the day Karzai was installed was the day we needed to say- mission accomplished- and left. Only a fool would stay. Bush was that fool. Will Obama be the next?
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2008 09:55 AMAnd the alternative is what? Well?
Neither you, or the Times article you link to even bother to make the attempt at offering one.
Posted by snark at December 2, 2008 10:01 AMThe United States must enlist the help of Iran, Pakistan and India and enter into negotiations to bring moderate Pashtun elements of the Taliban into the political process. The Karzai government is widely regarded as corrupt and ineffective. No amount of additonal troops will give "our man in Kabul" the necessary credibility to govern the entire country.
It may mean an end to our attempts to isolate Iran with regard to energy distribution routes and to the vilification of Iran's leadership. Which, of course, is counter to the Israeli centric nature of the Unites States's Middle Eastern foreign policy.
Posted by brisa at December 2, 2008 10:57 AMthis may be off topic, but not by much. how is it that obama is getting well, not exactly blasted by the press for punting on most of his policy answers? he said succintly and correctly that there is only one president at a time. bush is awol, but continues to get a pass as we all are looking to obama for answers. his transistion team put together his cabinet faster than i can remember it happening (if i am wrong i can accept the correction)the market pretty much responded positively to his financial advisors. now this mubai travesty and well, where's bush? he's the president til jan 20, no? i get it that obama needs to answer some questions, but the pointed ones? that is for the president. someone help me here.
thanks
--anthony
btw he's said the war should never have left afghanistan. now it too is fubar. we will be cleaning up g.w's mess for quite some time. we had a coalition helping us there, but that pretty much evaporated, i lay that on g.w's feet...
Posted by anthony at December 2, 2008 01:19 PMNone of those efforts will be aided by our pulling military forces out of Afghanistan.
Posted by snark at December 2, 2008 01:21 PM "I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that the free Iraq is in this nation's interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest."
George W. Bush
"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 and go to your gawd like a soldier."
Rudyard Kipling
why are we in Afghanistan? Went there to chase the Taliban/Bin Laden to punish them for 9/11. We had the Taliban disrupted before Bush diverted to Iraq. Whether or not we actually had Bin Laden and let him escape is unknown. Whether he's actually every been there is unknown. The Taliban, like all groups of that nature, will reform as soon as their adversaries let them, which we did. So are we still there to get Bin Laden? Still there to disrupt the Taliban? Are those the only goals? Are those still valid goals pertaining to the safety of our nation? I don't see a reason to be there any longer, just as there is/never was a reason to be in Iraq. How does it benefit us to the point of keeping an unending military role there?
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2008 01:53 PMWhether he's actually every been there is unknown.
In Afghanistan? You really think that's in doubt?
Are those the only goals? Are those still valid goals pertaining to the safety of our nation?
Trying to foster a viable state in place of a failed state that serves as a refuge for the thugs of the world?
Or do you believe that if we just throw the term "imperialist" infront of every reference to the United States involvement in the region and roll up back within our own borders the rest of the scumbags of the world will all get together in one big peaceful refrain of kumbaya? We can't even trust our own CEO's and politicians to "do the right thing" but some of you talk like the rest of the world consists of nothing but virtueous souls who's only taint of malice is a result of American imperialism.
How does going back to a defacto Afghanistan as it existed on 9/11/2001 aid the US, or the world, for that matter? Because if we pick up and leave that's where we'll be.
Posted by snark at December 2, 2008 02:15 PMsnark, you echo the Bush Administrations excuse for staying in Iraq forever. What is your suggestion? How about this- declare war and have a draft, send hundreds of thousands of American kids to Afghanistan with all the armor and air support they need to kill everybody that even looks like an....well, Afghani. Yeah, and raise taxes on everyone to pay for it. Cause that's what it will take and then some...ask any Russian.
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2008 02:48 PMI thought we were talking about Afghanistan? What does the Bush Administrations desire in Iraq have to do with Afghanistan? Do you think they are the same place? We could have all our personell out of Iraq in 12 months and Iraq would still be a viable state. After some rather distasteful ugliness more than likely.
I'm not the one proposing that we have nothing to gain by staying in Afghanistan. You and paradox are. So what is your plan for when it becomes a power vacuum that attracts all the vilest forms of human scum in the region and continues to destabilize the entire region? I agree with brisa's comments. Just don't see how any of that is served by our leaving. Not unless you have absolutely no concern that our interests be served what so ever. Do you think our president should have no concern as to whether our interests are served in that region?
