent.
3
The collapsed states of Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and others are the result of exploding human population that has overwhelmed natural, economic, and political resources. The chaos in these places will not subside until fertility rates fall dramatically for at least several generations. The fertility rate in Afghanistan is currently over five children per woman. Are we prepared to stay in Afghanistan for 60 years?
2
Sure, if we get rid of the people, war will end. Great solution. The chaos not because they are out of resources, it's because they get too many bombs delivered to them in one form or another.
"We’ve tried killing terrorists (defined as "Taliban and other insurgents"). Lots and lots of them. " In other words, we are doing our best to make sure that as many Afghanis as possible, have lost someone dear to American military action. I can think of no better way to assist terrorist recruitment.
2
Treat Afghanistan as a sunk cost and get out. It is a lost investment. I am a Vietnam vet with a son who served in Iraq. Our servicemen in all these wars were courageous, loyal and competent but employed in a foolish National policy. Not pleasant or easy to say, but their lives were wasted. Don't waste anymore.
4
For the past 15 years we had no idea what we were doing in Afghanistan. Now we have the added frustration of not knowing when it will end. Not everything is a secret though in that we do know that American soldiers will be killed.
2
The only way to win in Afghanistan is to pick one war lord, maybe General Dostum, and help him take the country. It wouldn't be democracy. I may not even be sane, but the Taliban wouldn't run the country.
3
Afghanistan has been invaded many times but no one has been able to control all of its regions. Alexander the Great and Genghis tried as did the Persians, the British Empire, the Sikhs, the Soviet Union, and NATO troops, ENOUGH!
3
Excellent Stephen's.
Yes Nothing works! there is no happy ending or happy proceeding exist in Afghanistan.
This is where we burn our tax money slowly and see what happens. Some low level wars can go century long easily.
But If history is our only true record. One should look back and confess our sins. We really need repentance here.
In 1970's Afghanistan was some kind of country equal to todays Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. Women were more or less live with dignity and peace was exist. you can google 1970's images in Afghanistan. Unfortunately our USSR communism -fobia created (by CIA) one of the most horrendous terrorist organization in the world : Islamic terrorist groups. We started with Mujahedeen and slowly evolved Taliban , Al Qaeda and ISIS many small fractions . Today this plague has been infested Islamic world so deep even once secular nation Turkey(NATO member) fall back to Islamic regime.
That is we need to acknowledge, this plague didn't arise spontaneously in Afghanistan or Pakistan, It is engineered bu CIA-Saudi Wahhabi sectarianism. The knew that This plague will kill USSR, They were right , but They just didn't want to acknowledge what would happen after....
Now Nothing works.
Yes Nothing works! there is no happy ending or happy proceeding exist in Afghanistan.
This is where we burn our tax money slowly and see what happens. Some low level wars can go century long easily.
But If history is our only true record. One should look back and confess our sins. We really need repentance here.
In 1970's Afghanistan was some kind of country equal to todays Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. Women were more or less live with dignity and peace was exist. you can google 1970's images in Afghanistan. Unfortunately our USSR communism -fobia created (by CIA) one of the most horrendous terrorist organization in the world : Islamic terrorist groups. We started with Mujahedeen and slowly evolved Taliban , Al Qaeda and ISIS many small fractions . Today this plague has been infested Islamic world so deep even once secular nation Turkey(NATO member) fall back to Islamic regime.
That is we need to acknowledge, this plague didn't arise spontaneously in Afghanistan or Pakistan, It is engineered bu CIA-Saudi Wahhabi sectarianism. The knew that This plague will kill USSR, They were right , but They just didn't want to acknowledge what would happen after....
Now Nothing works.
3
I traveled the "hippie highway" EU to and through India, summer of 1971. This was hard travel in old hot buses. What struck me about Afghanistan (there was only one paved road, making the arc west to east, Herat-Kandahar-Kabul, then east through Jalalabad and through the Khyber Pass to Peshawar) was that Afghanistan was the only "traditional" country on the route where women did indeed wear the blue/black burkas with the screen in the hot desert climate, and where the bus stopped 5x for the men to pray.
There were virtually no private cars in Kabul, dead quiet in a city of one million. The people were dignified and did not bother with the few of us westerners, despite the uncovered women.
One other thought- Afghanistan might indeed have achieved some kind of "modern" society especially favorable for the woman, had the Soviets succeeded in establishing their rule - I have some old socialist realist posters with Afghan women in traditional dress yet uncovered. But of course, the US had to "game" the USSR, leading to the murderous warlordism that rules
today.
There were virtually no private cars in Kabul, dead quiet in a city of one million. The people were dignified and did not bother with the few of us westerners, despite the uncovered women.
One other thought- Afghanistan might indeed have achieved some kind of "modern" society especially favorable for the woman, had the Soviets succeeded in establishing their rule - I have some old socialist realist posters with Afghan women in traditional dress yet uncovered. But of course, the US had to "game" the USSR, leading to the murderous warlordism that rules
today.
I'm not understanding this theory of a safe haven, because if they have 40 percent of the country what the hell is the difference and they already have large chunks of Pakistan to do whatever they desire. It is hubris on the part of generals to think you can unlearn what history has taught us about Afghanistan.
3
When a country is run by warlords, does the concept of peace resound? It would be like trying to turn down the temperature of the sun.
Afghanistan is always on a war footing, whether on the national level or village against village. Peace comes after death with harems of virgins. If the men dream of their 72 virgins, what has the afterlife offered the women? They are not even considered.
Afghanistan is always on a war footing, whether on the national level or village against village. Peace comes after death with harems of virgins. If the men dream of their 72 virgins, what has the afterlife offered the women? They are not even considered.
3
Meet the new boss (the plan, the outside interference, etc) same as the old boss. Perhaps we could reach a settlement with the Taliban, they can butcher their own people (after all we can't make people love their own women and children, right?) and we'll let them be as long as they don't harbor terrorists set upon attacking outside their country, in which case all hell breaks loose again. A least bad option?
There's going to be terrorism regardless of whether we stay or leave Afghanistan (as evident in Europe). We should leave as the only thing guaranteed is more US military personnel coming home in body bags. Let the Chinese and the Russians deal with the nutjobs in Afghanistan.
3
Was it Churchill who said something like "Americans will try everything before trying the right thing."? No, not everything has been tried in Afghanistan and certainly not the right thing, which was a broad-based political solution. A solution which would bring Talibans to the power establishment in a shared basis.
Such a solution was thought of way back, I think, in late 2002 when C. Powell agreed with the then President Musharraf in a press conference to 'accommodate the moderate Talibans'. But the greedy tribals of the Northern Alliance wouldn't have that--and hence the continued warfare.
Finally, let's face it: As brutal as the Talibans are, their Afghan rivals are no less--in fact, the rivals are much more corrupt and thrive on poppy production. So a true power sharing in such a way that transnational terrorists like--which Talibans are NOT--are not allowed to take a hold in Afghanistan AND a setup where ALL external influences are removed. Combine that with a healthy dose of foreign aid, I see a way out for Afghanistan for all. Try this--I think it's the best option.
Such a solution was thought of way back, I think, in late 2002 when C. Powell agreed with the then President Musharraf in a press conference to 'accommodate the moderate Talibans'. But the greedy tribals of the Northern Alliance wouldn't have that--and hence the continued warfare.
Finally, let's face it: As brutal as the Talibans are, their Afghan rivals are no less--in fact, the rivals are much more corrupt and thrive on poppy production. So a true power sharing in such a way that transnational terrorists like--which Talibans are NOT--are not allowed to take a hold in Afghanistan AND a setup where ALL external influences are removed. Combine that with a healthy dose of foreign aid, I see a way out for Afghanistan for all. Try this--I think it's the best option.
The one thing we haven't done is walk away. There is no winning here, the people are in love with war and retribution, they have been fighting each other for 1,000 years. Our big mistake was getting involved. Yes, when we leave the government will fall, so what? Why do we care what a bunch of 6th Century Tribesmen are doing?
As long as their fighting stays in the Middle East, let them slaughter each other, its what they like to do. If they step outside of their playpen, squish them, then leave again. They will get the idea. In the meantime we will not be killing thousands of our men and women for no purpose. We can get on with our own lives.
As long as their fighting stays in the Middle East, let them slaughter each other, its what they like to do. If they step outside of their playpen, squish them, then leave again. They will get the idea. In the meantime we will not be killing thousands of our men and women for no purpose. We can get on with our own lives.
2
Get out. You never belonged there in the first place. The Taliban were going to give BinLaden up at some point but oh no the US has to bomb and kill losing the 'war' right off the top. What fools.
Trump hasn't stumbled onto anything except death.
Trump hasn't stumbled onto anything except death.
1
There is only one option in Afghanistan & that is to get out immediately.With spy in the sky, drones & missiles, there is no longer a need for any physical involvement anywhere in the world, boots on the ground are only necessary in an occupation.
Lets assume ,we are no longer a physical presence in Afghanistan & the Taliban are in control of the Government, and opens the country up to havens for ISIS & other terrorists groups.Our drones & missiles with the intelligence on the ground & space will continue to take a toll on their numbers & keep them off balance, without losing Americans.Sounds like a win win situation then why don’t we do it.If the answer is to keep a friendly government in power, we must ask ourselves at what cost & what kind of Government.If it will be what we have supported with an enormous amount of the Tax Payers money, we might as well, burn the money for what good it has done. IF we don’t realize it after 16 years, another 16 years will not change matters. GET Out!
Lets assume ,we are no longer a physical presence in Afghanistan & the Taliban are in control of the Government, and opens the country up to havens for ISIS & other terrorists groups.Our drones & missiles with the intelligence on the ground & space will continue to take a toll on their numbers & keep them off balance, without losing Americans.Sounds like a win win situation then why don’t we do it.If the answer is to keep a friendly government in power, we must ask ourselves at what cost & what kind of Government.If it will be what we have supported with an enormous amount of the Tax Payers money, we might as well, burn the money for what good it has done. IF we don’t realize it after 16 years, another 16 years will not change matters. GET Out!
4
The advantage of having a Taliban government is that they may find that they have to behave as a member of the international community. If they do not, they will be "out in the open" subject to easy disruption and destruction from above.
1
I notice something that Mr. Stephens "forgot" to enumerate: the number of civilians killed by the US/NATO's various efforts in Afghanistan. Mr. Stephens' decision not to mention the massive "collateral damage" is disingenuous, to say the least, since it is one of the core reasons that the Taliban is unkillable. No, in the end, Trump has done nothing but guarantee continued warfare in Afghanistan. The bottom line is very simple: the US cannot win. Indeed, it has already lost. It lost this war a long, long time ago. It is just sheer American stupidity that keeps it engaged in Afghanistan, along with misplaced pride and the failure of imagination that comes from having a military that is too big and intelligence that is too small. There was a brief moment in 2002 when, after the initial overthrow of the Taliban, the US may have successfully rebuilt the country - if it had put all its resources into doing so. Instead, driven by hubris, the US invaded and occupied Iraq (incompetently), divided its resources, and lost both wars. BTW, the argument that a Taliban-run Afghanistan will become a haven for terrorism is not convincing. The Taliban harbored Bin Laden, but it was not part of his plan to attack the US. A future Taliban government would pose no threat to the US or the West. The Taliban just wants Afghanistan. It may be a repulsive organization but it is motivated by the desire to repel foreign invaders.
1
Just leave. Leave now and let the Afghans and Pakistanis sort out their own house. There is no point to further US presence. The Afghan government is essentially the city government of Kabul. Afghanistan is one of the poorest most backward nations in the world. There is no upside to further US presence and it only delays the reckoning while everybody plays us for the fool including China.
Invest the resources we waste on Afghanistan on development at home and stop pouring money and blood into the mess that is Afghanistan.
Invest the resources we waste on Afghanistan on development at home and stop pouring money and blood into the mess that is Afghanistan.
6
After the fall of the USSR we strutted and reveled in our assumed role as the world's hegemon, the world's self-described indispensable nation. Then drip by drop the responsibilities of empire fell on us, just as they had centuries before on European colonialists. Britain and France had civilian administrations for their empires, but we weren't having any of that. We blow stuff up, but we distain "nation building".
Instead of administration, we keep throwing pallets of money onto the many fires we've started, to no effect. But a global empire without global administration is anarchy, which term describes what we're spreading.
Mt solution? Just stop. When you don't know what you are doing, just stop.
Instead of administration, we keep throwing pallets of money onto the many fires we've started, to no effect. But a global empire without global administration is anarchy, which term describes what we're spreading.
Mt solution? Just stop. When you don't know what you are doing, just stop.
5
"What can we do? With relatively modest troop increases, we can provide the elected Afghan government with sufficient military support to reverse some of the Taliban’s recent gains..."
That won't work either. Didn't you read your own words, Bret? The one serious option we and other foreign meddlers have is simply to pack up and leave. Hundreds of years of interference in Afghanistan's affairs have produced nothing but more conflict and death.
Yes, there will likely be more civil war in the vacuum the US leaves behind, but that will happen eventually anyway. Time to grit our teeth and rip the bandaid off. The same thing goes for Iraq.
That won't work either. Didn't you read your own words, Bret? The one serious option we and other foreign meddlers have is simply to pack up and leave. Hundreds of years of interference in Afghanistan's affairs have produced nothing but more conflict and death.
Yes, there will likely be more civil war in the vacuum the US leaves behind, but that will happen eventually anyway. Time to grit our teeth and rip the bandaid off. The same thing goes for Iraq.
4
China wants to be a player there. Turn the whole mess over to them and let their troops and money going that sinkhole.
2
Do you want to know why Afghanistan is still something that the Pentagon and its handmaidens, The Defense Industry and the GOP's Big Business Division, are focused upon? Approximately one trillion dollars in mineral wealth. Boom - end of discussion. Without the mineral wealth Afghanistan is just another Somalia.
3
Mr. Stephens, words do not an article make.
First, you say: nothing works in Afghanistan. Depends on how you define "works." We cannot produce a democracy. We can and should stay there endlessly, just as we will stay in Guam and other places endlessly (for different purposes, I would agree). If we leave, all hell breaks loose. And that does not "work" either. Analogous to Israel disarming, leaving the west bank and Gaza to their own devices- because 70 years of fighting have not "worked."
Second, Pakistan has not, and cannot replace US money with Chinese money. US money goes to the military, to generals, and private bank accounts. Chinese money goes to infrastructure (and likely to agriculture). We are bribing, they are producing a slave; buying outright.
Third, the broader war we are in will last centuries, and is with nihilistic Islam. "Work" cannot be defined in the short term. No one-shot solutions either. Reducing Pakistan's capacity to aid and coddle terrorism, proliferate IEDs, field nukes - is intrinsic to this effort. Pentagon seems to know; it has trouble channeling this knowledge into policy (which was impossible under Obama, who had endless faith in Pakistan). Similarly, extricating our law makers from the grips of Saudis (and Emirati) is another challenge. The solution to the war in Afghanistan lies first and foremast in Islamabad, Riyadh, and UAE; not Kabul.
I am a big fan, but this article was rubbish. Pentagon did influence Trump.
Kalidan
First, you say: nothing works in Afghanistan. Depends on how you define "works." We cannot produce a democracy. We can and should stay there endlessly, just as we will stay in Guam and other places endlessly (for different purposes, I would agree). If we leave, all hell breaks loose. And that does not "work" either. Analogous to Israel disarming, leaving the west bank and Gaza to their own devices- because 70 years of fighting have not "worked."
Second, Pakistan has not, and cannot replace US money with Chinese money. US money goes to the military, to generals, and private bank accounts. Chinese money goes to infrastructure (and likely to agriculture). We are bribing, they are producing a slave; buying outright.
Third, the broader war we are in will last centuries, and is with nihilistic Islam. "Work" cannot be defined in the short term. No one-shot solutions either. Reducing Pakistan's capacity to aid and coddle terrorism, proliferate IEDs, field nukes - is intrinsic to this effort. Pentagon seems to know; it has trouble channeling this knowledge into policy (which was impossible under Obama, who had endless faith in Pakistan). Similarly, extricating our law makers from the grips of Saudis (and Emirati) is another challenge. The solution to the war in Afghanistan lies first and foremast in Islamabad, Riyadh, and UAE; not Kabul.
I am a big fan, but this article was rubbish. Pentagon did influence Trump.
Kalidan
8
Kalidan: "We can and should stay there endlessly, just as we will stay in Guam"
OK, that's a pretty bizarre statement. There are no terrorists in Guam killing our soldiers and trying to strike at civilians in the U.S. It's kind of like saying we should stay in Hawaii endlessly.
OK, that's a pretty bizarre statement. There are no terrorists in Guam killing our soldiers and trying to strike at civilians in the U.S. It's kind of like saying we should stay in Hawaii endlessly.
1
Bret Stephens' solution is contrary to his argument. In DT's words."we're not nation building." Someone please tell me why we're in Afghanistan? Its a black hole with no solution that is acceptable to us. Allow it to return to its natural religious and tribal culture. We can handle any terrorists if/when the need arises. Permanent warfare by US is a no-no. Let Afghans neighbors handle the problem when it disturbs their tranquillity.
2
Why don't we try a new approach- get the hell out of there and don't look back? In fifty years Afghanistan may or may not be a peaceful, civilized country, but for the past fifty years it has been occupied by foreign troops and look how well that has turned out.
21
I was in Afghanistan before any of the wars when things were fine. I learned
quickly that the locals hated each other but they hated an outsider
even more. I suggest Larry and Moe be put in charge. Im sure
they are less expensive that the new generals and probably a whole
lot smarter.
quickly that the locals hated each other but they hated an outsider
even more. I suggest Larry and Moe be put in charge. Im sure
they are less expensive that the new generals and probably a whole
lot smarter.
2
Peter L (NYT Pick) has the clearest idea about what to do. Get out and see what happens. Seems unlikely that another 9/11 will, but it could.
We could also promise that not only the perpetrators but also their whole tribe and families would be summarily wiped out, including those from Saudi Arabia, who exports Radical Islam called Wahabism. That does work.
Russia cut off the ear of a grandfather and sent it to the folks who had kidnapped one of their agents in Lebanon. He was released, forthwith. Our agent, captured at the same time, was tortured to death. We didn't understand their language nor were we willing to do it.
Only family and tribe matters in places like Afghanistan. Country means nothing and corruption is rampant. Get out, save BILLIONS, tell Pakistan and Iran to "have at it"; see what emerges. Cambodia should be our model. Pol Pot is gone. The locals took care of it, despite some folks here begging us to go in and 'solve' it. We did not because we had just gotten out of Vietnam. Now, American companies have production facilities in Vietnam. Huh?
We are not the world's policemen. Give it up, folks. Just 'speak softly and carry a big stick' as T. Roosevelt is reputed to have said.
We could also promise that not only the perpetrators but also their whole tribe and families would be summarily wiped out, including those from Saudi Arabia, who exports Radical Islam called Wahabism. That does work.
Russia cut off the ear of a grandfather and sent it to the folks who had kidnapped one of their agents in Lebanon. He was released, forthwith. Our agent, captured at the same time, was tortured to death. We didn't understand their language nor were we willing to do it.
Only family and tribe matters in places like Afghanistan. Country means nothing and corruption is rampant. Get out, save BILLIONS, tell Pakistan and Iran to "have at it"; see what emerges. Cambodia should be our model. Pol Pot is gone. The locals took care of it, despite some folks here begging us to go in and 'solve' it. We did not because we had just gotten out of Vietnam. Now, American companies have production facilities in Vietnam. Huh?
We are not the world's policemen. Give it up, folks. Just 'speak softly and carry a big stick' as T. Roosevelt is reputed to have said.
5
We haven't tried "no footprint".
We exited Japan in 1952, less than a decade after it was conquered. It has never been a threat to Americans since we left. We wrote their constitution after rejecting a Japanese-written one. Yet in Afghanistan we let tribal warlords who believe the delusional utterings of a 7th century tribal witch doctor write their own constitution.
Essentially, the US should have conquered Afghanistan, raining hellfire down upon them until they surrendered unconditionally, and then written a rational constitution for them. Then we should have left them to sink or swim - as we did the Japanese.
Bush had no endgame for this war. Obama brought nothing either. Trump has done nothing but continue this war. Yet WW2 ended decisively on all fronts, without any enemy combatant creating an insurgency. Because both surrendered unconditionally. THAT is why we are still at war in Afghanistan.
Declare the war OVER, Mr Trump. Get our troops out of Afganistan and Iraq and Syria. Let those who believe in their tribal witch doctor kill themselves as they have done for centuries. Bring Americans home, and stop wasting money on those charnel pits.
We exited Japan in 1952, less than a decade after it was conquered. It has never been a threat to Americans since we left. We wrote their constitution after rejecting a Japanese-written one. Yet in Afghanistan we let tribal warlords who believe the delusional utterings of a 7th century tribal witch doctor write their own constitution.
