Attila the Fun! wrote:....our mission should be to knock out the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan and make sure that the Taliban can't return to centralized power. And guess what? We've done both those things.
Really? The Taliban seem to still have us bogged down in Afghanistan, so I highly doubt this. As for Al-Qaeda, they'll return, and if not there, then somewhere else; but, as soon as we leave, they'll most likely return. The US can't quell their ideas and the US doesn't have the ability to fully remove and prevent them from returning. (Sure, we CAN do this, but how many Americans would support a huge, costly war in AFG? Oh, and how bout a draft, guys? Therefore, we're unable to this).
The central government of crazy religious thugs has been replaced by a government of crazy oil thugs, and they're not likely to let the Taliban in on their turf anytime soon (and we call this progress). Afghanistan will return to a state of constant warring parties, blood feuds, and other fun stuff. But it won't be a staging ground for more attacks, so that's a plus.
Which faction(s) would you label as oil thugs?
And, the central government will likely let the Taliban back in because after the large international military presence leaves, they'll be unable to stop them, or any other faction, from resuming the long-waged war there.
What central government has been replaced? The Taliban has never fully--perhaps mainly--controlled AFG.
The main reason the newly installed central government still functions in very limited areas is due to the American and international presence of armed forces. Without them, they'll fail, and who knows whether or not AFG will become another staging ground. I think it will since no one single military faction will control all of Afghanistan, so it'll be very easy for any terrorist organization to base themselves in some secluded mountain in the territory of some local warlord who's busy killing other warlords' armies. Besides, one can argue that the staging ground for 9/11 was based in US territory considering that US companies trained them how to fly, so a "staging ground" can be anywhere. As for a full-fledged training camp for terrorists? Well, as soon as we leave Afghanistan, they'll most likely spring up, since it can't be effectively stopped. And you've mentioned something much earlier about the use of drone attacks, but forget about drone attacks, whose main factor of efficiency comes from nearby intelligence and information which is transferred mainly through our military, so that we don't have to rely on Pakistan's. Imagine what happens to the efficiency of drone attacks after we leave? I'd say it wouldn't work so great. Even the CIA's failed assassination attempt against Bin Laden via cruise missiles didn't work (good lord, I can't recall when that was, late 1990s maybe?), and it had great intelligence for being so far removed from the area. Also, drone attacks alone can only do so much. Without the large international military presence there, the United States wouldn't be able to exert so much direct influence and prevent many things from occurring in the region.
Now, the big critique of all this is that by drone bombing civilians and breaking up families in Pakistani cities, we're creating more terrorists. That might be fair, but then tell me: how the hell would 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan be any better?
20,000 more isn't sufficient; this is Obama's attempt at appeasing both parties. This is a botched attempt and will fail. McChrystal most likely needs about 30,000-40,000, but then it depends on how much more involved militarily we want to become. We could use 200,000 and significantly change things in AFG, but with heavy casualties, and only a select few want this.
Actually, we mainly create anti-American sentiment and lend credence to many terrorist organizations' hatred directed at the United States due to our policy of maintaining the
status quo with the Middle East. We support oppressive, undemocratic regimes like the Gulf monarchies (especially Saudi Arabia), Egypt, and several others, and our past history of supporting Iran's shah, and many other similar governments and equally scandalous incidents have severely damaged our reputation as a nation that respects human rights and the spread of democracy in that region. The United States government largely perpetuates what it is trying to end: terrorism. Why? Well, it's a great way to justify the Pentagon's budget as well other departments of "Defense." If they need enemies, they'll get 'em.
Woodruff wrote:We broke it (ok, so it was already pretty cracked), so let's fix it.
If you want to fix things, send the Red Crescent. If you want to keep breaking things, send the Marines.[/quote]
Red Crescent isn't going to fix anything because it and many other organizations cannot effectively address AFG's main problems.
AFG's been at war for decades with foreign countries and with themselves. It's best to get out since the American people in general will not support a war that might effectively end Taliban control (and other potential enemies of America's foreign policy planners) because it would cost too much in American blood. If not the Taliban, there's nothing stopping any other equally religiously fanatical or extremist group from taking over the reins. Also, the US doesn't have the moral banner to wave high above our heads to justify continued war and engaging in more intense activity within AFG. Perhaps, the USA just wanted to further destabilize things in the region for a number of reasons:
Iran will face more economic pressure and and other-related troubles due to having two unstable neighbors on its borders. These two wars also have the effect of intimidating other nations by flexing our muscles--the "Look what we can do! We can smash any country around here, and there's nothing nobody can do about it" kind of mentality (imagine how much anti-American sentiment that alone stirs up). Also by pushing AFG's Taliban and other military factions into Pakistan, we destabilize Pakistan which then makes them more dependent on US economic aid (weapon imports=more money for us; that $1.5bn per year for 5 year deal is likely to be accepted by Pakistan). This puts them in our pocket, and once they're in there, they ain't never coming out (not exactly, but I like the quote
). Destabilizing Pakistan and increasing their dependence on our economic aid also scores a few brownie points with India.
The United States does not want to spend the money and blood in making AFG a stable and strong nation when it leaves. The US government wants it weak. Why? How unsettling would it be for America to have Canada and Mexico loosely controlled by several competing military factions (within their respective domains of course) and constantly pouring in refugees to American borders and constantly disrupting trade and creating more tension within America? This would cause us a hell of a lot of problems. Which is why many top-level US military planners most likely believe that by having two destabilized countries on Iran's border it becomes a really good thing for America's "national interests." Also, these unstable countries now further justify pouring in more economic aid (weapons) into not only Pakistan but also the surrounding countries.
We're just raking in the immediate benefits and creating many more problems in the long run for us and for others. But how many Americans care to look this far? ...
Also, GabonX stated something about Iran and Al-Qaeda cooperating together or something like it. But, seeing that Bin Laden has publicly denounced Shi'a Islam as heretical, I find it hard to believe that the Iranian government would in any way help Al-Qaeda...