Posted by snark at December 2, 2008 03:41 PMIt isn't about Afghanistan, it is about Pakistan. It isn't about permanent occupation; it is about stabilizing regional Afghan non-Taliban government and the central Pakistan government. If Pakistan goes extremist we have a destabilized Asia and potential nuclear conflict. That is pretty scary stuff.
Posted by allansfca at December 2, 2008 05:00 PMIt appeared that the Bush strategy was to invade Afghanistan to the East and Iraq to the West, place hardened bases in each and wait for Iran to accept a new paradigm. This had failed by 2004 and Iran actually wound up reaping benefits out of the deal. Now, there is only one main road in Afghanistan and our forces largely do not control it; the Taliban does.
The only graceful exit, to me, is to negotiate terms with the regional powers for our withdrawl while brokering a new Palestinian state. This seems remote now.
Afghanistan has been left with a shattered economy, a weak government, and a resurgent Taliban. The idea that a democratic republic will flourish there or in Iraq is an impossibility. This has been the most astounding foreign policy blunder of our age, and the failure depletes the opportunity for any future administration to exert a positive will in this arena.
The accomplishments and bravery of the U.S armed forces was exemplary. However, the Commander-in-Chief failed to leverage their victories into anything sustainable. George Bush lost the War on Terrorism. History, I think, will remember.
Snark ask good questions folks. The Afghan theater is supported by all things UN. It's the war they sanctioned, just like Iraq 1990-91. The fact that UN troops are there makes it..."the good war". Karzai is doing his best, the will of these people are weaker than those in Iraq. The Taliban crushed their will for years. It will take a long time to repair this society. And leaving will be criminal to those we left behind.
Our president isn't awol, he's advising the president-elect on everything he's doing. He's a responsible person and fulfilling his sworn duty. He's also trying not to tie Obama's hands up with his moves. Petraeus is running CentCom, the ground units are still being lead. There is not a loss of command authority. No vacuum. And Gates will be there throughout this time. Obama will be well served by our military.
As always, those on the left don't have plans, just get out. Right now our loses are low. There's a lull in the action...it's too damned cold. Our new president will be sworn in well before the springtime offensive starts. He will have his imprint on what actions take place. Let's see where he takes us.
I like his people...so far, let's give him the chance he deserves. Get behind him, encourage him to make good/great decisions for all concerned. And please, don't just tell him to get out. He deserves better, our soldiers deserve better, and the Afghan people deserve better.
Posted by peter at December 2, 2008 08:08 PMThe best way to fight terrorists is to not give them any money. Energy here at home. Nuclear power to create electricity for the next generation of vehicles.
Imagine if oil income dropped to $0 for the OPEC countries?
Posted by Muck at December 2, 2008 08:38 PMEver since the invasion of Iraq you all here at the left coaster have said we need to be fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan and that President Bush tool his eye off the ball. Now when it is abot to be the focalpoint you so desperately wanted it to be in post after post you now say don't do it pull out cut and run we can't win. Sounds so familar i wondser if we will see massive anti-war protests at Obama's events in the coming months as he decides in the face of the unfiltered integlligence that we need to stay in Iraq and that we need to win in Afganistan to win. Time will tell it at least will be said we lived in interesting times even if was in the decline of the west
Posted by Avenger D-12 at December 2, 2008 08:56 PMSpot on.
I supported us going in there in the first place but after Bush screwed the pooch on that (sorry, pooch) on purpose probably it was time to leave, say thank you very much and get the whole world involved in fixing the place.
We could have started by giving aid (always a conservative anathema), helping people and not killing more people. Instead we sent in more troops, got involved in the drug trade and generally made a terrible mess of the place thereby guaranteeing another bunch of terrorists will get created in a decade if not already. Gee, ain't we so smart!
Pull out of Iraq. Pull out of Afghanistan. Fix our own country and actually be a good neighbor for a (very big) change.
Posted by gmknobl at December 2, 2008 09:41 PMMuck asks us to imagine all the OPEC countries with no oil revenue. Here's what I see in that scenario. Millions of destitute Muslims like putty in the hands of extremists. Good thinking Muck.