Essentially, the US should have conquered Afghanistan, raining hellfire down upon them until they surrendered unconditionally, and then written a rational constitution for them. Then we should have left them to sink or swim - as we did the Japanese.
Bush had no endgame for this war. Obama brought nothing either. Trump has done nothing but continue this war. Yet WW2 ended decisively on all fronts, without any enemy combatant creating an insurgency. Because both surrendered unconditionally. THAT is why we are still at war in Afghanistan.
Declare the war OVER, Mr Trump. Get our troops out of Afganistan and Iraq and Syria. Let those who believe in their tribal witch doctor kill themselves as they have done for centuries. Bring Americans home, and stop wasting money on those charnel pits.
4
When the extremists seeking to control Afghanistan have been biding their time FOR CENTURIES, what does it matter whether the U.S. sets deadlines for achieving results from surges or other actions? And, most importantly, what sense does it make to seek to eliminate Afghanistan as a breeding ground for extremists when they can breed ANYWHERE? These shibboleths of Stephens. Trump, and the rest of the Right are mindless. Let the extremists have Afghanistan, if they can, and then seek to contain them.
The argument is made here that despite the fact that the term "win" is not applicable against an adversary who is not an official army, but simply a segment of the population of a country who will continue to live there longer than any involvement that the US can sustain, to leave is not an option. And the reason given is that were the US to leave "it would create the kind of vacuum in Afghanistan that the Islamic State so swiftly filled in Syria and Iraq.
And this is the argument that the senior leadership of the military put before Trump that convinced him to change his mind about the matter.
However if one to give this theory a proper analysis it will fail as an argument. And this is because the situation in Afghanistan is one where two powers are fighting over territory, and so either one or the other will be in control of any territory, the only question is how much will the government control and how much will the Taliban control. So this is very different than the situation was in Syria and Iraq where the only military power capable of holding a territory was the government. So when those government forces were ousted it created a vacuum, which is not at all the case in Afghanistan.
And the military brass have their personal motives why they do not want to abandon the fight in Afghanistan. And this is because they cannot bear to see how territory which the US paid a very heavy price in blood to gain control over should revert to the Taliban.
And this is the argument that the senior leadership of the military put before Trump that convinced him to change his mind about the matter.
However if one to give this theory a proper analysis it will fail as an argument. And this is because the situation in Afghanistan is one where two powers are fighting over territory, and so either one or the other will be in control of any territory, the only question is how much will the government control and how much will the Taliban control. So this is very different than the situation was in Syria and Iraq where the only military power capable of holding a territory was the government. So when those government forces were ousted it created a vacuum, which is not at all the case in Afghanistan.
And the military brass have their personal motives why they do not want to abandon the fight in Afghanistan. And this is because they cannot bear to see how territory which the US paid a very heavy price in blood to gain control over should revert to the Taliban.
We should stop imposing our basically Christian culture on unwilling Muslim populations. Suggest to let the Afghans fight this out just like when we fought out our Civil war nobody interfered imposing their will on us. Maybe the article was correct but read when the Taliban Afghans were in power opium production decreased to very low levels, now its up since the Taliban now need it for their war effort. Predict the suffering will go on there until we leave at which point it'll be settled just like it was in Vietnam 50 years ago.
3
We will never make Afghanistan into a modern democracy, but we can do one thing that might ultimately give them the opportunity to improve their own lot--stop Saudi funding of Islamic extremists there.
It seems to me that we have sufficiently retaliated against the Taliban for their role in 9-11; perhaps we should consider some retaliation against the Saudis for their role. Also, with the Russians now supporting the Taliban with weapons, it seems unlikely to me that putting more Americans troops there can accomplish any good.
It seems to me that we have sufficiently retaliated against the Taliban for their role in 9-11; perhaps we should consider some retaliation against the Saudis for their role. Also, with the Russians now supporting the Taliban with weapons, it seems unlikely to me that putting more Americans troops there can accomplish any good.
5
All we need to do is raise Alexander the Great to fix this. Otherwise a 1000 years of history suggests nothing will change.
More seriously after 16 years, is there one city in Afghanistan that is not corrupt and follows the rule of law and respect for women and minorities (religious and ethnic)? Is there a single one?
More seriously after 16 years, is there one city in Afghanistan that is not corrupt and follows the rule of law and respect for women and minorities (religious and ethnic)? Is there a single one?
5
Trump’s foreign policy approach is informed by his business background as well as a belief that other countries could and should be doing more. Very simply stated, what you might call healthy competition among the regional powers will lead to balance in a way that an American “monopoly” has not, even as we continue to play a large part.
I am much more afraid of neonazis here than I am of Taliban there.
11
Val: I'm much more afraid of Goldman Sachs than either of those you mention. They cut a much wider swath of destruction across the world than all the jihadis put together.
The Taliban pose no threat to the United States. Yet we've wasted billions upon billions of dollars trying to intercede in what amounts to a civil war. The military industrial complex rolls on, regardless of what party controls the White House. Defense contractors prosper (and, yes, employ lots of people) while some of our young get to voluntarily experience the thrills and agonies of warfare. Some things will never change.
9
AFGHANISTAN Was one of the major causes of the breakup of the USSR. No nation has ever won a war against Afghanistan. When there were well over 100,000 US troops on the ground there they couldn't win. Our troops were unable to build an Afghani army capable of defending itself. Trump's just doing his "bad deal" thing. He announces that something--in this case Afghanistan--is a bad deal for the US. Then he says he will negotiate a better one. And the matter then sinks like a stone into the ocean.
4
The U.S. can and should leave as fast as it can. The U.S. has given billions in aid to Iraq and Afghanistan while it's own society stagnates.
6
We have been in a state of war pretty much constantly for a very long time now. What I don't see here or elsewhere is: Without a draft, who is joining the U.S. forces? The answer would seem to be people who can't get a better job. Maybe if more people could get real jobs that paid real money, we would have to re-think our militarism.
6
The US is not good at nation building, nation destroying, on the other hand, is another matter.
2
The president's other legacy: "Who knew it would be this complicated?"
4
Your analysis and history are good, but bottom line is, you cannot 'win' in Afghanistan. 17 years!! Don't blame other countries, Pakistan. You think Russia, China, and Iran are going to be standing idle while America is there. Don't waste more resources.
4
Imagine a fraction of that money spent on OUR infrastructure, OUR schools, OUR health. The US has had dreams of grandeur for far too long on the international stage. Every nation that suddenly finds itself powerful goes through this stage I imagine and, in our case, we buy into it with a thing called "American exceptionalism", the belief that we're some sort of infallible freedom-giver to the world.
What a joke. The only thing the US will leave behind in Afghanistan is dead bodies, ours and so many of Afghanistan, and a corrupt system with billions of donated American money coursing through it that will be torn apart by the whatever warlords happen to be feuding at the moment.
What a joke. The only thing the US will leave behind in Afghanistan is dead bodies, ours and so many of Afghanistan, and a corrupt system with billions of donated American money coursing through it that will be torn apart by the whatever warlords happen to be feuding at the moment.
4
I wonder if the most effective weapon against the Taliban, IS and al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be the development and deployment of a biological agent that decimates poppies. I'm only half joking.
1
One of the great blunders of all time: "A land war in Asia." When will we ever learn that the US is not the world's policeman.
5
We've been "stern" with Pakistan?!?!?
Ouch, we withheld $50 million in military aid the other day. The remaining billions continued to flow. The negative consequences for Pakistan? None. Or close to none.
Treat Pakistan like the enemy it is. Pakistan created the Taliban. Pakistan still arms, trains, guides and gives save haven to the Taliban. The Taliban kill and maim America's soldiers - from SEALS to Marines to Army. The destruction and terror the Taliban wreak, drains our Treasury of untold billions (trillions?).
Treating Pakistan like the enemy. Stopping aid to it of any kind, not just for a month, but forever. Treating the border with Pakistan as an "open border" that American forces can cross at will to kill those trying to kill them, would all do more than anything the US has done to date.
If Pakistan is critical for supply routes to Afghanistan, then develop half a brain and support Iran's efforts to build transportation to Afghanistan. And use Iran!!!!! Iran has helped us against the Taliban. Pakistan has not. Why, when Americans are being killed in Afghanistan, and we cannot stop flooding money into it, all because of the Taliban, do we not then work with Iran and cut off the Taliban's sponsor, Pakistan - cut it off, COMPLETELY!
Ouch, we withheld $50 million in military aid the other day. The remaining billions continued to flow. The negative consequences for Pakistan? None. Or close to none.
Treat Pakistan like the enemy it is. Pakistan created the Taliban. Pakistan still arms, trains, guides and gives save haven to the Taliban. The Taliban kill and maim America's soldiers - from SEALS to Marines to Army. The destruction and terror the Taliban wreak, drains our Treasury of untold billions (trillions?).
Treating Pakistan like the enemy. Stopping aid to it of any kind, not just for a month, but forever. Treating the border with Pakistan as an "open border" that American forces can cross at will to kill those trying to kill them, would all do more than anything the US has done to date.
If Pakistan is critical for supply routes to Afghanistan, then develop half a brain and support Iran's efforts to build transportation to Afghanistan. And use Iran!!!!! Iran has helped us against the Taliban. Pakistan has not. Why, when Americans are being killed in Afghanistan, and we cannot stop flooding money into it, all because of the Taliban, do we not then work with Iran and cut off the Taliban's sponsor, Pakistan - cut it off, COMPLETELY!
4
Just leave already.
2
Okay, so we leave. And the Taliban and their drug lords and their Russian arms suppliers take the country again, and tens of thousands get killed, and the women get stuffed back in the boxes, and the assorted terrorists attacking Pakistan grow in power. Oh, and did I mention that the guys who really did run 9/11 grow back?
Okay, so we stay. And we spend the lives and the money, and the Kabul government plays its clever games, and at least the bad guys--and they are truly bad guys--are held in check. And it all sputters on.
Americans seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of less bad where there are no happy choices, no Victory. If anything the Victory is the less bad.
Okay, so we stay. And we spend the lives and the money, and the Kabul government plays its clever games, and at least the bad guys--and they are truly bad guys--are held in check. And it all sputters on.
Americans seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of less bad where there are no happy choices, no Victory. If anything the Victory is the less bad.
1
The argument that to leave Afghanistan would be to return it to the hands of terrorists is undoubtedly right, but so what? There's nothing that terrorists can conceivably do to us, short of a nuclear strike, that would come within a couple of orders of magnitude of the cost of keeping this country out of their hands. And anything they can do to us, they can do with the need to operate in Afghanistan. All we're doing there is killing people. There's no reason to be there. We should leave.
3
Another columnist pointing out all the reasons why every previous policy has failed in Afghanistan, admitting that this "new" policy is merely a retread of what we've tried before without success, yet advocating for staying the course they have documented will fail. Are you all mad, repeating a course of action which has already failed, which you know will fail again, yet expecting it not to fail? This is beyond insanity; it is abject stupidity. Where is the intelligence to realize the one thing we haven't tried, complete withdrawal, is the ONLY viable option?
4
$2,000 dead Taliban and other insurgents killed between 2001 and 2016. Remember the body count in Vietnam?
A dozen or so (mostly) Saudi terrorists attacked armed with box cutters and got lucky. And that's led to this? Clearly the U.S. is a country of dumb and fearful people.
6
Trump did not alight on this-- he had to be arm-twisted into it by Mattis and McMaster and only because he can't stand the idea that he might be tagged as "losing" Afghanistan. That is what motivates this choice.
5
Why can't we leave??
1
Leave If you can.
Afghanistan, where empires go to die.
Related: No law says the American empire lasts forever.
Related: No law says the American empire lasts forever.
2
Afghanistan is a complicated and hapless place, containing a mountainous terrain, poor soil, isolated populations, sub-standard schools and problems with opium and heroin. After 9/11 few people disputed the fact that going into the country was the right thing to do. As detailed in the Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton, we sent off a posse composed of 100 CIA officers, 350 Special Forces soldiers and 10,000 Afghan troops, beat the Taliban and chased Al Qaeda into Pakistan. They accomplished in two months what the Pentagon said would take two years. The problem was that the posse did not return home. Instead we started nation building with the number of troops moving up to 100,000. After 16 years the Taliban are still around, casualties continue, there is a cesspool of corruption and at one point Tom Friedman rated the place as the second most corrupt behind Somalia. Meanwhile the dollar cost to this country has been enormous. What would possess any Congressman to want to spend over $120 Billion of our tax money on such a pariah state, whose troops refuse to fight, who cooperate with the Americans during the day and go elsewhere aiding the Taliban at night. For those of us who were around in the late 60's, does this conflict sound familiar? Bring our posse home now.
6
What is this, Captain Obvious reporting in from the front?
Only an analysis THAT superficial could conclude with an endorsement of Trump's slapdash, trivial "strategy."
Only an analysis THAT superficial could conclude with an endorsement of Trump's slapdash, trivial "strategy."
1
This might be naïve but I've always wondered why the U.S. continues to fight a "war" on terrorism instead of treating terrorism as vast criminal enterprise (like the Mafia). We've had great success in infiltrating The Mob, breaking up its networks, cutting of its sources of revenue, and inducing members to flip on their own. How? Through the strategic use of human intelligence (in many forms) instead of the continual gun blazing that the military is trained to do but, as we can see, has limited long-term effectiveness. It seems to me that a sustained and committed effort of "mob busting", if you will, could have good results. At a minimum, I do not believe it's something we've tried before and it might just work.
1
The idea that an army of foreign infidels with no authority over (and often at odds with) the civil power could do what the British failed to do in three Afghan Wars (1839–1842, 1878–1880, 1919) with a largely native army and with de facto control of the civil power is fatuous. In the first Afghan War the British were soundly defeated, and the second and third, having been waged against established regimes, were ended by treaty.
America’s present ‘longest war’ is more analogous to what the British did from 1849 to1957 on the Northwest Frontier where, in what was known as tribal territory the Indian Army was continuously deployed in fortified outposts, from which they sent out regular patrols of the surrounding area, like cops on the beat, to keep the peace. Occasionally a local chief would break the rules of the game and go too far in his raids on his neighbours and a punitive expedition would be launched, and if things got out of hand viceregal authority would be sought to bring in British units.
The British never thought of that century of military activity on the Northwest Frontier as a long war. It was a continuing exercise in imperial control involving occasional wars.
America has no empire, no imperial responsibility, its involvement in Afghanistan is an exercise of geopolitical power with ill-defined objectives against an ill-defined enemy in a country which does not like us and which we do not understand.
America’s present ‘longest war’ is more analogous to what the British did from 1849 to1957 on the Northwest Frontier where, in what was known as tribal territory the Indian Army was continuously deployed in fortified outposts, from which they sent out regular patrols of the surrounding area, like cops on the beat, to keep the peace. Occasionally a local chief would break the rules of the game and go too far in his raids on his neighbours and a punitive expedition would be launched, and if things got out of hand viceregal authority would be sought to bring in British units.
The British never thought of that century of military activity on the Northwest Frontier as a long war. It was a continuing exercise in imperial control involving occasional wars.
America has no empire, no imperial responsibility, its involvement in Afghanistan is an exercise of geopolitical power with ill-defined objectives against an ill-defined enemy in a country which does not like us and which we do not understand.
1
All that keeps us in this sad country is our fear that a post-departure Afghanistan will become a base for those who dedicate themselves to terrorist attacks on the West. Why do we allow ourselves to be trapped by an apparent belief that a military presence is the only insurance policy we have against that risk? Aren't there already lawless lands (Somalia, Yemen, for example) that are equally "available" to the perpetrators of terrorist evils? We manage those risks without sending in thousands of our troops, so where is the push to develop a strategy to contain a post-withdrawal Afghanistan and to ensure that its future leaders (and their neighbors) understand it is in their self-interest to not allow their "guests" to use the country as a base? Let's stop trying to win the un-winnable, and start focusing on how we develop the right risk-management strategy. There has to be a better path.
3
From Wikipedia: "The First Anglo-Afghan War (also known as Disaster in Afghanistan) was fought between British imperial India and the Emirate of Afghanistan from 1839 to 1842."
Then came the Second... and later, the Russians... and now... US.
Imperial powers have been losing in Afghanistan for most of two centuries.
Then came the Second... and later, the Russians... and now... US.
Imperial powers have been losing in Afghanistan for most of two centuries.
1
Historically, every power that has gone into Afghanistan from outside has eventually left, without make an iota of difference. Remember the British in the 19th century or the Soviet Union more recently. I am not sure why America thinks that it can set things right in Afghanistan. A surge of a few thousand troops will not make any difference. What difference it makes will be temporary and cannot be sustained for the long term.
2
There is a solution to Afghanistan but at a big price. We defeated the Japanese in WWII and then controlled the installation of a new government. General McArthur was literally the leader of Japan for several years. As long as Afghanistan has a corrupt government there cannot be a change. I have my doubts that Trump is able to create a stable government in another country since he cannot do the same here in the US. Has everyone forgotten the poor government that W helped create in Iraq?
4
You hint the nuclear option, that doesn't work here either.
When we nuke two Japanese city in WWII, these were the facts
1- Japan was an empire never invaded by anybody in its millennium long history and extremely proud of it.
2- Japan has already reached western civilization level industrial life.
3- We annihilate two cities, and that for an civilized nation means neck breaking.
4- if no surrender more cities will be gone or Tokyo might see the nukes.
If you take above facts , If you drop 2000 nuclear bomb on Afghanistan and trun entire country glass-earth covered region, you will not win anything. Next day from Pakistan, Uzbekistan Taliban , ISIS Al Qaeda starts leaking in to the glass surface.
Trust me Stephens is right Nothing works
When we nuke two Japanese city in WWII, these were the facts
1- Japan was an empire never invaded by anybody in its millennium long history and extremely proud of it.
2- Japan has already reached western civilization level industrial life.
3- We annihilate two cities, and that for an civilized nation means neck breaking.
4- if no surrender more cities will be gone or Tokyo might see the nukes.
If you take above facts , If you drop 2000 nuclear bomb on Afghanistan and trun entire country glass-earth covered region, you will not win anything. Next day from Pakistan, Uzbekistan Taliban , ISIS Al Qaeda starts leaking in to the glass surface.
Trust me Stephens is right Nothing works
You cannot compare Afghanistan to Iraq or Syria unless it is to demonstrate their total absence of similarity. While their boundaries are not appropriate both Iraq and Syria contain the raw material of modern nations. They have large educated classes and industrial and public infrastructure. They are very near Europe. They were a part of the Roman Empire for crissakes! Afghanistan is an area of rough terrain in the distant middle of Asia that has generally been a territory or protectorate of the Persians or the Russians or the folks on the Indian subcontinent.
We have no legitimate interest in Afghanistan except to occasionally come and get whoever from there might attack us a la bin Laden. That's all we should do: surgical removals of people who have actually attacked us. Leave it to its own people and its neighbors. For the minority of Afghans who don't want to live in a theocratic patriarchy we can open our immigration to them much as we did to South Vietnamese.
Let's get out.
We have no legitimate interest in Afghanistan except to occasionally come and get whoever from there might attack us a la bin Laden. That's all we should do: surgical removals of people who have actually attacked us. Leave it to its own people and its neighbors. For the minority of Afghans who don't want to live in a theocratic patriarchy we can open our immigration to them much as we did to South Vietnamese.
Let's get out.
5
Please someone remind me: why do we care so much about what happens in Afganistan?
3
No, we have obviously not tried the option of pulling out of Afghanistan completely. We entered in 2001 to kill or capture al-Qaeda leaders who committed the Nine Eleven atrocities. The Taliban were protecting them so we had to fight those Afghani rebels too. Over 16 years we killed bin Laden (in Pakistan) and many other members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Mission creep and fewer al-Qaeda fighters have gradually put the focus on the Taliban, whose ancestors began fighting nearly 200 years ago against Great Britain, then the Soviet Union, and now the U.S.
2
We have tried everything? Nonsense. We fight according to Just War principles, not Total War principles. We fight not to win, but to minimize sacrifice because we fight according to principles of altruism, of self-sacrifice.
Imagine if Patton, LeMay were alive. How would they fight the Taliban? Ruthlessly, without mercy, and victoriously. We did so in War World II, and we can do that again.
Imagine if Patton, LeMay were alive. How would they fight the Taliban? Ruthlessly, without mercy, and victoriously. We did so in War World II, and we can do that again.
1
You write that "we fight according to Just War principles, not Total War principles", but then go on to ask how Patton or Curtis LeMay would have fought the Taliban, pointing out that they would have fought "ruthlessly, without mercy". You are apparently unaware that your earlier assertion that we fight only "just" wars is in contradiction with your subsequent implicit praise of fighting ruthlessly and without mercy.
Moreover, you overlook the fact that Japan and Germany were unified modern states with an advanced industrial base and armies having control over the whole of their territories. In other words, there was still (even after all the destruction) someone who could show up in full uniform wielding his field-marshal's baton (Keitel) or wearing top hat and tails (in the case of the Japanese) to sign articles of surrender. That is obviously and most emphatically NOT the case in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not really a state at all in the western understanding of the term. It is a rugged, mountainous semi-arid country (difficult terrain to seize and hold) that, demographically, is simply a patchwork of different tribes speaking different languages and wuth different traditions. They have no allegiance to the central "government". They never have and never will.
Even Alexander the Great knew better than to bother with them.
Moreover, you overlook the fact that Japan and Germany were unified modern states with an advanced industrial base and armies having control over the whole of their territories. In other words, there was still (even after all the destruction) someone who could show up in full uniform wielding his field-marshal's baton (Keitel) or wearing top hat and tails (in the case of the Japanese) to sign articles of surrender. That is obviously and most emphatically NOT the case in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not really a state at all in the western understanding of the term. It is a rugged, mountainous semi-arid country (difficult terrain to seize and hold) that, demographically, is simply a patchwork of different tribes speaking different languages and wuth different traditions. They have no allegiance to the central "government". They never have and never will.
Even Alexander the Great knew better than to bother with them.
3
The Russians must be loving on this attempt to subdue the Afghanis. Russia spent 7% of their GROSS national product to defeat the Afghanis. All that accomplished was to give the religious extremists the power to convince farmers to grow opium to support the Taliban cause. About the only group that made a definite impact on the country was the Greeks; remember that green-eyed girl on the cover of National Geographic?
Afghanistan women used to be, only forty years ago, well-educated doctors, lawyers and educators. Then zealots came into power; now women are beasts of burden.
There's a lesson here.
Afghanistan women used to be, only forty years ago, well-educated doctors, lawyers and educators. Then zealots came into power; now women are beasts of burden.
There's a lesson here.
4
Leave Afghanistan and let the vultures pick over what is left. Many corporations in the U.S. would be happy with that outcome because they can afford to pay for their own mercenary armies. Problem solved, wait a minute, there's that little voice whispering,I think it's called a conscience. Does our country even have one anymore?
2
So. Is Mr. Stephens going to volunteer for a succession of on infantry tours in Afghanistan? Is he willing to send his children to do so for years to come? No, I didn't think so.
4
Stay, another 20,000 years (okay, maybe only 2000 years). Or leave and monitor from the sky: if/when the Taliban try to go nuclear (with help from the Pakistan govt - who the world knows [but US gov't denies] is pro Taliban and anti-American) we obliterate Pakistan.
1
Pure madness. There's nothing to win, nothing to save. Whatever is to become of Afghanistan will be up to the Afghan people, just as the outcome in Vietnam was finally determined by the people there. Too many Americans are uninformed and ignorant. We need to get out now. If there was a draft, we would have been out years ago. There is no attainable objective.
2
President Trump made a reasonable decision here. Bravo Trump!
PS- Donald, you do not need your political base to survive. You have already won the election and you now have more than 3 years left. Your re-election, if successful, will be based on leadership choices, not on energizing your base of 35% of the population. Think deeply about this.
PS- Donald, you do not need your political base to survive. You have already won the election and you now have more than 3 years left. Your re-election, if successful, will be based on leadership choices, not on energizing your base of 35% of the population. Think deeply about this.
2
This is a pretty interesting post. Obviously The Donald needs support to implement his "choices", but I agree his political future will be decided by his ability to corral a majority support, not reliance on the razor thin and problematical majority he racked up in the Electoral College. Unfortunately (for Donald) I don't think he reads the Times.
1
Since it seems we cannot win in Afghanistan, I think we should limit our ambitions to denying victory to the Taliban. We should try phasing in Eric Prince's proposal to use contract personnel for training, battalion level imbedded support, ISR and CAS. No doubt our generals see no merit in this idea, but they have very high standards and an inherent COI. Some sort of US/Contractor/Afghan command structure could keep an eye on things. Flexibility is key since we're not sure how this will work best, or the right organization to manage it. Right now, given the current White House schizophrenia, asking WH and DOD for that kind of flexibility and imagination are probably "a bridge too far." But in a year or two, or 2020, if Washington ever settles down, we should give it a shot.
Of course there is way out, and the sooner the better. Give the country back to the Afghanis. Yes, the Taliban. They were doing a pretty good job before we turned the country into a war zone, and the countryside back over to the warlords.
Had we accepted the Taliban government's offer for bin Laden's head on a platter, along with his lieutenants, for a mere $10 billion (Oct. 12-14, 2001), there wouldn't have been these wars pushing a trillion dollars.
George H. W. Bush and Wm. J. Clinton provided annual aid to the Taliban government totaling $12 billion during their terms. The result was opium poppy production reduced by 95 percent, the malnutrition rate lowered, and schools and clinics opening.
BTW: I never considered us the Great Satan until Trump got elected.
Had we accepted the Taliban government's offer for bin Laden's head on a platter, along with his lieutenants, for a mere $10 billion (Oct. 12-14, 2001), there wouldn't have been these wars pushing a trillion dollars.
George H. W. Bush and Wm. J. Clinton provided annual aid to the Taliban government totaling $12 billion during their terms. The result was opium poppy production reduced by 95 percent, the malnutrition rate lowered, and schools and clinics opening.
BTW: I never considered us the Great Satan until Trump got elected.
4
Only a war can be won in Afghanistan when all nato forces fight simultaneously with coperation in full capacity.small attempts will only make enemies strong.world had to understand the consequence of void in Afghanistan. USA and Russia should be freindly for world peace and stability.
Brett,
This article illustrates how you don't understand the history of this region, going back centuries. There is NO exit, only the endless pit that will take human life, blood and treasuries.
Unfortunately, trump doesn't understand history either. He is not going to stumble "on the best of a bad set of Afghan options".
This article illustrates how you don't understand the history of this region, going back centuries. There is NO exit, only the endless pit that will take human life, blood and treasuries.
Unfortunately, trump doesn't understand history either. He is not going to stumble "on the best of a bad set of Afghan options".
or we could just leave and let them have their country back
4
"We’ve tried killing terrorists. Lots and lots of them. As many as 42,000 Taliban and other insurgents have been killed and another 19,000 wounded in fighting since 2001, according to one rough 2016 estimate. The United States has also carried out more than 400 drone strikes in Pakistan, decimating Al Qaeda’s core leadership. Last year a drone took out the Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour.
Result: The Taliban’s numbers in 2005 were estimated at anywhere between 2,000 and 10,000 fighters. Within a decade, those numbers had grown to an estimated 60,000 fighters."
And this is where the military option leads: like Hercules's Hydra, for every "terrorist" killed, the family and friends of that person are instantly recruited to the Hate America rosters. It's such a no-brainer that even a child can understand it.
Nevertheless, that's the thinking in *all* of the US strategies, whether small-footprint, large footprint, diplomacy (that always had a large military, drone warfare accompaniment), and bomb-them-back-to-the-Stone-Age.
Maybe because of our 2-year Congressional elections, we, the USA just can't meet this country - and its neighbor, Pakistan - in long-term social and economic engagement. Such would require us to back off the "security" thinking and get with asking and listening to the answer to "What do you really need and what do you really want from us?" staying aware that the tribal social structure is a fertile field of endless corruption.
Result: The Taliban’s numbers in 2005 were estimated at anywhere between 2,000 and 10,000 fighters. Within a decade, those numbers had grown to an estimated 60,000 fighters."
And this is where the military option leads: like Hercules's Hydra, for every "terrorist" killed, the family and friends of that person are instantly recruited to the Hate America rosters. It's such a no-brainer that even a child can understand it.
Nevertheless, that's the thinking in *all* of the US strategies, whether small-footprint, large footprint, diplomacy (that always had a large military, drone warfare accompaniment), and bomb-them-back-to-the-Stone-Age.
Maybe because of our 2-year Congressional elections, we, the USA just can't meet this country - and its neighbor, Pakistan - in long-term social and economic engagement. Such would require us to back off the "security" thinking and get with asking and listening to the answer to "What do you really need and what do you really want from us?" staying aware that the tribal social structure is a fertile field of endless corruption.
19
The problem is by saying "by killing one terrorist you create dozens more in their family/friends/etc", you've already conceded defeat to enemies that NEED pride, confidence, and most of all, TIME, and just wait us out to win. We, though, have numerous countries that send their top tier Special Operations Forces to teach brand new Afghan CT units to just pummel a re-surging enemy now showing up to party...ISIS! (aka IS-K. Oh, coming from where you ask? Pakistan!)
Do you see Russians, Paks, Iran, or ANYONE else spending what we have on precision guided bombs/ordinance? NO. In fact, we lead the way, statistically (actually for decades now) in spending billions on smaller/more precise weapons like the 12 pound Hellfires our drones utilize, that people FREAK OUT & lose their minds over, simply because the footage makes it appear as though our pilots are just vaporizing dozens upon dozens of nearby civilians (which, btw, collaterally, to almost ANY real vet who's seen it happen in real-time, they would laugh @ this & explain how MUCH more thoughtful we are vs. Russian made & Syrian purchased chemical weapons & BARREL BOMBS we've seen used in Syria & on the Kurds!).Why? They don't have fancy GPS-guided weapons they care to design BECAUSE WHY WASTE $? The Russian-
used children's toys as mines (not to kill, just to blow their little arms off to make them disabled for life). I've been morally cool w/how WE fight, in comparative retrospect, since 2002! You aren't?OK good luck w/that.
Do you see Russians, Paks, Iran, or ANYONE else spending what we have on precision guided bombs/ordinance? NO. In fact, we lead the way, statistically (actually for decades now) in spending billions on smaller/more precise weapons like the 12 pound Hellfires our drones utilize, that people FREAK OUT & lose their minds over, simply because the footage makes it appear as though our pilots are just vaporizing dozens upon dozens of nearby civilians (which, btw, collaterally, to almost ANY real vet who's seen it happen in real-time, they would laugh @ this & explain how MUCH more thoughtful we are vs. Russian made & Syrian purchased chemical weapons & BARREL BOMBS we've seen used in Syria & on the Kurds!).Why? They don't have fancy GPS-guided weapons they care to design BECAUSE WHY WASTE $? The Russian-
used children's toys as mines (not to kill, just to blow their little arms off to make them disabled for life). I've been morally cool w/how WE fight, in comparative retrospect, since 2002! You aren't?OK good luck w/that.
I keep hearing that it was horrible for Obama to set a deadline for the surge, with the argument that this emboldened enemies to wait us out. It may well have been necessary to gather the support in the U.S. needed to endure more of this fiasco. So what would have happened if we had not set a deadline? The Talibs would have thought, hey, we might as well surrender, since the U.S. is here to stay? Can someone really make that argument with a straight face after 16 years of war? Hasn't the U.S. learned anything from fighting all these counterinsurgency wars?
The other day, I heard a guy on NPR talking about his opinion that the U.S. really showed the North Vietnamese how tough we were with the bombing campaign that brought them to the negotiating table. There's truth in that -- but he didn't mention that the outcome was that North Vietnam won and we went home!
If you want a model for ending a bloody and stupid war, take a look at what is happening in Iraq, where the U.S. military has been able to step back, and play a true support role while the rebuilt Iraqi Army is slowly kicking ISIS out of the country. Too bad Mr. Trump can't take credit for that one, but it started a while back under that last guy we had in the White House.
The other day, I heard a guy on NPR talking about his opinion that the U.S. really showed the North Vietnamese how tough we were with the bombing campaign that brought them to the negotiating table. There's truth in that -- but he didn't mention that the outcome was that North Vietnam won and we went home!
If you want a model for ending a bloody and stupid war, take a look at what is happening in Iraq, where the U.S. military has been able to step back, and play a true support role while the rebuilt Iraqi Army is slowly kicking ISIS out of the country. Too bad Mr. Trump can't take credit for that one, but it started a while back under that last guy we had in the White House.
3
The only reason we are still in Afghanistan is that we do not have a DRAFT.We have the tragic absurdity of men serving 3 and 4 deployments. " Survived the last one? Take another chance."
2
The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is ignore the lines on the map. Like most countries in Asia, the modern borders that were "established" ignored the culture, history, and clannish groups that inhabited the country. The U.S. knows which provinces in Afghanistan are the natural homes of the taliban and which provinces are not. The U.S. can probably safely oversee the parts of the country that have no natural support for the Taliban, but trying to preserve the whole artificial construct will be an exercise in folly.
1
Most people here seem to think the Afghan war is about us, that is, America. But it's really about the Afghans. The war pits rural, mostly impoverished Afghans against a small coterie of well established crooks in Kabul. We are on the side of the crooks. They have stolen billions of State Department dollars over 16 years, money intended to build infrastructure and democratic institutions. Special investigators have been pointing this out for years, with no impact on policy. So, any continuation of this war involves the US standing with the thieves and the elite. Is that how you want your shrinking tax dollars spent? For Stephens, the answer has always been a resounding "yes".
42
"We are on the side of the crooks."
Vietnam, anyone?
Vietnam, anyone?
We should draw a big circle around Kabul and declare this the country of Afghanistan. Invite all Afghanistans to come who are interested in living in a 21st century country where woman's rights and religious and tribal equality will be respected. The country as it exists is impossible to defend.
1
Sure there is. The door is right there. You just have to walk through it.
Of course that would require political will, moxy and the ability to stand up to the MIC ( that still exists and is even stronger today )
Of course that would require political will, moxy and the ability to stand up to the MIC ( that still exists and is even stronger today )
1
A note to the Afghan people, it would be best to return to the regional areas, with the people of each seperate area determining the laws and type of government that they prefer, with no outside interference, one group should not be in the position to dictate or control another group, from another regional area.
Changing the borders to better coincide with the cultural, religious, ethnic and perhaps also racial differences would have the effect of minimizing controversies that lead to hostilities.
Perhaps the Elders of each region could again come together and have a conference to lay the ground work and set goals for the people of each regional area to work toward attaining.
Changing the borders to better coincide with the cultural, religious, ethnic and perhaps also racial differences would have the effect of minimizing controversies that lead to hostilities.
Perhaps the Elders of each region could again come together and have a conference to lay the ground work and set goals for the people of each regional area to work toward attaining.
1
Not mention the question of who is providing the Taliban with support and arms. This war was started in the 1970's and continued in the 1980's with US support to damage The Soviet Union. When US goals were achieved Saudis intervened to continue it and pursue Wahabism against Shia and Sufi elements in South Asia. We reap what we sow and the best that we can hope for is a cooperative international solution. This would involve, heaven forbid, Russia.
I bet that if president Obama took the same measures the Republicans including the author would have screamed that it is insufficient number of boots and he is just soft on terrorism.
3
In my line of work (engineering) we have a saying about a project being one month from completion for over a year.
I see that same phenomenon in global conflict resolution. In Afghanistan we've been proposing 6-month solutions for 16 years. The problem is there is no 6-month solution. Nation building is a generational process. We need to invest in education, infrastructure, governance, and security (in that order) for 20 years (until the beneficiaries of education are ready to take the reigns of power). It will be costly, but will have great returns in the future (unlike our current investments).
Of course this is difficult as no American administration that embarks on this course will exist long enough to reap the benefits.
As in the parable from the Talmud, we need people who are willing to plant carob trees.
I see that same phenomenon in global conflict resolution. In Afghanistan we've been proposing 6-month solutions for 16 years. The problem is there is no 6-month solution. Nation building is a generational process. We need to invest in education, infrastructure, governance, and security (in that order) for 20 years (until the beneficiaries of education are ready to take the reigns of power). It will be costly, but will have great returns in the future (unlike our current investments).
Of course this is difficult as no American administration that embarks on this course will exist long enough to reap the benefits.
As in the parable from the Talmud, we need people who are willing to plant carob trees.
4
Is there a single, whole year since 1950, that the U.S.A. has not been in some kind of war?
Perpetual War: who benefits?
Perpetual War: who benefits?
3
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Stephens here. If we were to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, and from the rest of southwest Asia and the Middle East, we would finally be leaving the locals to do what they evidently prefer to do- i.e., fight it out amongst themselves. The royal families of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states would have to use their own troops to defend their own narrow interests. The extremists would no longer bother themselves about America because their attention would be fully turned to local apostates and secularists as opposed to foreign infidels and "crusaders." We would, in short, be leaving a nightmarish mess in the wake of our exit, but it will be their mess- not ours. I would, in any case, think about negotiating an exit-strategy with the Taliban by supporting an independent state, or "caliphate," in the southern part of Afghanistan. The Pashtuns can institute Sharia Law there and live miserably ever after so long as they agree not to invite ISIS or al Qaeda in and so long as they agree not to "export" their brand of Islam beyond their own borders (we can threaten to bomb them into oblivion, as we did previously, should they renege on those conditions). We've clearly had enough of this accursed region of the world; it's way past time to acknowledge reality and go home.
5
@stu freeman
Brooklyn
If only it were that simple. I agree about leaving Afghanistan. There is simply nothing there that is worth the trouble and expense of maintaining a presence in the country. Your bombing threat btw is unrealistic. Who are you going to bomb? A lot of hapless, dirt poor Afghans? However, applying the cost/benefit rule to a lot of the other places you dismiss the answer is that there is indeed a lot that is worth the trouble and expense of a presence there.
Brooklyn
If only it were that simple. I agree about leaving Afghanistan. There is simply nothing there that is worth the trouble and expense of maintaining a presence in the country. Your bombing threat btw is unrealistic. Who are you going to bomb? A lot of hapless, dirt poor Afghans? However, applying the cost/benefit rule to a lot of the other places you dismiss the answer is that there is indeed a lot that is worth the trouble and expense of a presence there.
1
@John: We'd be bombing the same folks we bombed the last time (2002)- i.e., the Taliban- and we'd be doing it from the air, without the need for ground troops. As for the region in general, what exactly is worth the trouble and expense? All they've got there is sand, oil and religious extremists. We've already got all of that right here.
1
@stu freeman
brooklyn
"We'd be bombing the same folks we bombed the last time (2002)- i.e., the Taliban"
Erm...yes...erm...enormously successful wasn't it. LOL
brooklyn
"We'd be bombing the same folks we bombed the last time (2002)- i.e., the Taliban"
Erm...yes...erm...enormously successful wasn't it. LOL
1
At the close of the Second World War, the United States led the creation of the United Nations, whose mandate included the policing of regions like Afghanistan, where the local authorities were inadequate and the Great Powers wished to avoid a direct confrontation.
The Soviet Union did its best to undermine the U.N., and the United States over time abandoned its commitment. Yet the spirit of multilateralism endured for a while longer, and contributed greatly to George H. W. Bush's relative success in the Gulf War, now an unimaginable twenty-seven years in the past.
The Republican Party had been largely responsible for America's withdrawal from multilateral institutions. It seems unlikely that its current leadership in Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive will be capable of reversing this. They can barely govern the United States itself.
However, with the United States fading from its global role, the door lies open to other nations leading a multilateral world. The stability of Afghanistan will ultimately depend on different people, with different concepts of exploitation and governance. Different premises, different arguments, maybe a different conclusion. Or maybe not.
For the United States itself, the time has come to follow its many imperial predecessors. Close the camps and come home.
The Soviet Union did its best to undermine the U.N., and the United States over time abandoned its commitment. Yet the spirit of multilateralism endured for a while longer, and contributed greatly to George H. W. Bush's relative success in the Gulf War, now an unimaginable twenty-seven years in the past.
The Republican Party had been largely responsible for America's withdrawal from multilateral institutions. It seems unlikely that its current leadership in Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive will be capable of reversing this. They can barely govern the United States itself.
However, with the United States fading from its global role, the door lies open to other nations leading a multilateral world. The stability of Afghanistan will ultimately depend on different people, with different concepts of exploitation and governance. Different premises, different arguments, maybe a different conclusion. Or maybe not.
For the United States itself, the time has come to follow its many imperial predecessors. Close the camps and come home.
10
Even if leaders of civilized nations are never able to "win" in Afghanistan, they have an obligation to keep the barbaric culture that has created Afghanistan out of the civilized West. Whatever the plight of the Afghan and Syrian people, our children and grandchildren come first, and our elected leaders have no right to expose our children to submission and slaughter for the sake of refugees fleeing yet another Islamic killing field.
1
We have not tried everything. There is the flaw with the thinking. We have corruption and brutality with the government; and far less corruption, but equal brutality with the Taliban. The people hate the government and will actually endure the fundamentalists! Mosul exemplifies this fact.
Can we change the government's corruption?; NO. Can we influence the Taliban to be less brutal?; Maybe.
Seems the choice is obvious: CHANGE SIDES.
Can we change the government's corruption?; NO. Can we influence the Taliban to be less brutal?; Maybe.
Seems the choice is obvious: CHANGE SIDES.
The Thursday before the 1968 election, LBJ had convinced both the North & South Vietnamese to accept a treaty that would have ended the war. Nixon knew that would have robbed him of his most powerful campaign issue, his "Secret Plan to End The War." So, Nixon dispatched Anna Chennault (actual name Chen Xiangmei), a Republican operative &mwidow of Claire Chennault, of the Flying Tigers to talk the South out of accepting LBJ's deal, promising a better one when Nixon got elected. Tapes from LBJ's office have him & a senior Republican Congressman agreeing that this was treason. Nixon won & his "plan" turned out to be what he called "Vietnamization." It promised that we would not have a timed withdrawal, but stay & fight until the South Vietnamese army was capable of standing on its own. "We'll get out when you step up." It never happened. It led to five more years of US participation in the war, thousands of additional US soldiers' lives lost, countless Vietnamese military & civilian dead, secret bombing of Cambodia & other horrors.
Trump was vague about his "new" strategy in Afghanistan, but it sounded like a retread of Vietnamization. We couldn't keep Afghanistan under control years ago with over 100,000 troops there, and that was before ISIS showed up & both Al-Qaeda & the Taliban rebuilt their strength. As the Russians learned in the 1980s, there are a myriad of warring factions in Afghanistan & no amount of foreign troops can contain them. The Forever War.
Trump was vague about his "new" strategy in Afghanistan, but it sounded like a retread of Vietnamization. We couldn't keep Afghanistan under control years ago with over 100,000 troops there, and that was before ISIS showed up & both Al-Qaeda & the Taliban rebuilt their strength. As the Russians learned in the 1980s, there are a myriad of warring factions in Afghanistan & no amount of foreign troops can contain them. The Forever War.
2
Nixon, a Republican, was the traitor then. Trump, a Republican, is the traitor now. Like an Afghan war, some things never change.
1
The Taliban aren't the only terrorists in Afghanistan. Pakistan uses, and has for years, Afghanistan to train people to attack India in Kashmir. If the Taliban does take power again two groups will really suffer. Afghan women and Iran.
Get out of Afghanistan now! That would be the honorable thing to do. We are fighting the people like we did in Nam. The people do not want a Western style Democracy. Their loyalty is to the tribe not the central government. They have an unlimited supply of fighters and centuries to wait until we go. Didn't the British and Russians learn that? Any Afghans that wanted American Democracy settled in Fremont, Ca long ago, mostly the rich, professional class from Kabul. Exactly what is the strategic value of that country to us? To stop another 911? Who knows where that will come from, someplace we don't even know about. Its Mineral wealth? The Chinese will exploit that, not by crushing the population, but by actually improving their lives, not by bombing them into a supposed submission or trying to convert them to a Chinese Political system. Sooner or later we will repeat that scene, indelible in my mind, of those Helicopters landing on the roof of the Embassy in Saigon. And what has happened to that country since we were booted out...only good things. So let that happen to Afghanistan, they have suffered long enough at our hands.
5
We are repeating old mistakes from Vietnam in Afghanistan. I knew we would not win there when my son described his remote FOB, the road patrols and their gear. Our troops controlled the ground they held within range of their guns. Otherwise the countryside and villages were under enemy control or under threat that equaled control. On patrol the excessive weight of armor ammo supplies and gear meant the Taliban could get away from our troops in the hills and mountains. To avoid collateral damage our air power was limited. Add a neighboring state providing sanctuaries where the enemy was able to train, equip and regroup, maintaining strength. To win we would first of all need to close the border with Pakistan to infiltration, a task that would require a much larger US Army. So we are not achieving any further results there and we should pull out, even knowing that we will almost certainly have to raid there again when they again plan and launch terror attacks from there.
2
Good column, but your conclusion doesn't really reflect your analysis of the options.
You argue, correctly, that nothing has worked before. Surge, drawdowns, , drone strikes, targeted killing of insurgents, nation building, opium eradication efforts. Nothing. It didn't work for the Soviets in the 1980s, and it's not working for the US now. So what makes you think that the modest approach you recommend will have any impact whatsoever, other than to offer targets for those militants and terrorists and warlords?
And let's not kid ourselves. In Trump-world, the Afghan adventure is about its mineral wealth. If US and western companies want to tap into those resources, let them spend the money and absorb the financial and human losses.
You argue, correctly, that nothing has worked before. Surge, drawdowns, , drone strikes, targeted killing of insurgents, nation building, opium eradication efforts. Nothing. It didn't work for the Soviets in the 1980s, and it's not working for the US now. So what makes you think that the modest approach you recommend will have any impact whatsoever, other than to offer targets for those militants and terrorists and warlords?
And let's not kid ourselves. In Trump-world, the Afghan adventure is about its mineral wealth. If US and western companies want to tap into those resources, let them spend the money and absorb the financial and human losses.
12
"If US and western companies want to tap into those resources, let them spend the money and absorb the financial and human losses."-Matt
State-sponsored Crony-Capitalism works until you run out of other people's money, and/or lives. Creating home-grown poverty and unemployment is the historical path to creating a standing army. "What these [corporate] crack-heads need is a good war." Indeed.
State-sponsored Crony-Capitalism works until you run out of other people's money, and/or lives. Creating home-grown poverty and unemployment is the historical path to creating a standing army. "What these [corporate] crack-heads need is a good war." Indeed.
The visual rhetoric contained in the flag of Afghanistan indicates the cultural dissonance between Afghanistan and the United States. The center of the flag features a mosque.The upper center contains an Arabic inscription of the Shahada ( The Muslim Creed ) below is the rising Sun over the Takbir ( God is Great ). The cultural chasm reflected in the flag clearly italicizes the impossibility of any "American victory".
3
'The cultural chasm reflected in the flag clearly italicizes the impossibility of any "American victory".'-Don Shipp
The "chasm" is bridged by the (unmentionable) shared ontology/neurological limitation of a logically outsourced, virtuous circularity: "God." Theo-tribalism has to grow up. It won't. Everyone is too invested in their team sweaters. Perhaps, Dataism can save us? Where IS the smart money going...?
The "chasm" is bridged by the (unmentionable) shared ontology/neurological limitation of a logically outsourced, virtuous circularity: "God." Theo-tribalism has to grow up. It won't. Everyone is too invested in their team sweaters. Perhaps, Dataism can save us? Where IS the smart money going...?
If we are to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, or any other country with military people in combat, I believe we must reinstate the draft. Hard truth, but if all families in this country had a stake in our never ending wars, such conflicts would either not start or would end quickly unless the US is directly threatened.
Would that approach stop terrorists from breeding in places like Afghanistan? No, but neither has the use of military force there or elsewhere.
The ultimate question is not whether we have any responsibility, but whether there is truly any action on our part that will alter the direction of that country in a way that guarantees a safer and better future. The analysis in this article leads to a "No" answer. I say we leave, sadly and regrettably.
The Afghanistan people will choose their future, not us, and it may be better or worse.
Would that approach stop terrorists from breeding in places like Afghanistan? No, but neither has the use of military force there or elsewhere.
The ultimate question is not whether we have any responsibility, but whether there is truly any action on our part that will alter the direction of that country in a way that guarantees a safer and better future. The analysis in this article leads to a "No" answer. I say we leave, sadly and regrettably.
The Afghanistan people will choose their future, not us, and it may be better or worse.
14
"The Afghanistan people will choose their future, not us, and it may be better or worse."-AliceWren
In a far more stable political system/environment, [The American People] "chose" Donald Trump. How's that working out? OK, a billionaire's wife sprouted some magical/prestige designer empathy feathers, but...not much else has actually moved the needle from worse towards better in any meaningful way. Lower-than-lower expectations are the new normal, no doubt. Change the meaning of "WIN! WIN! WIN!" and then change the subject...
In a far more stable political system/environment, [The American People] "chose" Donald Trump. How's that working out? OK, a billionaire's wife sprouted some magical/prestige designer empathy feathers, but...not much else has actually moved the needle from worse towards better in any meaningful way. Lower-than-lower expectations are the new normal, no doubt. Change the meaning of "WIN! WIN! WIN!" and then change the subject...
why do we never learn? korea looks like a huge success compared to viet nam, iraq and afghanistan. the first desert storm looks positively brilliant!
when the people we are trying to defeat are people that are actual residents of the country we are fighting in? we are going to lose unless we are willing to recreate what allied forces did to germany towards the end of WWII. so far? no takers for that approach.
when the people we are trying to defeat are people that are actual residents of the country we are fighting in? we are going to lose unless we are willing to recreate what allied forces did to germany towards the end of WWII. so far? no takers for that approach.
5
"I live in the United States of Amnesia," as Gore Vidal used to to lament. Even Niall Ferguson when asked about the Iraq War and how it had gone so badly, said, "We live in the United States of Amnesia." Though they are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, they were referring of course to the foreign policy debacle in Vietnam. Does anyone remember the Vietnam War? I doubt it. You might as well be talking about the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Americans are an inward-looking and ahistorical society. The rules that apply to other nations are irrelevant to us since we are the indispensable and exceptional superpower. So we keep on committing the same mistakes. President Donald Trump is quite representative and only symptom of a nation that is systemically blind to the painful lessons of its past history. But what can you expect from a nation which fights wars with only a volunteer armed forces? No one really has any skin in the game. Ferguson said that if there were a draft, we probably wouldn't have had the Iraq War. And I assure you we would have pulled out of Afghanistan years ago.
71
There is an alternative model for "winning" that has proven successful. Do as we did in Vietnam: admit defeat and walk away. As a result, Vietnam is an independent country; no dominoes have fallen. No more blood and treasure. Furthermore, Vietnam is a now a favorite tourist spot for American tourists.
I know, I know, this is different; it is always thus.
I know, I know, this is different; it is always thus.
15
US withdrawal and partition of the country seems like a better bet to me.
2
The purpose of the initial deployment to Afghanistan was to destroy the al Qaeda training camp and kill or capture al Qaeda leaders—including Osama bin Laden—who planned the 9-11 Attacks. We should have pulled U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after the Battle of Bora Tora in December 2001, which destroyed the terrorist training base, but failed to capture bin Landen, who fled Afghanistan along with other al Qaeda leaders. At that point, the United Sates should have focused on homeland security. The presence of U.S. forces in Muslim countries merely enhances terrorist recruiting efforts and provokes more terrorist attacks.
10
Is the limited approach really sustainable from an economic perspective though? Spending varies over time but the Afghan War is costing U.S. tax payers an estimated $500 billion per year. That's nearly equivalent to all annual spending on medicare. Assuming the power vacuum threat is the justification for our continued presence in Afghanistan, aren't there cheaper ways to overcome a national security threat than a sustained foreign occupation?
Let's not forget the human cost to troops either. Afghan-sufficient doesn't mean socially sustainable. If you join the U.S. Army, you're basically guaranteed at least one trip to Afghanistan. An endless war where we cycle young adults through a hostile territory and hope they don't come back irreparably maimed. Assuming they come back at all of course. Do their lives not count for something. We already have 16 years of wounded veterans. What happens when that number grows to 30 years or 50 years?
No Mr. Stephens. We should have cut bait already. The price of withdrawal is high but the price of continued effort is unrealistic. We need to figure out a different way to approach the threat of global terrorism. Afghanistan is just a waste of blood and treasure.
Let's not forget the human cost to troops either. Afghan-sufficient doesn't mean socially sustainable. If you join the U.S. Army, you're basically guaranteed at least one trip to Afghanistan. An endless war where we cycle young adults through a hostile territory and hope they don't come back irreparably maimed. Assuming they come back at all of course. Do their lives not count for something. We already have 16 years of wounded veterans. What happens when that number grows to 30 years or 50 years?
No Mr. Stephens. We should have cut bait already. The price of withdrawal is high but the price of continued effort is unrealistic. We need to figure out a different way to approach the threat of global terrorism. Afghanistan is just a waste of blood and treasure.
6
Do the Afghans and the United States have the same interests? Afghanistan is a tribal society. With values to family, clan and. and I imagine if one is from ne part of Afghanistan does it matter what happens in the next valley?
A long list of difficulties has been noted.
If the Taliban take over he country how long will they tolerate a nihilistic philosophy?
I don't think we really have a lot in common. Their interests and ours are not necessarily the same.
What would happen if we left? Let us see what happens.
Look to Viet Nam. Is that a possible lesson for us.
A long list of difficulties has been noted.
If the Taliban take over he country how long will they tolerate a nihilistic philosophy?
I don't think we really have a lot in common. Their interests and ours are not necessarily the same.
What would happen if we left? Let us see what happens.
Look to Viet Nam. Is that a possible lesson for us.
3
The worst part about this is that everything after 9/11 was completely self-inflicted. We could have taken a different approach.
Gee, aren't you glad we have an Electoral College?
Gee, aren't you glad we have an Electoral College?
12
Bret you start with the fact that we have killed 42,000 Taliban the number went down to 10,000 then back up to 60,000 and you end up suggesting military support to reverse the gains. That falls under Einstein’s definition of insanity.
There is no way out. The only solution is the one proposed once for the Vietnam war, declare victory and get out. Now that is something that Trump can pull off.
There is no way out. The only solution is the one proposed once for the Vietnam war, declare victory and get out. Now that is something that Trump can pull off.
7
And in one hundred Years, will " we" still be there??? Will opinion writers still be afraid to state the obvious: There is no winning, no victory, no possible " good" outcome for America. Get out NOW. Enough of this Madness.
8
Why not just let the Taliban win ? Then, instead of furtive wraiths, they would be identifiable, we would know them. Sure, they would build their wretched state oppressing "their" people, just as Saudi Arabia, and other repulsive countries. But then, should they harbor terrorists we could destroy the house which they had worked so hard to construct, for that would be an identifiable something, not a cave hidden among thousands of other caves.
3
Trump is only beefing up our military intervention. His stated objective is to "kill terrorists", as if there are a fixed number of terrorists in the country and we only have to eliminate them to solve the problem. But how many of the children and relatives of those we kill will become radicalized against us?
The way to reduce extremism is through improvements in education, economic opportunity, government that represents the people and delivers services to them - not by killing them.
Trump is fanning extremism at home through his words and fanning extremism in other countries by threatening or delivering violence to their families.
The way to reduce extremism is through improvements in education, economic opportunity, government that represents the people and delivers services to them - not by killing them.
Trump is fanning extremism at home through his words and fanning extremism in other countries by threatening or delivering violence to their families.
During the reign of 'W' I knew some Afghans that were living in Dallas and trying to make a go of it. Then opportunity struck. For six figure salaries they were able to return to Afghanistan and work as interpreters.
Rarely used they claimed that they sat at a Walmart most of the day, waiting.
Rarely used they claimed that they sat at a Walmart most of the day, waiting.
2
After reading this article I believe that the USA must leave Afghanistan for several reasons and one of the reason is also mentioned by the writer that all options have been tried to contain Talabans but The Military Machine and Pundits have failed to win over the resistance forces of Talabans. I think it is bold analysis and I recommend it to the Trump Administration too.
The other four factors are discussed by the military strategists such as S.Paul Kapur that Pakistan is the problem and it has been playing a double role as a major US Allay since the days of 9/11 - Kapur's latest book, Grand Strategy: Islamic Militancy, National Security and the Pakistani State, published this year in 2017. The author tries to blame Pakistan what we have already know that Pakistan did its best to resolve the conflict between the Talabans, The Afghan Government and the USA but Talabans as resistance force does not accept any condition imposed on them on the issue of compromise with US and its presence of military forces in Afghanistan.
The best military strategy for the USA is to have political dialogue with the Talabans on the issue of leaving the Afghanistan as the author tries to suggest in this wise and brave article about the current condition of Afganistan and the role of the US failed military policy in 21 century over the issue of occupation of Afganistan.
The other four factors are discussed by the military strategists such as S.Paul Kapur that Pakistan is the problem and it has been playing a double role as a major US Allay since the days of 9/11 - Kapur's latest book, Grand Strategy: Islamic Militancy, National Security and the Pakistani State, published this year in 2017. The author tries to blame Pakistan what we have already know that Pakistan did its best to resolve the conflict between the Talabans, The Afghan Government and the USA but Talabans as resistance force does not accept any condition imposed on them on the issue of compromise with US and its presence of military forces in Afghanistan.
The best military strategy for the USA is to have political dialogue with the Talabans on the issue of leaving the Afghanistan as the author tries to suggest in this wise and brave article about the current condition of Afganistan and the role of the US failed military policy in 21 century over the issue of occupation of Afganistan.
1
There's no way out of Afghanistan? Sure there is - declare that you've accomplished what you came to do - the death of OBL - and then leave, and don't look back.
Very simple. Afghanistan is not worth one more American life. It's not called "The Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.
Very simple. Afghanistan is not worth one more American life. It's not called "The Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.
4
"Nothing worked." Donald Trump's legacy.
This is an excellent analysis,far superior to the NYT editorial yesterday.
Afghanistan may well be an ongoing problem for decades. The US must openly accept that and settle in to manage it accordingly, with help from other nations with the same interests. The strongest message the US could give the Taliban is: "we are here to stay as long as necessary, we have the support of many countries, you will never win."
I disagree that Trump has hit on the solution. He is still calling for victory. The Taliban will know he cann ot get this, and they will believe the US will lose its resolve due to polictal fatigue and the fauiluire to achieve unreachable objectives.
Afghanistan may well be an ongoing problem for decades. The US must openly accept that and settle in to manage it accordingly, with help from other nations with the same interests. The strongest message the US could give the Taliban is: "we are here to stay as long as necessary, we have the support of many countries, you will never win."
I disagree that Trump has hit on the solution. He is still calling for victory. The Taliban will know he cann ot get this, and they will believe the US will lose its resolve due to polictal fatigue and the fauiluire to achieve unreachable objectives.
1
We cannot save countries so primitive that have a will to reject invaders as strong as North Vietnam did. Both Europeans and Muslims were conquerors that won empires through violence. Before the despicable deal in the 18th century between the Saud family and the original Wahab, Islam had a golden age while Europe was in the Dark Ages. The Ottomans forced their Egyptian puppet leader to destroy Wahab's marauders, exactly like ISIS in the early 19th century. They were wiped out, and the Arabian Salafi clerics were executed. It's the Saudi oil wealth backing the modern clerics who espouse this foul jihadi death cult sect and export it throughout all of Islam that is the source of the religious fanaticism. The corruption and tribal aspects in the remnants of what used to be more enlightened Islamic civilization are the other motivators for those with empty lives to join a death cult and get paid to kill for Allah. Afghanistan's only golden age was localized in the big city and brief in the 1970's, and outside Kabul primitive life was untouched by modernity. It's not the various fleas that carry the plague originally, it's the rats. We are barking up the wrong tree hunting fleas. We prop up the country that is the source of killer terrorist ideas, now threatening Arabia and Mecca. The heinous purity sect is now cannibalizing itself. Stephens is blind to history and culture.
1
Bret, do you really think trump or his minions care about the minutia regarding Afghanistan? All he (and they) care about is that "we're gonna win." They have no idea what that entails, but who cares? He will divert attention to the "dishonest" media and "fake" news.
Bring our troops home.
Get out now.
Get out now.
More signs of GOP amnesia from Mr. Stephens, the Times' newest Neocon writer and GOP apologist.
His screed today tried to pin the tail on the Obama donkey, since working Hillary or Bernie into the story would have been a much taxing job.
Times readers haven't forgotten that G W Bush, a Republican, and his sidekick and puppeteer Dick Cheney, started this "unwinnable" Afghan fiasco as part of their 9-11 distracting/nation-building strategy. And then there was Iraq. After spending trillions of dollars and expending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including several thousand American soldiers, they still couldn't apprehend Osama bin Laden, but they did create ISIS.
Nary a mention by Stephens of the men who got us into the quagmire that is Afghanistan.
Stephens' reminds us that there is nothing more predictable than GOP amnesia, unless it's their president's penchant for lying.
His screed today tried to pin the tail on the Obama donkey, since working Hillary or Bernie into the story would have been a much taxing job.
Times readers haven't forgotten that G W Bush, a Republican, and his sidekick and puppeteer Dick Cheney, started this "unwinnable" Afghan fiasco as part of their 9-11 distracting/nation-building strategy. And then there was Iraq. After spending trillions of dollars and expending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including several thousand American soldiers, they still couldn't apprehend Osama bin Laden, but they did create ISIS.
Nary a mention by Stephens of the men who got us into the quagmire that is Afghanistan.
Stephens' reminds us that there is nothing more predictable than GOP amnesia, unless it's their president's penchant for lying.
1
Absolutely correct. The GOP lies from Cheney to Trump keep changing faster than the shells in a shell game.
With 3 trillion dollars in precious metals in the ground, it now seems that China will be the winner of the Afghan lottery.
With 3 trillion dollars in precious metals in the ground, it now seems that China will be the winner of the Afghan lottery.
1
Why do we think we can change thousands of years of culture and imbedded beliefs by continuing this war. This is what happens when you nation build.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and others had financial interests and were the real pushers of these wars. And lied to the American people. Are the military now lying that we have a chance to actually stop the madness, to convince the Afghanis to run a democratic country? Most wars are fought because of greed, political interests, power or religious beliefs. Or all four.
So far we have gained nothing as a country by continuing involvement in many of the wars in the last 50 years. Sounds like insanity to me.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and others had financial interests and were the real pushers of these wars. And lied to the American people. Are the military now lying that we have a chance to actually stop the madness, to convince the Afghanis to run a democratic country? Most wars are fought because of greed, political interests, power or religious beliefs. Or all four.
So far we have gained nothing as a country by continuing involvement in many of the wars in the last 50 years. Sounds like insanity to me.
3
So Trump wants to build a big, beautiful wall? Maybe he should consider a wall around Afghanistan and pay the Afghans to build it - with union wages... It worked like a charm for thousands of years in China.
"Bottom line: We need an approach that’s Afghan-sufficient, from a military point of view, and America-sustainable, from a political one, for the sake of an open-ended commitment to an ill-starred country from which there is no way out."
In so saying, I think Mr. Stephens is on a right track, one not unlike Joe Biden's. Stephens seeks the Goldilocks Zone wherein the US commits not too much and not to little, but just a right amount. Perhaps this is the thing to do. However, there's another and broader way to view the matter, here put in the form of a question:
What does one do with a problem for which there's no solution?
Remember, after Goldilocks ate the "just-right" porridge, the bears came home.
In so saying, I think Mr. Stephens is on a right track, one not unlike Joe Biden's. Stephens seeks the Goldilocks Zone wherein the US commits not too much and not to little, but just a right amount. Perhaps this is the thing to do. However, there's another and broader way to view the matter, here put in the form of a question:
What does one do with a problem for which there's no solution?
Remember, after Goldilocks ate the "just-right" porridge, the bears came home.
hasn't every country that has tried to defeat afghanistan failed. in the history of the world.
We can all take comfort knowing that Trump has stumbled on the best option -- except for those in the military who are among the "relatively low" casualties. If we're not going to win this thing, why not just stick with "smart bombs" and take out as many terrorists as possible while avoiding American casualties?
Incredibly, Stephens was able to write an entire article about Afghanistan without using the phrase blood and treasure.
1
If I read this article correctly (and IF it is correct in its assessment) the US will not be run out of Afghanistan the the the US and France were run out of Viet Nam because there is no single entity that will win the Afghanistan war. I read this to mean the US is just another militia, stuck in combat between the likes of Al Queda, ISIS, and the Taliban. This "war" could go on forever...
Yes, there is a way out. Just leave.
The British and Russians and now the US have all found out how impossible it is to interfere in Afghan affairs. As long as we stay there we enable the Taliban to recruit yet another generation.
Just leave.
The British and Russians and now the US have all found out how impossible it is to interfere in Afghan affairs. As long as we stay there we enable the Taliban to recruit yet another generation.
Just leave.
WIll someone please explain to me the logic that forces us to remain in Afghanistan so they will not devolve into a failed state that harbors terrorists, yet does not require the same effort in Somalia, Libya, Yemen and the other countries around the world that seemingly fit the same criteria?
3
I take your point, but where does that leave the American mother, father, wife, child of a dead soldier? How do we explain to those touched by these casualties that their loved ones died not in an effort to win anything, but simply to maintain some kind of tenuous balance in a "country" on the other side of the world.
Man, I would not want to be the parent of a child whose life was sacrificed for that "cause."
Man, I would not want to be the parent of a child whose life was sacrificed for that "cause."
3
You state the horrific truth. We want to think our soldiers die for a noble cause, truth , justice and the American Republic. Instead, they die for nothing. And that is hell.
The Taliban are great at insurgency and bad at governing. If they retake power, they will either moderate their behavior or fail. Remember it took just a small US ground force plus air power to dislodge the Taliban in 2001 because they were unpopular. The same conditions that make it impossible to rule Afghanistan will remain for any group trying to run that country.
Good idea. We maintain a relatively low troop level. However, what do you tell the parents and/or spouse of one of the relatively low number of American soldiers killed? Mr. Bret Stephens I suggest you join Mr. Cohen and go to Afghanistan and get out into the country side and into the fight.
1
Very sobering indeed.
No, Bret. We really didn't try nation building.
We put a fraction of the money we promised into development: roads, schools, health clinics, hospitals, and much more.
If we really had invested in nation building as we'd promised, and as you describe it, the Afghan people would have a lot more will to stand against the Taliban.
We put a fraction of the money we promised into development: roads, schools, health clinics, hospitals, and much more.
If we really had invested in nation building as we'd promised, and as you describe it, the Afghan people would have a lot more will to stand against the Taliban.
3
Mr. Stephens is right, in that, Afghanistan might never be winnable, but it doesn’t have to be or simply can’t be lost. Iran is waiting on its western front to expand its hegemony in the region. Pakistan is waiting on its eastern borders to return to what it perceived as the glory days of the 1990s, when a Taliban government recognized by only three nations – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – ruled Kabul. Yes, “Then came Sept. 11, 2001.” And, any surprise that of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia and 2 were from the UAE.
The answer to Afghanistan lies in Pakistan, Pakistan, and Pakistan. We’ve tried the carrot only approach and we’ve tried the carrot and stick approach. But we’ve never tried the stick only approach. Pakistan maybe right, in that, it has done a lot against terrorists groups inside Pakistan, who wreak havoc against Pakistan. But it has done nothing; in fact, it encourages cross-border terrorism on both its eastern border with India and its western border with Afghanistan. So, at a minimum, it maybe time to take out all of the terrorist havens on the Pakistan side of the Afghan-Pak border. Only then will Afghanistan have a hope of making it.
The answer to Afghanistan lies in Pakistan, Pakistan, and Pakistan. We’ve tried the carrot only approach and we’ve tried the carrot and stick approach. But we’ve never tried the stick only approach. Pakistan maybe right, in that, it has done a lot against terrorists groups inside Pakistan, who wreak havoc against Pakistan. But it has done nothing; in fact, it encourages cross-border terrorism on both its eastern border with India and its western border with Afghanistan. So, at a minimum, it maybe time to take out all of the terrorist havens on the Pakistan side of the Afghan-Pak border. Only then will Afghanistan have a hope of making it.
Bret Stephens aced it. I can't disagree with anything he said. Trump too,
amazingly may have initialed the only feasible least bad option. Progress
in Afghanistan may entirely be the wrong concept. Maintaining the status
quo is the most realistic option. This can only be done without exhausting
our political will, and both human and capital resources.
amazingly may have initialed the only feasible least bad option. Progress
in Afghanistan may entirely be the wrong concept. Maintaining the status
quo is the most realistic option. This can only be done without exhausting
our political will, and both human and capital resources.
2
why must Afghanistan remain a nation?
if its people are so against each other, perhaps breaking up into several smaller nations or absorption into neighbors would lead to peace.
give Pakistan the pashtuns and perhaps stability would be come a goal for Islamabad.
perhaps something similar would work in Syria, Iraq, or Somalia
if its people are so against each other, perhaps breaking up into several smaller nations or absorption into neighbors would lead to peace.
give Pakistan the pashtuns and perhaps stability would be come a goal for Islamabad.
perhaps something similar would work in Syria, Iraq, or Somalia
3
Saudi funding of extremist Wahhabist madrasses around the world is surely a root cause. Another may well be artificial boundaries as the reader above suggests. If nothing else it would seem that ongoing drone strikes, especially on leadership, should continue and the technology ever more refined.
No, Trump does not think that he is embarked on a winning strategy, unless "winning" means avoiding an electorally damaging defeat before 2020. (This conclusion already has been argued by many, most effectively argued by David Ignatius in yesterday's Post.)
If we are to disrepair over much limiting long term costs -say to non-Taliban Afghans-- why not join (and help fund) the Taliban as allies in a battle against Al'qaida and ISIS?
If we are to disrepair over much limiting long term costs -say to non-Taliban Afghans-- why not join (and help fund) the Taliban as allies in a battle against Al'qaida and ISIS?
2
The discussion of the 'solution' to Afghanistan (or elsewhere) is moot. What you are observing is the role of the military industrial complex. (Thanks Mr. Eisenhower.)
Without all these little wars and threats around the world it would be hard to justify the amount of money being spent on the military. This would not be good for the generals or for the corporations that do business with the military and so, after much thought and discussion the decision makers can find no solution to Afghanistan or any other conflict.
It is ironic that President Trump has turned the decision making over to the generals thus simplifying the process for deciding to continue the war.
Without all these little wars and threats around the world it would be hard to justify the amount of money being spent on the military. This would not be good for the generals or for the corporations that do business with the military and so, after much thought and discussion the decision makers can find no solution to Afghanistan or any other conflict.
It is ironic that President Trump has turned the decision making over to the generals thus simplifying the process for deciding to continue the war.
16
We cannot ignore a 'country' that is a breeding ground for terrorists, as if 9/11 and other attacks have never occurred. If nothing else we need to monitor and continue drone attacks on training camps, known leaders etc and IMO work to reduce or cut off funding sources to these groups - 'charities'? drug trade? The funding of extremist mosques, schools etc should be addressed with the Saudis behind the scenes.
Wow, that is one drastically grim assessment, and most likely completely accurate.
18
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria - these are all intractable sore spots for America and the west. "Is there a way out?" is not the right question. We will never, nor should we believe that we can bring western-style Democracy to regions that have from time immemorial embraced another form of governance, often violent and at odds with our values. But, for the sake of humanitarian assistance, relative stability and, most important, to prevent a vacuum where fanatic zealots can enter and present the next big challenge such as ISIS, we must maintain a presence there. They are waiting in the wings and, having been pushed out of Iraq and Syria, will look for the next soft spot. We have spent our treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, iit would be foolhardy, even criminal, to simply exit and let those fanatical elements return. Sometimes there is no easy way out.
2
Every time I hear the phrase "victory with honor", I cringe. It was that same phony concept that kept us in Vietnam long after any rational expectation that we could win evaporated. And so it goes again, this time in Afghanistan.
If Donald Trump knew as much about finance as he claims, he would understand the concept of "sunk costs". In short, this requires than when evaluating a project for additional investment, you ignore all of your previous investments in that project and only analyze it on a going forward basis. Does the project make sense going forward with an additional investment of money and time - not, "I have already put $x into this and I have to get some kind of return'". This concept prevents throwing good money after bad - an issue we currently face in Afghanistan. We have spent billions in dollars and thousands of lives, so we need to do more to get "victory with honor". A more rational view is that no additional amount of cash or lives will make this better, so let's get out. Now.
If Donald Trump knew as much about finance as he claims, he would understand the concept of "sunk costs". In short, this requires than when evaluating a project for additional investment, you ignore all of your previous investments in that project and only analyze it on a going forward basis. Does the project make sense going forward with an additional investment of money and time - not, "I have already put $x into this and I have to get some kind of return'". This concept prevents throwing good money after bad - an issue we currently face in Afghanistan. We have spent billions in dollars and thousands of lives, so we need to do more to get "victory with honor". A more rational view is that no additional amount of cash or lives will make this better, so let's get out. Now.
11
Fact: It is almost impossible to defeat a native insurgency. Look at Vietnam, the Phillipines, Mexico, and of course the American Revolution.
We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history...
We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history...
43
This is journalistic opinion at its finest. First, review all pertinent history. Next, state the facts of what happened without prejudice from politics or ideology. Third, assess without blame or name calling the specific tactics and strategies tried, and then their apparent results. Lastly, lay bare our choices in a way that forces each of us to decide what we would do. Do we now have an answer? When bipartisan politics is broken, effective people must return to their own objective thinking and investigation. We must all become "scientific" nowadays. Thanks for listening.
14
I used to wonder if George Bush ever fully realized what he had done, but I now think he is actually hiding from the general public. I worked in Afghanistan for over a year implementing one of General Petraeus' smart projects when it suddenly dawned on me that the Taliban are an integral part of Afghan culture. Our project helped create 40-member citizen councils in 140 Afghan districts (the size of our counties) in many of the least secure districts of the country. These members were the most respected elders in the district. Upon close inspection, many of the members that had been selected (by them) were members of the Taliban. Not fighters but ordinary citizens. Not all Taliban are fighters - they perform vital functions in the provinces, like Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. They are popular and favored in the provinces because the Afghan government can't provide services there. We are absolutely stuck without options.
51
It seems as though unsuccessful wars resulting in thousands of young dead Americans has been this nation's most consistent product over the last several decades. How is it that a nation with so many qualified college graduates can't seem to create another product, other than war, that can stimulate and sustain the economy just as much and won't cost users their lives?
61
There is a way out if the US deploys more than a military solution: education, economic stabilization, and most importantly...outlawing religious extremism.
I doubt the last one will happen. No amount of warfare, peace-keeping, diplomacy, training, education or economic stabilization will work if religion is in play. The Saudi-backed madrassas caused these problems.
So, solution? Let them have the country. When the people of Afghanistan are ready to return to a more moderate form of governance and society, they will fight for it. We cannot want it for them.
Withdraw everyone now. Intervene when needed to supply and support an insurgency against ISIS and/or Taliban.
When a country's nickname is "The Graveyard of Empires" it should give a hint on foreign policy.
I doubt the last one will happen. No amount of warfare, peace-keeping, diplomacy, training, education or economic stabilization will work if religion is in play. The Saudi-backed madrassas caused these problems.
So, solution? Let them have the country. When the people of Afghanistan are ready to return to a more moderate form of governance and society, they will fight for it. We cannot want it for them.
Withdraw everyone now. Intervene when needed to supply and support an insurgency against ISIS and/or Taliban.
When a country's nickname is "The Graveyard of Empires" it should give a hint on foreign policy.
68
Amen and Amen!
Better talk with Pence about outlawing religious extremism...
1
@Moderate
Dream on, sir. Your "hearts and minds" mashed together with more military 'force' won't work. A high school student of History could point to the failure of that approach in Vietnam.
We, just like the Safavid Empire, the Sikh Empire, the British Empire , and th Russian Czars (and Communist) all found this out. You do not *win* in Afghanistan.
You simply get tired or beat up enough to "declare victory" and leave.
Dream on, sir. Your "hearts and minds" mashed together with more military 'force' won't work. A high school student of History could point to the failure of that approach in Vietnam.
We, just like the Safavid Empire, the Sikh Empire, the British Empire , and th Russian Czars (and Communist) all found this out. You do not *win* in Afghanistan.
You simply get tired or beat up enough to "declare victory" and leave.
1
The Taliban didn't just know they could wait us out--they knew they could wait until the Afghan government failed in its effort to build a security structure to replace our presence. That was the point of the time frame--"get your act together because we can't stay here forever". This is about national will and cohesion--or the lack of--it on the part of Afghans. That's why it's a quagmire, and that's why no one knows how many will die if we go or how many will die as we stay. War is the death option, and if the Taliban wish to bring civil war to Afghanistan, our participation in that war will only bring more death. If we're really so afraid of Afghanistan as a seed bed for international terrorism, well, it was our intelligence failures that allowed 9/11, not military weakness. And it will only be the success of good intelligence, from international security and law enforcement cooperation, that prevents acts of international terrorism, whose seed beds could be anywhere. How many countries are we going to invade?
The invasion of Iraq broke that country and chaos ensued. Are we going to poke and poke at Afghanistan until we're stuck there in the unforeseen chaos to come?
The invasion of Iraq broke that country and chaos ensued. Are we going to poke and poke at Afghanistan until we're stuck there in the unforeseen chaos to come?
15
Since 2001 some 60,000 casualties among the Taliban. How many innocent civilians, collateral kills?
Does anybody know, or is anyone willing to say why we are there?
Must we kill the dog to get at the fleas?
Has anyone ever simply associated the Taliban's strength with reaction to our presence and the collateral costs to their country from our drone strikes and "clinical" assassinations?
What is being left unsaid?
Pakistan has the bomb. If the Taliban- already strong in Pakistan- gain control in both countries, what could happen? With India also nuclear, the risk to the region and the world would be unacceptable.
It's the bomb.
All of our efforts worldwide should be directed towards total nuclear disarmament, us and everyone.
If you keep poisonous snakes in the house, some day you will be bitten.
Does anybody know, or is anyone willing to say why we are there?
Must we kill the dog to get at the fleas?
Has anyone ever simply associated the Taliban's strength with reaction to our presence and the collateral costs to their country from our drone strikes and "clinical" assassinations?
What is being left unsaid?
Pakistan has the bomb. If the Taliban- already strong in Pakistan- gain control in both countries, what could happen? With India also nuclear, the risk to the region and the world would be unacceptable.
It's the bomb.
All of our efforts worldwide should be directed towards total nuclear disarmament, us and everyone.
If you keep poisonous snakes in the house, some day you will be bitten.
6
Our involvement in Afghanistan reflects our leaders ignorance of and continued determination to ignore history. If Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviets couldn't conquer Afghanistan, what on Earth made our leaders think we could? In recent decades, our only president who actually knew and understood history has been Obama and by his time in office, we were already over our heads in the "graveyard of empires." Far from understanding history, Mr. Trump is very possibly the most ignorant of it of any president we've ever had. His ignorance dooms us. We are going to throw more lives and a lot more money into the bottomless pit and in the end we are looking at another Vietnam. The best thing we can do is stock up on choppers for the frantic evacuation from the embassy roof. It will happen.
22
A paradigm shift (a major one) is needed in the American geopolitical mind of the people and the politicians. Possibly or probably after 241 years we are not always right and trying to tell the rest of the world that we know what's best, isn't necessarily so. We cannot truly protect our own (check the CDC website and see how many die in this country each year) so what makes us think we can protect the world. Real life isn't the old TV show "Father Knows Best." When a politician say, "we are doing this or that to make the world safe for democracy" check your wallet as he's just picked your pocket. As other civilizations throughout history have come and gone, ours may be headed the way of the Greeks, Romans and others. Rich old white guys like Trump and Generals with an ax to grind think they see a reality that is not actually there and will never be achieved. When you watch, listen and read the media (radio, TV, newspapers, internet) it seems like a episode of the "Twilight Zone."
17
Trump didn't come up with the idea, his generals did.
2
U.S. in Afghanistan 2017?
I have never been able to understand exactly the importance of foreign powers in general occupying Afghanistan. Sure I have heard of it being a strategic location, that drugs must be stopped from being produced there, that terrorists and other no goods must be stopped from having a place of sanctuary...But there seems no real clarity about the place, why the place has to be constantly occupied, remade definitively in the eyes of major powers even if they are politically and economically opposed to each other.
Afghanistan now has almost mythical status, conspiracy theory status, that there is fabulous mineral wealth there or radioactive materials or that drugs can emanate from there and take over the world or that it's a secret hole in the wall hideout where the last remaining uncivilized (read uncorrupted) humans can exist or that maybe it's just the last place to be a place of freedom (along the lines of the theory that where military forces are concentrated most is where the remnants of freedom in a controlled modern world exist).
Why so much force concentrated on Afghanistan? Why not just contain it along U.S. vs. Soviet containment theory lines? What makes it so infuriating is it should not take more than a few page essay to make the U.S. view of Afghanistan crystal clear to public but this essay apparently does not exist. It's just sad. Once there was Shangri-La and now there is just Afghanistan, evil yet resplendent. The last mountain men?
I have never been able to understand exactly the importance of foreign powers in general occupying Afghanistan. Sure I have heard of it being a strategic location, that drugs must be stopped from being produced there, that terrorists and other no goods must be stopped from having a place of sanctuary...But there seems no real clarity about the place, why the place has to be constantly occupied, remade definitively in the eyes of major powers even if they are politically and economically opposed to each other.
Afghanistan now has almost mythical status, conspiracy theory status, that there is fabulous mineral wealth there or radioactive materials or that drugs can emanate from there and take over the world or that it's a secret hole in the wall hideout where the last remaining uncivilized (read uncorrupted) humans can exist or that maybe it's just the last place to be a place of freedom (along the lines of the theory that where military forces are concentrated most is where the remnants of freedom in a controlled modern world exist).
Why so much force concentrated on Afghanistan? Why not just contain it along U.S. vs. Soviet containment theory lines? What makes it so infuriating is it should not take more than a few page essay to make the U.S. view of Afghanistan crystal clear to public but this essay apparently does not exist. It's just sad. Once there was Shangri-La and now there is just Afghanistan, evil yet resplendent. The last mountain men?
2
Stephans is proposing permanent war in Afghanistan and, given Trump's recent comments, we might as well throw Pakistan in as well.
"With relatively modest troop numbers, we can also try to keep U.S. casualties relatively low over time, avoiding the political race to the exits when combat fatalities rise."
One wonders what the families of the "relatively low" casualties will think when their sons and daughters come home in a body bag or in a wheel chair. Will they ask, "What for?"
What will our answer to that question be?
"With relatively modest troop numbers, we can also try to keep U.S. casualties relatively low over time, avoiding the political race to the exits when combat fatalities rise."
One wonders what the families of the "relatively low" casualties will think when their sons and daughters come home in a body bag or in a wheel chair. Will they ask, "What for?"
What will our answer to that question be?
21
Afghanistans have to figure this out, for better or worse -- and in the short term it will be much worse. Time for us to go home and leave this mess to the meddlers: Russians, Pakistanis and Iranians.
2
Simple. We can't be a military force with military objectives. Our posture needs to be that of a police force. Protect and Serve.....the Afghani people, and by extension the American people. That's the model.
1
“We’ve tried killing terrorists. Lots and lots of them”. I recall the Vietnam War when American Generals justified their activities by body counts of how many ‘terrorists’ were killed last week. One difficulty, many of the bodies counted were women and children. It is hard to say they were not combatants because eventually the overwhelming military attack on their country pushed many Vietnamese into resistance. Possibly the same is happening in Afghanistan. The USA lost in Vietnam. The USA had options then and ignored them. Option 1 pull out from a position you should never have selected.
2
Many of us are old enough to remember the TV spectacle of US helicopters evacuating personnel from the roof of the American embassy in South Vietnam, while throngs of Vietnamese clamored at the gates: Take us, too.
We pulled up stakes there, the North Vietnamese took over and punished the population of the south with forced labor camps and other barbarities. Now we are best buddies with the unified Vietnam. Communism, in its waning phase, seems a much easier foe to settle with, if you don't mind the collateral damage of abandoning an erstwhile ally.
But will Islamism ever wane? We've done plenty to stoke the fervor of jihadis. We can't seem to stop making ourselves The Great Satan for whichever country you chose in the region. As a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind a bit if China took over Pakistan. They will learn what a ruthlessly faithless, money-grubbing ally the Pakistanis can be. If Russia wants to take on Syria they will soon relearn the lessons of their defeat in Afghanistan.
Islamic fundamentalism, and by that I don't mean mainstream Islam, espouses a bullet-proof philosophy of martyrdom. People like us who want our troops to survive a battle will never win against a warrior who believes he is going to Paradise when he weaponizes himself. Dying for a cause trumps living for one, a bitter truth.
Since we are fecklessly pursuing energy independence in America, why not let the Middle East implode and the players there fight their own tribalism to a stalemate?
We pulled up stakes there, the North Vietnamese took over and punished the population of the south with forced labor camps and other barbarities. Now we are best buddies with the unified Vietnam. Communism, in its waning phase, seems a much easier foe to settle with, if you don't mind the collateral damage of abandoning an erstwhile ally.
But will Islamism ever wane? We've done plenty to stoke the fervor of jihadis. We can't seem to stop making ourselves The Great Satan for whichever country you chose in the region. As a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind a bit if China took over Pakistan. They will learn what a ruthlessly faithless, money-grubbing ally the Pakistanis can be. If Russia wants to take on Syria they will soon relearn the lessons of their defeat in Afghanistan.
Islamic fundamentalism, and by that I don't mean mainstream Islam, espouses a bullet-proof philosophy of martyrdom. People like us who want our troops to survive a battle will never win against a warrior who believes he is going to Paradise when he weaponizes himself. Dying for a cause trumps living for one, a bitter truth.
Since we are fecklessly pursuing energy independence in America, why not let the Middle East implode and the players there fight their own tribalism to a stalemate?
3
There are at least three insoluble problems in the world.
1. The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East
2. Creating a peaceful and stable Afghanistan
3. Disposal of highly toxic radioactive waste materials
The third problem has reached such a level past suggestions have included the designation of the Hanford Reservation in Washington State as a "nuclear sacrifice zone", a permanently uninhabitable area to be abandoned as the price we had to pay to end the cold war. While tempting, the proximity of Hanford to the Columbia River and the spread of radionuclides into it will not keep our waste isolated. In the ten half-lives required for Pu-239 to be safe (240,000 years), we can clearly say only one thing: you cannot throw any of this material away--it will resurface.
Equally tempting is the rising chorus of calls to declare Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East as a "political sacrifice zone", an ungovernable region where failure is the rule and success would only come by accident.
Perhaps we could seal the Af-Pak border (or our southern border for that matter) by putting piles of such high level nuclear waste along it approaching it within 50 yards would be lethal. A two for one solution!
Unfortunately, the ingenuity of border crossers knows no bounds. As in our southern border, Pashtuns would become expert tunnel engineers and lead sheet would become as valuable as opium paste.
1. The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East
2. Creating a peaceful and stable Afghanistan
3. Disposal of highly toxic radioactive waste materials
The third problem has reached such a level past suggestions have included the designation of the Hanford Reservation in Washington State as a "nuclear sacrifice zone", a permanently uninhabitable area to be abandoned as the price we had to pay to end the cold war. While tempting, the proximity of Hanford to the Columbia River and the spread of radionuclides into it will not keep our waste isolated. In the ten half-lives required for Pu-239 to be safe (240,000 years), we can clearly say only one thing: you cannot throw any of this material away--it will resurface.
Equally tempting is the rising chorus of calls to declare Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East as a "political sacrifice zone", an ungovernable region where failure is the rule and success would only come by accident.
Perhaps we could seal the Af-Pak border (or our southern border for that matter) by putting piles of such high level nuclear waste along it approaching it within 50 yards would be lethal. A two for one solution!
Unfortunately, the ingenuity of border crossers knows no bounds. As in our southern border, Pashtuns would become expert tunnel engineers and lead sheet would become as valuable as opium paste.
1
USA continued interest in afghanistan to check china's CPEC and OBOR.
This is based on the assumption US admirals know how to steer ships.
This is based on the assumption US admirals know how to steer ships.
1
There goes the infrastructure money...
2
Christopher: Wrong, infrastructure money will come from Saudi Arabia: One hundred and twenty billion for starters from the Saudi Royals. Kushner and Goldman have already been working on the deal. Yep, we let the Saudis own and charge us for the use of our infrastructure as we're tapped out when it comes to domestic spending however there's always an extra hundred billion for "defense", as we pay an army to fight in Afghanistan in a religious war created and funded by Saudis in their Maddrassass and those in Afghanistan paid for by the Saudis. Why do you say? The only thing that makes the slightest bit of sense is the belief that as long as the Arabs are fighting us or each other they will leave Israel and the Royal Saudis alone. This is a never ending war for us as long as our politicians and Generals can be bought off to fight wars for special interests. The only solution is total withdrawal from the region and allow The Saudis and Israel to hire and pay for Mercenaries to fight their wars and protect their citizens. America is broke, we need to fix America, that's what Trump promised to do, let him at least try rather than taking our turn at playing the obstructionist as our nation slides towards oligarchy if not anarchy. Charlottesville will be just the beginning if we don't get out of the M.E. and start making life better for those left behind over the last forty years as we allowed China and a few Americans to become wealthy and threw our own middle class under a bus.
"You break it, you bought it", says the shop sign. And did we ever. First, by waging a proxy war against the Soviet Union, in which our proxy ally was...yes, you guessed it, the Taliban. Whom we armed to the gills with guns, rockets, surface-to-air missiles, you name it. And we hired a nice Saudi engineer to do some construction work for the Taliban. Old what's-his-name, it's on the tip of my tongue, oh yeah, Osama bin Laden. Great kid, a master with a Caterpillar D8.
Then, having driven the Soviets out, the Taliban settled in. And bin Laden, that rat, turned against us. So we decided, in our imperial wisdom, to attack Afghanistan as a reprisal against bin Laden (who went on the lam). We invaded a country that had done nothing itself against us and bombed it back to the Middle Ages. Now we wonder why it seems so underdeveloped and backward.
I don't see anything left to do except annex the place as our 51st state. We'll put some military bases there (every state likes those, as NIxon figured out), we'll treat the poor citizens there as badly as we treat our own poor, and we'll own the place. Because, after all, we broke it.
Then, having driven the Soviets out, the Taliban settled in. And bin Laden, that rat, turned against us. So we decided, in our imperial wisdom, to attack Afghanistan as a reprisal against bin Laden (who went on the lam). We invaded a country that had done nothing itself against us and bombed it back to the Middle Ages. Now we wonder why it seems so underdeveloped and backward.
I don't see anything left to do except annex the place as our 51st state. We'll put some military bases there (every state likes those, as NIxon figured out), we'll treat the poor citizens there as badly as we treat our own poor, and we'll own the place. Because, after all, we broke it.
I believe that the "date certain" for withdrawal was an effort to make the Afghans address the corruption that plagued and continues to plague their government. It wasted a lot of that investment we tried to make in nation building. It keeps people from trusting their government.
Don't forget that one of the things the Taliban promised during that civil war was stability. Also don't forget that the warlords are still jockeying for position and power.
Too bad it's so complicated and too bad that people are still suffering and dying. "We" can't "win" in Afghanistan.
The Taliban or the warlords can wait "us" out because it's their country and our presence allows them to build support. Killing "terrorists" can help them harden that support and it's not just about religious extremism.
Don't forget that one of the things the Taliban promised during that civil war was stability. Also don't forget that the warlords are still jockeying for position and power.
Too bad it's so complicated and too bad that people are still suffering and dying. "We" can't "win" in Afghanistan.
The Taliban or the warlords can wait "us" out because it's their country and our presence allows them to build support. Killing "terrorists" can help them harden that support and it's not just about religious extremism.
Not to trivialize this ... I played a lot of Risk (the game) in my teens, and the location called "Afghanistan" was consistently the hardest to hold, and frankly not of much value. It was part of the Asia continent in the game - worth 7 armies each turn, I recall, but come on - it was really hard to hold onto Asia!
During the course of the game, we players always went back and forth through the country, until the endgame - with two players left.
Until that point, perhaps, we'll continue to see what Stephens has described.
During the course of the game, we players always went back and forth through the country, until the endgame - with two players left.
Until that point, perhaps, we'll continue to see what Stephens has described.
There are 3 answers to your pessimism :
1. Of course it's possible. But you have to start at the top and work your way down.
2. You cannot exclude Iran or Saudi Arabia. No one other than the US can do it. But the US doesn't want to do it either.
3, Pakistan : Is it intractable ? I don't think so. But the Army will need 30 years of "assistance" to turn it around and it will need Saudi Arabia to back you up.
How about "investing" a similar amount in Pakistan? How about assuring the Pakistani Army that the US will support it for 30 years to build a modern state (free of the fear and perhaps even with the support of India ? ? Let the madrasas provide modern and moderate Islamic education. How about getting Saudi Arabia to invest not only in Islamic education but health and basic services to the Afghan people so that their children die less and their general prosperity increases ?
The root of the problem is Pakistan and its fear of weakness against India. The feudal nature of an unreformed society which have the same problems as India, have been unaddressed because of the fear to the ruling classes, need 30 years of reform and "generosity" to yield results. It is the insurance for Afghanistan.
India and Pakistan are essentially the same societies. We are different because of the chances our leadership took on a free society. Our feudal classes are also against progress,
Iran is an ally in this. It is almost the country you want Pakistan to be. What do you say ?
1. Of course it's possible. But you have to start at the top and work your way down.
2. You cannot exclude Iran or Saudi Arabia. No one other than the US can do it. But the US doesn't want to do it either.
3, Pakistan : Is it intractable ? I don't think so. But the Army will need 30 years of "assistance" to turn it around and it will need Saudi Arabia to back you up.
How about "investing" a similar amount in Pakistan? How about assuring the Pakistani Army that the US will support it for 30 years to build a modern state (free of the fear and perhaps even with the support of India ? ? Let the madrasas provide modern and moderate Islamic education. How about getting Saudi Arabia to invest not only in Islamic education but health and basic services to the Afghan people so that their children die less and their general prosperity increases ?
The root of the problem is Pakistan and its fear of weakness against India. The feudal nature of an unreformed society which have the same problems as India, have been unaddressed because of the fear to the ruling classes, need 30 years of reform and "generosity" to yield results. It is the insurance for Afghanistan.
India and Pakistan are essentially the same societies. We are different because of the chances our leadership took on a free society. Our feudal classes are also against progress,
Iran is an ally in this. It is almost the country you want Pakistan to be. What do you say ?
When the Soviets tried total withdrawal, it worked out well for them. When we finally did total withdrawal from Vietnam, it worked out well for us. We only continue to stay in Afghanistan because no president wants to be the one who declared the war lost, and no general wants to be in charge when that declaration is made.
The idea that we need to stay to prevent Afghanistan from becoming another launching point for terrorist attacks against the US is absurd. A small group of terrorists can plan such attacks from anywhere in the world. Our best protection against such attacks is intelligence and hardening our country, not occupying the rest of the world. And we should get used to the idea that there is no perfect security, although no politician is willing to say it,.
The idea that we need to stay to prevent Afghanistan from becoming another launching point for terrorist attacks against the US is absurd. A small group of terrorists can plan such attacks from anywhere in the world. Our best protection against such attacks is intelligence and hardening our country, not occupying the rest of the world. And we should get used to the idea that there is no perfect security, although no politician is willing to say it,.
2
Here is some old fashioned common sense: if you will fight, fight to win or don't fight at all. Arguments against this are equivalent to squaring a circle. Unfortunately common sense is no longer in fashion and we are the worse for it.
3
There is a way out - to leave now and to leave behind a promise that if the Taliban or ISIS are allowed (by the Afghanistan people/army/government) to rise and overtly support terrorism, they will be bombed. And there will be no attempt at "nation building" thereafter, just more bombs.
We have no responsibility to these people. True, they didn't "cause" 9/11 (though they did give refuge to bin Laden), the Saudis provided that support. But, we are obliged to strike back when attacked and to do so without any moral obligation to pick up the pieces.
We have no responsibility to these people. True, they didn't "cause" 9/11 (though they did give refuge to bin Laden), the Saudis provided that support. But, we are obliged to strike back when attacked and to do so without any moral obligation to pick up the pieces.
1
How hard is it for us to figure out that there are only two options: stay or leave? And how hard is it for us to figure out that our mere presence continues to inflame the civil war in Afghanistan?
Failed Don said it himself: his instinct is to pull out, and tragically the only time he listens to his advisers, he should have gone with his instincts.
Failed Don said it himself: his instinct is to pull out, and tragically the only time he listens to his advisers, he should have gone with his instincts.
1
No outside power has ever been able to change the hearts and minds of most Afghan men. One thing, maybe the only thing, mosr Afghan men are good at is fighting. Not a nation state as we understand it, but a collection of fiefs ruled by ever shifting coalitions of warloads. Only bribery works with these guys. So there are no good options and no way out.
Why does Mr. Stephens dance close to the answer and then run away so often. Our course of action in Afghanistan is obvious, it's time for us to get the heck out. In fact it has been time for us to get the heck out since Bush let Osama escape in 2002. If not then, we should have left after Obama got Osama in what, 2010 or 2011? The internal battles between the Taliban and the warlords or the crooked Kabul "government" are not our battles. They are the battles that Afghans have been fighting for 1000 years. Light footprint, heavy footprint? How about no footprint?
1
What is the US strategic interest in Afghanistan? None.
1
The only thing we haven't tried is to tell the world that we are planning to be in Afghanistan FOREVER. Tell the world that we are setting up shop and we are going to bring our version of law and order to the area. We are not leaving for 10 or 20 years: we are going to have a presence there FOREVER. We are NOT leaving. We are not going to let the Afghani's alone.
My guess is that if the world believes us, it will set up an entirely new dynamic.
My guess is that if the world believes us, it will set up an entirely new dynamic.
This may be one of the most honest assessments of the situation in Afghanistan I have ever read. And yes, Trump may have fallen on the least bad option from a list of options where none are good. But we will not ever "win" because of the nature of Afghanistan and the people who live there and in their neighborhood. The best we can try to do is keep the lid on the hornet's nest with a small force while trying to nudge the government in the right direction. Who knows? Maybe in 50 years it will look better than it does today.
God forbid the United States of Amnesia would ever take a close look at the Soviet's ill-fated involvement in Afghanistan and learn from it.
All these think tanks and high-priced 'experts' could not figure this one out?
Now the US has historically bad 'leadership' and there is so sign that a sane policy will emerge. Of course this keeps the profits flowing to various corporate leeches so it is easy to wee why it persists.
All these think tanks and high-priced 'experts' could not figure this one out?
Now the US has historically bad 'leadership' and there is so sign that a sane policy will emerge. Of course this keeps the profits flowing to various corporate leeches so it is easy to wee why it persists.
The only way out of Afghanistan is for the US to engage Pakistan (half a checkmark), Iran (nope), Russia (nope), India (half a checkmark) and China (nope). China is on the list because it is a multi-billion ($55 to be precise) dollar Pakistan investor. Otherwise it is never ending military whack a mole. The US is in the process of disengaging or not engaged with many of these parties. At the very least, it is impossible to see this fixed without Iran buy-in.
I don't get it, Bret.
You say we've tried governance and development and it failed, after having spent $30 billion on it.
But is that actually trying it?
We spent $700 billion on military action in the same time period. That's, what, more than 20 times as much? How'd that work out?
I'm not arguing that governance and development WOULD work, just that we haven't focused on it in any way. The imbalance in cash shows where our efforts and our interests truly are.
To say we've tried governance and development is like standing at home plate in Yankee Stadium with a Whiffle-ball bat. And striking out. At least we tried, right?
This is a war with governance and development window dressing.
And the war isn't going well.
You say we've tried governance and development and it failed, after having spent $30 billion on it.
But is that actually trying it?
We spent $700 billion on military action in the same time period. That's, what, more than 20 times as much? How'd that work out?
I'm not arguing that governance and development WOULD work, just that we haven't focused on it in any way. The imbalance in cash shows where our efforts and our interests truly are.
To say we've tried governance and development is like standing at home plate in Yankee Stadium with a Whiffle-ball bat. And striking out. At least we tried, right?
This is a war with governance and development window dressing.
And the war isn't going well.
Leave this pit and let the people that live there fight their own battles.
It's really that simple.
It's really that simple.
1
'President Trump may think he’s trying something new with his Afghan policy.' Trump would be thinking absolutely NOTHING about Afghanistan. Haven't you noticed that the big orange bully does pretty much what he's told when pressed hard enough by individuals he can't scare or fool? And then explodes a few days later into meaningless activity, jabbering or 'working' weekends because of the damage inflicted on his fragile psyche by the confrontation. Trump exhibits the bravado of the truly spineless, and the US Congress is being cruel to him to allow him to continue as president when his mental anguish and instability are so clear in everything he does and says.
And we should leave Afghanistan. The tribes need to sort themselves out. As much as it makes open societies sick to watch their medieval culture, you can't beat it out of them.
And we should leave Afghanistan. The tribes need to sort themselves out. As much as it makes open societies sick to watch their medieval culture, you can't beat it out of them.
1
Afghanistan will never be civilized in our definition. What haven't we tried? Buying opium directly from Afghan producers. The US consumes 80 percent of the global supply and our dear friends in Afghanistan produce 80 percent. Cut out the Taliban and buy it legally.
Or we could leave and let the Chinese provide the security for the mineral wealth they will steal from these mountain men.
Or we could leave and let the Chinese provide the security for the mineral wealth they will steal from these mountain men.
9/11 was a long time ago. There is no other justification for us being in Afghanistan. Time to leave.
1
Vietnam redux. And don't say you weren't warned. You were, often & loudly. But no war means no contracts, no military promotions. Never mind that Afghanistan is as remote to US interests as in … Vietnam.
1
" We've tried ..." .... this and that ... sigh
We haven't tried leaving yet.
There is absolutely no legal or moral justification for us to be there.
Bin Ladin is dead.
Why are we still there?
We haven't tried leaving yet.
There is absolutely no legal or moral justification for us to be there.
Bin Ladin is dead.
Why are we still there?
1
We just never learn, we keep on trying variations of the same old strategies that never work. The experts devoted to this know it and are just buying time.
Their won't be true change until a revered Imam comes along to tell the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists that living in peace and harmony with those that have different values is what God wants from them.
Their won't be true change until a revered Imam comes along to tell the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists that living in peace and harmony with those that have different values is what God wants from them.
Neither Mr. Stephens nor the American government understand the culture of tribes, clans & various factions that practice a fundamentalist Islamic faith. It is evidenced by the statistic in this essay that over 60% of Afghans remain illiterate.. Our cultural ignorance has led us to the same cul de sac the Russians finally abandoned.
It is difficult to "nation build" in a primitive nation with practices that are just barely on the modern side of an Iron Age. It is hard to build any kind of democratic system where it is widely believed women are chattel, girls don't need an education, & most negotiations are based on tribes, clans, & families with little or no trust in each other.
Perhaps Mr. Stephens should read fellow WSJ reporter Ron Suskind's "The Way of the World" to better understand our situation. It is eye-opening when a student exchange program gives an Afghan boy & his US family mutual culture shock.
We cannot force neither a Pax Americana on the World, nor are we a global police force, as we should have learned in Vietnam. Military solutions do not solve internecine political problems within nations. When the Karzai government was put in place, Bush 43 should have said, "Our job's done here, Tonto!" We have wasted American blood & treasure FOR NOTHING!
We must negotiate with all factions, including the Taliban, to reach a political solution, or prepare for more useless deaths & financial disaster if we don't raise taxes to pay for our War Without End.
It is difficult to "nation build" in a primitive nation with practices that are just barely on the modern side of an Iron Age. It is hard to build any kind of democratic system where it is widely believed women are chattel, girls don't need an education, & most negotiations are based on tribes, clans, & families with little or no trust in each other.
Perhaps Mr. Stephens should read fellow WSJ reporter Ron Suskind's "The Way of the World" to better understand our situation. It is eye-opening when a student exchange program gives an Afghan boy & his US family mutual culture shock.
We cannot force neither a Pax Americana on the World, nor are we a global police force, as we should have learned in Vietnam. Military solutions do not solve internecine political problems within nations. When the Karzai government was put in place, Bush 43 should have said, "Our job's done here, Tonto!" We have wasted American blood & treasure FOR NOTHING!
We must negotiate with all factions, including the Taliban, to reach a political solution, or prepare for more useless deaths & financial disaster if we don't raise taxes to pay for our War Without End.
The president has been advised and he has listened to his generals. They are experts on the situation and the specifics not the NY Times.
The Taliban are not foreigners living in A-stan but they constitute tribal groups from Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Pamiri and many others in A-stan. Their birth rate is one of the highest in world and they are not going anywhere. On the other hand, the US along with ISAF/NATO are aliens to A-stans demographic picture. In the history of the world no foriegn power has defeated the locals.
What President Trump said to put lightly wrong from every end. We can't win the war America's longest war. We the tax payers have given the Afghan National Army (ANF) more than $75 billion according to SIGAR July ’17 report and nothing has happened and nothing will happen.
Blaming and using Pakistan as a scapegoat is part of the failed policy and strategy: "Billions and billions given to Pakistan"? Well, the total is $33.381 billion of which $14.573 is the actual economic and military aid rest is Collation Support Fund (CSF) according to U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International Development figures. The CSF is reimbursements for the supplies that Pakistan provides to the US and ISAF/NATO troops. As of July '17 the US has failed to reimburse more than $2 billions for the services provided by Pakistan. In the US this is called defaulter and in most instances collection agencies hounds are released.
Trump policy will be yet another abject failure
What President Trump said to put lightly wrong from every end. We can't win the war America's longest war. We the tax payers have given the Afghan National Army (ANF) more than $75 billion according to SIGAR July ’17 report and nothing has happened and nothing will happen.
Blaming and using Pakistan as a scapegoat is part of the failed policy and strategy: "Billions and billions given to Pakistan"? Well, the total is $33.381 billion of which $14.573 is the actual economic and military aid rest is Collation Support Fund (CSF) according to U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International Development figures. The CSF is reimbursements for the supplies that Pakistan provides to the US and ISAF/NATO troops. As of July '17 the US has failed to reimburse more than $2 billions for the services provided by Pakistan. In the US this is called defaulter and in most instances collection agencies hounds are released.
Trump policy will be yet another abject failure
''the elected Afghan government''.
Elections as honest as the rest of Afghanistan's government.
No more of our children being killed and maimed to allow China to steal Afghanistan's mineral wealth, and our war profiteers to grow more obscenely obese.
If Afghanistan is that important bring back a draft with no exceptions and let the body bags be evenly distributed. A few American flags given out to the right zip codes and we are gone tomorrow.
If a cause isn't just enough for all of America to share the grief and bury it's children, then perhaps the crusade should be done with.
Elections as honest as the rest of Afghanistan's government.
No more of our children being killed and maimed to allow China to steal Afghanistan's mineral wealth, and our war profiteers to grow more obscenely obese.
If Afghanistan is that important bring back a draft with no exceptions and let the body bags be evenly distributed. A few American flags given out to the right zip codes and we are gone tomorrow.
If a cause isn't just enough for all of America to share the grief and bury it's children, then perhaps the crusade should be done with.
Let's see. The status quo exists in a place where poverty rules, drugs are king, good paying careers don't exist, and the heroes are people who say they are their to help,but only offer armed assistance. And where winning is helping those in power while offering nothing but false promises to those in need. Where else does this scenario hold true? Hold it, I think I know... ...
Tribalism combined with a medieval religious ideology that abhors modern secularism – that’s the long run enemy. We can win battles day by day, but the Taliban cruel and medieval culture will survive. Maybe even get stronger. What is our plan in the battle of ideas? Air drop volumes of Donald Trump’s “Art of the Deal”? Open up a Trump University?
Reminds me of the comment about Vietnam Nam....we were waging war on the birth rate of SE Asia.
There is one thing that we haven't tried. It is to form a coalition of all NATO and UN countries to enforce a total ban on the midshipmen of ALL ARMS to that area. This would include arms being manufactured by multinational corporations who profit immensely from such conflicts and the destruction they cause. Only then will the situation be made conducive for a cease fire and fruitful diplomatic discussions. By now, it should be painfully obvious -- there is no military solution.
From the American point of view quitting Afghanistan at the earliest could be the way out, leaving the problem to the Afghans to be settled as they wish.
1
Lets see.
Why are we there now? To protect a weak government beholding to the US? To stop the spread of radicalism?
It seems like if you replaced radical Islamists with the world communist we could be discussing Vietnam or Korea or any of our other domino theories.
Of course, we see radical Islamist as more dangerous than communist now, we have been able to accommodate communism because they have embraced good old capitalism to some degree and have integrated into the larger global family.
Is it the radical fundamentalism of the religions that prevents this integration? Or, is it that these lands are poor countries, with arid lands and limited resources to improve their economies and use the drug trade and demonization of the West to hide their own corruption?
Unfortunately, decades of wars and invasions have caused too many injuries to these countries creating the void for extremism to enter.
Perhaps, if the rest of the world was honest about their intentions in the Middle East and Northern Africa we could find a solution.
Perhaps though, letting the extremist rule is the best for peace, and let the people of these countries decide their fate.
Why are we there now? To protect a weak government beholding to the US? To stop the spread of radicalism?
It seems like if you replaced radical Islamists with the world communist we could be discussing Vietnam or Korea or any of our other domino theories.
Of course, we see radical Islamist as more dangerous than communist now, we have been able to accommodate communism because they have embraced good old capitalism to some degree and have integrated into the larger global family.
Is it the radical fundamentalism of the religions that prevents this integration? Or, is it that these lands are poor countries, with arid lands and limited resources to improve their economies and use the drug trade and demonization of the West to hide their own corruption?
Unfortunately, decades of wars and invasions have caused too many injuries to these countries creating the void for extremism to enter.
Perhaps, if the rest of the world was honest about their intentions in the Middle East and Northern Africa we could find a solution.
Perhaps though, letting the extremist rule is the best for peace, and let the people of these countries decide their fate.
The US justification for continued military operations in Afghanistan is the claim that we may well see another 9/11 if we let the Taliban and other extremist groups prevail.
This is a policy based on speculation that ignores most of the country's 20th century history, but also some very relevant examples of other long running conflicts involving Western nations. Remember the domino theory that got us bogged down in Vietnam? Look where the Southeast nations are today. Are they en existentialist threat to us and our allies? Look also at the former Ottoman Empire provinces that were seized and occupied by the UK and France. How did those occupations pan out?
It is time for Western military forces to leave Afghanistan and allow the country's competing tribal groups sort out either who will be king of the hill, or come to some internal political accommodation.
This is a policy based on speculation that ignores most of the country's 20th century history, but also some very relevant examples of other long running conflicts involving Western nations. Remember the domino theory that got us bogged down in Vietnam? Look where the Southeast nations are today. Are they en existentialist threat to us and our allies? Look also at the former Ottoman Empire provinces that were seized and occupied by the UK and France. How did those occupations pan out?
It is time for Western military forces to leave Afghanistan and allow the country's competing tribal groups sort out either who will be king of the hill, or come to some internal political accommodation.
We are told by proponents if intervention that we need to intervene to prevent terrorism in the US originating in Afghanistan.
There are almost surely more cost-effective ways to do this.
In any event, there have been very few incidents of domestic terrorism and their cost has been insignificant in comparison to the cost of pursuing this war.
Just doing nothing might be a better course.
There are almost surely more cost-effective ways to do this.
In any event, there have been very few incidents of domestic terrorism and their cost has been insignificant in comparison to the cost of pursuing this war.
Just doing nothing might be a better course.
2
Finally, finally, an opinion leader who gets it. I too am amazed that Trump has alighted upon the solution, but I suspect this has more to do with factors independent of his judgment. This is the exact thing that President Obama should have done in Iraq. With a modest number of troops--somewhere between 10 and 15 thousand, we can stabilize a country the size of Iraq or Afghanistan indefinitely, without the risk of casualties significantly above what we would experience in training. And the financial costs are really a rounding error for a 16 trillion dollar economy and much less expensive than having to deal with extremist like the Taliban or the Islamic State filling the void. There will be no "victory" in the World War II sense of the word, and we should stop wringing our hands over "winning" and exiting. We "won" when we dislodge the Taliban from power. We just need to not throw away our victory. We may be in Afghanistan for another 50 years, but it is sustainable and in the interest of the United States, our allies, Afghanistan--and everyone else in the world, except the extremists. Politicians and pundits need to stop fomenting a crisis mentality regarding Afghanistan. It is not a crisis; it is a manageable problem.
3
No, Charles. The fatal miscalculation is the errant thought that the US could seat a centralized government in Kabul and control a country that has only known regional warlords and tribal leaders controlling their own little fiefdoms.
There is zero hope that centralized government and a centralized Afghan army will in any way stabilize that country, least of all in a sustainable way. "We may be in Afghanistan for another 50 years," and if we lose but four soldiers a month for that time, that adds up to almost another 2500 dead soldiers, surpassing the toll already, with many more wounded. Are you willing to put your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren in harm's way for some mythical "sustainable" stalemate?
There is zero hope that centralized government and a centralized Afghan army will in any way stabilize that country, least of all in a sustainable way. "We may be in Afghanistan for another 50 years," and if we lose but four soldiers a month for that time, that adds up to almost another 2500 dead soldiers, surpassing the toll already, with many more wounded. Are you willing to put your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren in harm's way for some mythical "sustainable" stalemate?
We couldn't stabilize either country with troop levels in the hundreds of thousands in the 90s. Russian military might was run out of Afghanistan by irregulars with basically hand weapons. We didn't "win" when we dislodged the Taliban, who have now captured almost half the country back again. The Taliban were the only ones keeping all of the drug lords & war lords from destroying Kabul in their fight for control after the Russians.
Trump's plan of giving India a larger role was the height of stupidity. The main reason the Pakistani ISI (intelligence group) went about creating, funding, & arming the Taliban (with Salafist Saudi Sunnis helping) was to assure that the regime in Kabul would be a buffer against Indian involvement in Afghanistan. Pakistan & India are both nuclear countries & have been on the verge of war at least twice in recent years. Afghanistan is a crucial piece of the puzzle along with Kashmir. At the same time Trump is demanding cooperation from Pakistan, he is basically putting their sworn enemy, India much deeper into the quagmire & heightening the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between India & Pakistan. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Malcolm Forbes of Forbes Magazine fame warned: "It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem."
Besides, your "solution" (aside from being wishful thinking) will also have us keeping troops in Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, & a dozen other countries for centuries.
Trump's plan of giving India a larger role was the height of stupidity. The main reason the Pakistani ISI (intelligence group) went about creating, funding, & arming the Taliban (with Salafist Saudi Sunnis helping) was to assure that the regime in Kabul would be a buffer against Indian involvement in Afghanistan. Pakistan & India are both nuclear countries & have been on the verge of war at least twice in recent years. Afghanistan is a crucial piece of the puzzle along with Kashmir. At the same time Trump is demanding cooperation from Pakistan, he is basically putting their sworn enemy, India much deeper into the quagmire & heightening the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between India & Pakistan. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Malcolm Forbes of Forbes Magazine fame warned: "It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem."
Besides, your "solution" (aside from being wishful thinking) will also have us keeping troops in Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, & a dozen other countries for centuries.
Afghanistan is beyond our ability to stabilize on western standards. So true, Kabul is essentially an island surrounded by not only Taliban (defined as: those who seek religious knowledge), but criminal elements reinforced by those who reap billions from opium production.
having served there 2003-4, all of us who had decades of experience knew then Afghanistan was a "waste".
That said, the introduction of 4000 more troopers will do little to "turn the tide". The only metric available is the Afghan Army..but, that is perhaps a hopeless "wish".
In short, there is no decisive option which will prove to be "victory".
having served there 2003-4, all of us who had decades of experience knew then Afghanistan was a "waste".
That said, the introduction of 4000 more troopers will do little to "turn the tide". The only metric available is the Afghan Army..but, that is perhaps a hopeless "wish".
In short, there is no decisive option which will prove to be "victory".
3
"the religious fanaticism of the madrasas, the ethnic ambitions of the Pashtun, the profits of the heroin trade" Solutions for each:
1. Secular schools that teach employable skills.
2. Federalism, in which the Pashtun (and other groups) have quasi-independent states. The British controlled India this way for 200 years.
3. Legalize it. Then profits are minimal, and there is no racket for the Taliban to protect. Fewer overdoses if it is marketed in controlled strengths. Like booze.
Simple, but not politically easy.
1. Secular schools that teach employable skills.
2. Federalism, in which the Pashtun (and other groups) have quasi-independent states. The British controlled India this way for 200 years.
3. Legalize it. Then profits are minimal, and there is no racket for the Taliban to protect. Fewer overdoses if it is marketed in controlled strengths. Like booze.
Simple, but not politically easy.
1
Jonathan, your item number two fails because while Britain may have "controlled" India in that way, it tried to, and never succeeded in controlling Afghanistan in any meaningful way.
The only sensible way out is a withdrawal. The British discovered that, then Russia discovered that. Yes the Taliban will takeover, but apparently that's what the tribes want.
As long as we keep fighting the only winner is the Chinese. They will gain the mineral wealth while we keep the Taliban busy.
The threat that we will lead a void that will be filled by Iran or Pakistan is real, but let them get the grief of governing the ungovernable.
As long as we keep fighting the only winner is the Chinese. They will gain the mineral wealth while we keep the Taliban busy.
The threat that we will lead a void that will be filled by Iran or Pakistan is real, but let them get the grief of governing the ungovernable.
45
Thank you for stating the obvious!
At what cost?
We have congressional Republicans advocating cuts in Medicaid because the money is not there, yet we are talking seriously about a never-ending military presence in Afghanistan. I do not think so.
Use the money to put solar panels on every rooftop in America and call it defense spending.
We have congressional Republicans advocating cuts in Medicaid because the money is not there, yet we are talking seriously about a never-ending military presence in Afghanistan. I do not think so.
Use the money to put solar panels on every rooftop in America and call it defense spending.
79
There are a number of questionable facts in here. We've spent considerably more than 104 billion over the last 16 years, it's very doubtful whether we have killed 42,000 members of the Taliban, and we have never walked away. Stephens has long been one of the more enthusiastic backers of this fiasco. Anyone with the time or inclination can check out some of his oped's in the WSJ. Essentially, he's now arguing for an indefinite expenditure of blood and treasure (mainly Afghan blood incidentally) on another of America's wars on the relative cheap, conducted largely out of the sight and mind of the American public who are bored with Afghanistan. Wonderful isn't it?
92
Right John, and Tom Friedman's recent column outlines 'The American Way of War', i.e. highly technical, without any real blood on our hands, but certainly not monetarily cheap.
And you're right on about Bret's history...and the best thing to say about him is his current self-description as an 'ex' or 'former' republican. I guess that counts for something...and I'm waiting to see what. Hope it's not just a small bone thrown to NYT readers...and editors. ;-)
And you're right on about Bret's history...and the best thing to say about him is his current self-description as an 'ex' or 'former' republican. I guess that counts for something...and I'm waiting to see what. Hope it's not just a small bone thrown to NYT readers...and editors. ;-)
I think we should contract out this war, because it is mostly about giving money to the military industrial complex. Let's just give them the money, Eric Prince, Dyncorps, et al, and maybe they will go away. Maybe they can get their war needs out with video games, then no civilians or american sons and daughters would actually die and the countryside of Afghanistan can start to recover from war.
Put them in a big box with Donald Trump and they can play their dress-up games of violence with toys, gazing at each other, and the rest of us can start to work on peace and environmental justice and healing.
PS, big surpriise Bret Stephens finds something to like in Trump, no matter how far he has to stretch - like Rosemary Woods stretch for the delete machine, the action is largely imaginary. Bret can go in the box with the generals and the war profiteers so they don't harm anybody else.
Put them in a big box with Donald Trump and they can play their dress-up games of violence with toys, gazing at each other, and the rest of us can start to work on peace and environmental justice and healing.
PS, big surpriise Bret Stephens finds something to like in Trump, no matter how far he has to stretch - like Rosemary Woods stretch for the delete machine, the action is largely imaginary. Bret can go in the box with the generals and the war profiteers so they don't harm anybody else.
7
"We’ve tried nation building. At least as of 2014, the United States had spent $104 billion on Afghan relief and reconstruction funds, most of it for security but also nearly $30 billion for “governance and development” (...) Result: As of 2015, more than three in five Afghans remained illiterate. Afghan security forces lost 4,000 members a month — less to the Taliban than to simple desertion. The country ranks 169th out of 176 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (...)"
Two things here:
1. that's not "nation" building, that's building the country's economy. Building a nation means creating a culture where most citizens see themselves as expressing the same national "soul", as nationalist ideologues explained since the 18th century. The underlying idea was that a country can only thrive when nationalism is the ideology that binds people together. The concept is based on one official language, one dominant religion etc.
Afghanistan, however, has borders created by the West and without taking local "nations" into account, so IF nationalism would be the solution, it could never take hold in a country like that.
2. Something totally different is building a thriving economy. As the US, India etc. show, you do not need one "nation" in order to do so. But you do need DECADES of investment in infrastructure, schools, etc. And diplomacy in order to solve internal conflicts peacefully.
That's why Obama's generals were right, and Trump SO wrong.
Two things here:
1. that's not "nation" building, that's building the country's economy. Building a nation means creating a culture where most citizens see themselves as expressing the same national "soul", as nationalist ideologues explained since the 18th century. The underlying idea was that a country can only thrive when nationalism is the ideology that binds people together. The concept is based on one official language, one dominant religion etc.
Afghanistan, however, has borders created by the West and without taking local "nations" into account, so IF nationalism would be the solution, it could never take hold in a country like that.
2. Something totally different is building a thriving economy. As the US, India etc. show, you do not need one "nation" in order to do so. But you do need DECADES of investment in infrastructure, schools, etc. And diplomacy in order to solve internal conflicts peacefully.
That's why Obama's generals were right, and Trump SO wrong.
5
"The country ranks 169th out of 176 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index",
A major reason for our failure in Afghanistan is the pervasive corruption in Afghanistan stymieing all our efforts,helping the enemies and sapping public support for the Afghan government. America has spent billions of dollars on Afghan relief efforts and now asking India to do more. Where did all the money go? According to an Afghan official who argued in 2010 that "corruption is not just a problem for the system of governance in Afghanistan; it is the system of governance". Ryan Crocker, a former ambassador to Kabul also commented some time ago: "the ultimate point of failure for our efforts ... wasn't an insurgency. It was the weight of endemic corruption." The people in the regime we were helping were the true enemy. There is no accountability for our money.
A major reason for our failure in Afghanistan is the pervasive corruption in Afghanistan stymieing all our efforts,helping the enemies and sapping public support for the Afghan government. America has spent billions of dollars on Afghan relief efforts and now asking India to do more. Where did all the money go? According to an Afghan official who argued in 2010 that "corruption is not just a problem for the system of governance in Afghanistan; it is the system of governance". Ryan Crocker, a former ambassador to Kabul also commented some time ago: "the ultimate point of failure for our efforts ... wasn't an insurgency. It was the weight of endemic corruption." The people in the regime we were helping were the true enemy. There is no accountability for our money.
38
Bret Stephens conveniently leaves out a vital piece of Afghan history, the period when the country had a socialist government installed by the Sauer revolution. They instituted rights for women, land reform and universal education. Within the first few years there were more women attending university in Kabul than there are today.
There was opposition to these reforms, but the socialist government was not doctrinaire and allowed for a fair amount of regional autonomy and ethnic integration into the government.
But we couldn't have a new socialist state in the world. The evil empire might expand and dominoes might fall, whatever that meant.
So we armed and funded the Mujahideen with modern weapons and launched a civil war that drew in the Soviet Union. It also drew in Bin Laden, and Wahabbist fighters from all over the Muslim world and helped launch what has now morphed into ISIS.
The country was destroyed, but with no loss of American life and the defeat of the Soviets we declared victory, at least until the Frankenstein monster we created decided to turn on the West.
But since then Afghanistan has simply represented twenty years of 'blowback' and despite the loss of life and treasury we refuse to see it.
The Taliban, which is as much an ethnic element as it is a political or religious one, will share power, either now or later. So let it be now. Take the obvious way out, stop the killing, gradually withdraw and end this tragic chapter of carnage.
There was opposition to these reforms, but the socialist government was not doctrinaire and allowed for a fair amount of regional autonomy and ethnic integration into the government.
But we couldn't have a new socialist state in the world. The evil empire might expand and dominoes might fall, whatever that meant.
So we armed and funded the Mujahideen with modern weapons and launched a civil war that drew in the Soviet Union. It also drew in Bin Laden, and Wahabbist fighters from all over the Muslim world and helped launch what has now morphed into ISIS.
The country was destroyed, but with no loss of American life and the defeat of the Soviets we declared victory, at least until the Frankenstein monster we created decided to turn on the West.
But since then Afghanistan has simply represented twenty years of 'blowback' and despite the loss of life and treasury we refuse to see it.
The Taliban, which is as much an ethnic element as it is a political or religious one, will share power, either now or later. So let it be now. Take the obvious way out, stop the killing, gradually withdraw and end this tragic chapter of carnage.
148
@drspock New York
A bit of Stalinist history re-writing here. The US never armed the Mujahideen and drew in the Soviet Union. Afghanistan was essentially a client state of the Soviet Union. When the government they backed was overthrown in one of the endless coups they have there, the Russians invaded the country.
A bit of Stalinist history re-writing here. The US never armed the Mujahideen and drew in the Soviet Union. Afghanistan was essentially a client state of the Soviet Union. When the government they backed was overthrown in one of the endless coups they have there, the Russians invaded the country.
2
Sorry John, American support for the Mujahideen was a signature policy initiative from then secretary of State Zbignew Bresinzki. It's in his auto biography. President Reagan continued the policy and both count the involvement of the CIA in this effort as contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Of course by then Afghanistan had also collapsed. We saw Afghanistan as acceptable collateral damage in the Cold War and even though those days are long past, we continue to add countries like Iraq, Yemen and Syria to the list.
1
Saur was Soviet backed communist NOT a socialist government.
"In April 1978, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide. The Pakistani government provided these rebels with covert training centers, while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government. Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA — the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham — resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of a Parchami coup.
In September 1979, Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. Distrusted by the Soviets, Amin was assassinated by Soviet special forces in December 1979. A Soviet-organized government, led by Parcham's Babrak Karmal but inclusive of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in more substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war in Afghans"
"In April 1978, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide. The Pakistani government provided these rebels with covert training centers, while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government. Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA — the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham — resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of a Parchami coup.
In September 1979, Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. Distrusted by the Soviets, Amin was assassinated by Soviet special forces in December 1979. A Soviet-organized government, led by Parcham's Babrak Karmal but inclusive of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in more substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war in Afghans"
1
It simply is not our fight. We can only help in light numbers as Mr. Stephens pointed out. There is nothing an invading force can do to change the hearts and minds of a determined force.
2
"When it comes to Afghanistan, we’ve tried everything. The lesson is: Nothing works."
So what did we do before 16 years ago? The threat posed did not require a military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps we are over estimating this threat : We could simply withdraw our ground troops and watch what happens carefully, reacting when appropriate.
Put on the scales the cost to us in troops if we stay vs if we leave.
Consider Vietnam.
So what did we do before 16 years ago? The threat posed did not require a military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps we are over estimating this threat : We could simply withdraw our ground troops and watch what happens carefully, reacting when appropriate.
Put on the scales the cost to us in troops if we stay vs if we leave.
Consider Vietnam.
118
this is a very lucrative operation for some people. Follow the money.
1
The Viet Cong never threatened the U.S. mainland with terrorist attacks, and never would have posed any other direct threat to us.
Afghanistan is an entirely different kettle of fish because it can become one giant training camp for terrorists who want to attack us at home.
Afghanistan is an entirely different kettle of fish because it can become one giant training camp for terrorists who want to attack us at home.
This. Plus, asking generals what to do is like that old joke of asking a surgeon if you need surgery. Duh! A surgeon will say you need surgery. A radiologist will say you need radiology. A general will tell you he just needs more soldiers and gear. Time to say no.
I agree with Mr. Stephens.
Total withdrawal was not an option.
The President's plan may the least bad option.
Hobson's Choice?
Total withdrawal was not an option.
The President's plan may the least bad option.
Hobson's Choice?
3
It is certainly desirable to deny the terrorist organizations a sanctuary from which to launch attacks against us. That said, they seem to be able to operate even when we deny them a base in Afghanistan. If the Afghan people are not sufficiently committed to having a country which is democratically governed and internally secure, we should not be expected to provide expensive military support into perpetuity. I think it is doubtful that are continued presence in Afghanistan is making us safer.
3
We cannot protect the Afghans from themselves. Neither can we guarantee that there are not strongholds for terrorism in the world. Best to save our blood and gold for fights that we can win.
18
What if the best way to help Afghanistan was to show them a better civilisation by just being there? To show them that women are equal to men and should be treated as such? And to show them much more in that vein.
That can be achieved more or less just by being there.
The west is not fighting people in Afghanistan; it is fighting ideas. Time that we started fighting the real fight, instead of just trying to kill people.
That can be achieved more or less just by being there.
The west is not fighting people in Afghanistan; it is fighting ideas. Time that we started fighting the real fight, instead of just trying to kill people.
We don't have many choices, which is why so many of us yelled about not going in in the first place. No one could have missed the reality back then that we would be embroiled in a permanent occupation. If a stay at home mom could foresee it, surely government experts and military geniuses could.
But in we went, and here we are. Occupy forever, or let Pakistan and Iran duke it out for dominance over the territory held by warlords and relentless theocrats.
Both actions, by the way - trying to close off a power vacuum and letting happen - will create a whole slew of terrorists. Terror is asymmetrical warfare. It has been around for a long time and is the go-to option for powerless people to fight, and the go-to option for determined radicals, fundamentalists and extremists to push their agenda against giant and powerful forces.
So, no, Trump will not achieve a "win." Mostly because you can only lose in Afghanistan. Obama accepted that, and looked to reining in the consequences. Trump's generals haven't cut their losses yet.
But in we went, and here we are. Occupy forever, or let Pakistan and Iran duke it out for dominance over the territory held by warlords and relentless theocrats.
Both actions, by the way - trying to close off a power vacuum and letting happen - will create a whole slew of terrorists. Terror is asymmetrical warfare. It has been around for a long time and is the go-to option for powerless people to fight, and the go-to option for determined radicals, fundamentalists and extremists to push their agenda against giant and powerful forces.
So, no, Trump will not achieve a "win." Mostly because you can only lose in Afghanistan. Obama accepted that, and looked to reining in the consequences. Trump's generals haven't cut their losses yet.
92
The same problem that exists in other British created nations in the Middle East exists in Afghanistan. These are phony nations. Lines were drawn without thought to ethnicities or tribes. Look at Iraq, Syria. There is no way to create a nation called Afghanistan with a central government of any sort. Unlike Iran or Egypt which were ancient civilizations and peoples loyal to their historical existence, British (and European) colonization created the mess we have in the Middle East. Colonization in SouthEast Asia was not disastrous because those nations were also truly ethnic and not falsely created. Except for - guess what - Kashmir and Pakistan. The effects of the British Empire never ends.
58
There is no political or military solution to religious fanaticism. In the case of Afghanistan, the societal infrastructure required to enact a political solution does not even exist.
Does anyone out there in pundit land remember Vietnam? That started in the 50's. We were supposed to stop the domino effect of global domination of communism. If Vietnam fell under the control of the dreaded reds, the globe would crumble. Afghanistan is our new Vietnam.
Vietnam fell. Over two million people died during the 20 years long conflict. The world didn't go red. Vietnam is now a major supplier of clothing and shoes to our markets.
So what if the Taliban takes over. If the US and the West wants to hobble the Taliban, then stop using their heroin. That is their no. 1 cash crop. So long as they have a narco fueled economy, no avenues to modernization are possible. Just leave and stop using their dope. Then the shoe companies will move in for the cheap labor. Then we can all be friends.
Does anyone out there in pundit land remember Vietnam? That started in the 50's. We were supposed to stop the domino effect of global domination of communism. If Vietnam fell under the control of the dreaded reds, the globe would crumble. Afghanistan is our new Vietnam.
Vietnam fell. Over two million people died during the 20 years long conflict. The world didn't go red. Vietnam is now a major supplier of clothing and shoes to our markets.
So what if the Taliban takes over. If the US and the West wants to hobble the Taliban, then stop using their heroin. That is their no. 1 cash crop. So long as they have a narco fueled economy, no avenues to modernization are possible. Just leave and stop using their dope. Then the shoe companies will move in for the cheap labor. Then we can all be friends.
171
You are correct. There is no military solution. Instead a focus on the children of the illiterate population.
Give all Afghan recruits a solar powered tablet stocked full of wordless videos of Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel and Hardy...etc, to take home to their families.
Images trained the American immigration influx of the years around 1900's. They will strongly counter rote Taliban indoctrination and open eyes to an understandable pre tech past as a door to the future.
Give all Afghan recruits a solar powered tablet stocked full of wordless videos of Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel and Hardy...etc, to take home to their families.
Images trained the American immigration influx of the years around 1900's. They will strongly counter rote Taliban indoctrination and open eyes to an understandable pre tech past as a door to the future.
1
So let's cut our losses now and get out....we should never have been there and this is pure folly....leave now, there is no good way, just leave. Follow the $ to see who wants this unending war that is very profitable for some people......thanks for the warning President Eisenhower , apparently we did not pay attention to your wisdom.
1
I bet there are many US military and government intelligence employees making billions from the Afghan opioids. Heroin is worth its weight in gold, so bank on it that our good guys are making bank on it.
We haven't tried everything in Afghanistan. Not only that, but some things we COULD try but haven't don't involve the deaths of American military personnel while offering a pretty good prospect of "success", if we'd only get around to defining that word in terms of something sensible.
The reason we're in Afghanistan is because of the fear that if we're not the Taliban will just take over again and rent out land to transnational terrorists for training camps aimed at producing suicide-bombers to kill westerners in their major cities. It can't be that the Taliban murder their own people wholesale who don't conform in every aspect to their version of Shariya -- not when we leave North Korea un-invaded.
So, any true solution needs to provide rational assurances that transnational terrorists won't use Afghanistan as a base again, and it would help if that solution also dramatically lessened opium production and offered a platform for keeping an eye on Pakistan, as well. We certainly won't do that with troops, because, "light" or "heavy", Bret is right that we've tried it and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because the Taliban have nothing to do with their time, their men and their other resources but fight to get back Afghanistan, and in the end they will win. We have other priorities and will NEVER commit the kinds of resources required to exterminate them.
So ... what do we do?
The reason we're in Afghanistan is because of the fear that if we're not the Taliban will just take over again and rent out land to transnational terrorists for training camps aimed at producing suicide-bombers to kill westerners in their major cities. It can't be that the Taliban murder their own people wholesale who don't conform in every aspect to their version of Shariya -- not when we leave North Korea un-invaded.
So, any true solution needs to provide rational assurances that transnational terrorists won't use Afghanistan as a base again, and it would help if that solution also dramatically lessened opium production and offered a platform for keeping an eye on Pakistan, as well. We certainly won't do that with troops, because, "light" or "heavy", Bret is right that we've tried it and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because the Taliban have nothing to do with their time, their men and their other resources but fight to get back Afghanistan, and in the end they will win. We have other priorities and will NEVER commit the kinds of resources required to exterminate them.
So ... what do we do?
7
Joe Biden offered Barack Obama an option years ago that we haven't yet tried but that offers a good chance of "success" as defined above. Obama rejected the option in favor of his "surge", and we see where that got us -- a "forever-war". That option involved effectively walling-off Afghanistan, focusing intelligence assets on reviewing everything that entered and left the country, largely by focused satellite imagery and analysis, and sending in missiles, high-level bombing or special forces to surgically take out any threat. And we bring our people home.
Consider as well that we could use the satellite imagery to identify pockets of opium production, give the locals several days of warnings, then drop smart-incendiaries on the fields from extreme high-altitude beyond their ability to shoot down our planes. Consider as well that Afghanistan isn't the only potential problematic center of Islamist terrorism, and that by building such a platform we could extend it to cover other areas -- including Pakistan.
Adding a few troops in a hopeless attempt to keep Afghanistan governments that have failed at building self-sufficiency and viability after SIXTEEN YEARS of American blood and fortune is just foolish. Bring our people home, end this "forever-war" that can't "win", and, finally, do it right. Bret wants to "contain". So contain, but do THAT right.
Consider as well that we could use the satellite imagery to identify pockets of opium production, give the locals several days of warnings, then drop smart-incendiaries on the fields from extreme high-altitude beyond their ability to shoot down our planes. Consider as well that Afghanistan isn't the only potential problematic center of Islamist terrorism, and that by building such a platform we could extend it to cover other areas -- including Pakistan.
Adding a few troops in a hopeless attempt to keep Afghanistan governments that have failed at building self-sufficiency and viability after SIXTEEN YEARS of American blood and fortune is just foolish. Bring our people home, end this "forever-war" that can't "win", and, finally, do it right. Bret wants to "contain". So contain, but do THAT right.
29
The entire terrorist training camp argument has a large element of generals fighting the last war. As we have seen in Nice, Barcelona and Charlottesville, among other places, today's terrorists using the weapons at hand, motor vehicles, are able to perpetrate their outrages without any training beyond that required to get a driver's license. Nor is a sophisticated central command needed-a radicalizing web site or diffusion through social media suffices.
Moreover, even were training camps a useful tool for terrorists to attack the West, Afghanistan is far from the only place they can be located. The world abounds with failed states-Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others. To focus on Afghanistan begs the question of why not fight equally in those and many others.
Moreover, even were training camps a useful tool for terrorists to attack the West, Afghanistan is far from the only place they can be located. The world abounds with failed states-Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others. To focus on Afghanistan begs the question of why not fight equally in those and many others.
13
I tend to agree. But firstly I think we need to alter our mindset completely and consider the region from its historical perspective. Humans have lived in that region for something like 50K years. Many believe that the region compares to Egypt in terms of the historical value of its archaeological sites. And in that time it has been a nexus region of many overarching "super power" civilization conflicts and such given its strategic location between them. So the folks there are a decidedly twitchy bunch when it comes to foreigners. Tribal and twitchy.
But Afghanistan itself is a modern construct. An artifice that the local tribal groups distain. Perhaps we need to find a way to allow the region to fracture into tribal zones; and let's the local's take care of themselves? Said 50K years of history have shown a tendency for outsiders to intrude on the locals for self-interested reasons, and it always ends badly for all involved. We need to get out of the area, seal it along the lines of NK, and let the locals sort it out. This is something nobody has tried in all those 50K years I suspect. And it may be the only way to resolve such a Gordians knot as this one.
John~
American Net'Zen
But Afghanistan itself is a modern construct. An artifice that the local tribal groups distain. Perhaps we need to find a way to allow the region to fracture into tribal zones; and let's the local's take care of themselves? Said 50K years of history have shown a tendency for outsiders to intrude on the locals for self-interested reasons, and it always ends badly for all involved. We need to get out of the area, seal it along the lines of NK, and let the locals sort it out. This is something nobody has tried in all those 50K years I suspect. And it may be the only way to resolve such a Gordians knot as this one.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
The insurmountable obstacle for the U.S. In Afghanistan Is that loyalty to warlords, ethnicities, and opium profits, all supersede any sense of loyalty to the concept of "Afghanistan".The political fault lines between ethnic groups ( their are 14 different ethnicities, the major ones being Pashtun, Tajik , Hazara, and Uzbek) and warlord entities, fuels the rampant governmental corruption, and spawns the deep cynicism of the Afghan people toward the government in Kabul, and precludes any real sense of loyalty or patriotism toward "Afghanistan" There can be no foreign induced military solution. There is only local accommodation. There has always been a xenophobic element which precludes any residual foreign influence once their armies leave.
133
Afghanistan is an incredibly hostile environment to outsiders; we will never achieve anything by putting "boots on the ground", whether 4,000 advisors/trainers or 400,000 combat soldiers. We are only condemning more Americans to die (some horribly if captured and tortured). Generals always think more force is the answer ... for once, Trump was right to resist their advice; I only wish he had kept resisting. No long-term good will come of this.
It took europe only 1000 years to go from tribalism to feudalism to kingdoms, to carnage between the catholics and protestants, to the french revolution. The french could not solve the problem of democratic rule and it took America a civil war and subsequent KKK, Jim Crow, to the european monarchies descending into WWI and then Russian revolution and then collapse of the Ottoman Empire creating Islamic caliphates in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. Then we have WW2 and the Cold war and Vietnam.
So let us not expect an instantaneous resolution to Afghanistan.
So let us not expect an instantaneous resolution to Afghanistan.
Well put, Don.
The most important aspect, "...loyalty to warlords, ethnicities, and opium profits, all supersede any sense of loyalty to the concept of 'Afghanistan,'" is a concept that we (and many Western cultures and societies) can't seem to understand.
The arc of 'civilization' moves at different paces, in different places. It's like trying to hold back the flow of a river...build a dam, but even then, there's constant pressure, and if you don't repair and maintain it regularly, there will be leaks, and it will fail. 'The physics' of civilization.
So we can fight Taliban and fool with the flow of history, a never ending fight, that really can't be won in any conventional way. It's said that people get the government they deserve, and we see that from our own revolution which resulted in The Constitution. We MAY be able to withstand the current onslaught, but it's unlikely that a society with 60% illiteracy can do that.
Sometimes we have to accept that we can't 'save' everyone, and figure out a way to lessen the damage, while not losing or damaging many valuable lives (ours and theirs), and dumping our treasure down the rat hole...without anything coming back our way except (I assume) excellent heroin.
We really haven't 'won' anything since WWII, unless you count Grenada, ;-), and yet we continue doing the same thing(s) and expecting different and better results...and we know what that's the definition of.
The most important aspect, "...loyalty to warlords, ethnicities, and opium profits, all supersede any sense of loyalty to the concept of 'Afghanistan,'" is a concept that we (and many Western cultures and societies) can't seem to understand.
The arc of 'civilization' moves at different paces, in different places. It's like trying to hold back the flow of a river...build a dam, but even then, there's constant pressure, and if you don't repair and maintain it regularly, there will be leaks, and it will fail. 'The physics' of civilization.
So we can fight Taliban and fool with the flow of history, a never ending fight, that really can't be won in any conventional way. It's said that people get the government they deserve, and we see that from our own revolution which resulted in The Constitution. We MAY be able to withstand the current onslaught, but it's unlikely that a society with 60% illiteracy can do that.
Sometimes we have to accept that we can't 'save' everyone, and figure out a way to lessen the damage, while not losing or damaging many valuable lives (ours and theirs), and dumping our treasure down the rat hole...without anything coming back our way except (I assume) excellent heroin.
We really haven't 'won' anything since WWII, unless you count Grenada, ;-), and yet we continue doing the same thing(s) and expecting different and better results...and we know what that's the definition of.
Let the Afghans take care of themselves. They've historically always managed without and in spite of foreign interventions which have only made things worse: the Maurya Empire of ancient India, Alexander the Great of Macedon, Umar, an Arab Caliphate, Genghis Khan of Mongolia, Timur of Persia and Central Asia, the Mughal Empire of India, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Sikh Empire, the Soviet Union, you name it. They all failed.
Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires! Get it???
The time to get out was when Osama Bin Laden was taken out in Pakistan. That was THE strategic moment to leave with some semblance of dignity left.
THAT was "Mission accomplished", THE MOMENT! Squandered.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” ~ H.L. MENCKEN