Posted by snark at December 3, 2008 04:15 AMImagine if oil income dropped to $0 for the OPEC countries?
Posted by Muck at December 2, 2008 08:38 PM
Better yet - imagine if we could all get a pony and a unicorn for Solstice! Or, imagine if we actually counted the votes in 2000 and actually elected the winner of that election, and the last eight years of the american national nightmare was all just a bad dream!
Oh - and IMHO Afghanistan is right royally Cheneyed now. Putsch took an international coalition, overwhelming favorability ratings and respect for teh ewe ess eh, and a clear and relatively straight forward mission, and screwed them all up big time. If the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter had a shred of intelligence or morals it might have gone a bit better...
Posted by (: Tom :) at December 3, 2008 05:44 AMIn October,the UK's commander in Afghanistan said we should not expect "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.
Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.
He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.
When international troops eventually leave Afghanistan, there may still be a "low but steady" level of rural insurgency, he conceded.
He said it was unrealistic to expect that multinational forces would be able to wipe out armed bands of insurgents in the country.
Set this (from someone in the know)against Obama's talk of going in and destroying the baddies. The original invasion was motivated solely by revenge, not by any desire to improve the lives of the inhabitants. One of the chief changes since has been, according to what I've read, the tremendous growth in drug production. So much for the "war on drugs" (remember that?)
Snark, "your interests" can take a hike. The whole world is not to be run by the US in its own interests. As I said, you invaded Afghanistan solely for revenge after 9/11. (Why did we tag along? Ask Tony Blair). It wasn't for anyone's "interests". Hopefully, for a while the USA won't be able to AFFORD to keep trying to run the world, a task (nay, a mission!)formerly pursued by the British.
As for the gospel of stability, I find some of Obama's rhetoric about pursuing the bad guys on the border a bit worrying. De-stabilize Pakistan, and you have real problems. Unlike Iraq, they actually have got nuclear weapons.
gee snark, you think the Afghans are going to tolerate a foreign army of occupation? that worked really well in Iraq, didn't it
American arrogance ("exceptionalism") is truly amazing. We think we have the right to do whatever we want whenever we want to whoever we want.
Posted by gay veteran at December 3, 2008 11:08 AM"In October,the UK's commander in Afghanistan said we should not expect "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan."
Didn't we hear this before in Iraq? So much for experts. Petraeus and company have yet to be heard from. I like our chances.
Snark, "your interests" can take a hike.
With all due respect Colin, it's the job of the president of the United States to conduct our foreign policy in our national interest. I didn't ask anyone to like it. Don't expect you to either. Fact of the matter is Afghanistan is a failed state. It was in 2001 and that fact was used to their advantage by the people who attacked the United States in 2001. The Taliban was given the opportunity to cooperate and turn over bin Laden. They either chose or were unable to cooperate. So you can call our actions in Afghanistan "revenge" if it satisfies some need to vilify all things American if you must. Perhaps you're one of those people who thinks that the world would be one big picnic if not for the big bad USA? I am not.
Posted by snark at December 3, 2008 11:13 AMgee snark, you think the Afghans are going to tolerate a foreign army of occupation? that worked really well in Iraq, didn't it
Did I say the Afghan people were going to like it? No, I didn't.
American arrogance ("exceptionalism") is truly amazing. We think we have the right to do whatever we want whenever we want to whoever we want.
Yeah....yawn.
it's the job of the president of the United States to conduct our foreign policy in our national interest.
After 8 years of that not being the goal, it's actually good to see that we just might start.
The original invasion was motivated solely by revenge
Only for the ones who saw it as that. But it's good to know that this meme has spread 'round the world. Which is prolly why those in power don't listen to the little people. They really don't know what they're talking about sometimes.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 11:35 AMPeter, what do you mean "So much for experts"? Don't you think a senior soldier in the actual country might know what he was talking about?
Snark and imcoyote, you don't like my saying the Afghanistan invasion was motivated by revenge. What the hell was the reason, then? Bush wanted Bin Laden's head on a platter. Didn't he use something like that very phrase? He had to be seen to do something after the Trade Center attack; he'd have been to say the least unpopular at home if he didn't. After the invasion, we and no doubt you folks were invited by the media to pat ourselves on the back for freeing the Afghans from the tyranny of the Taleban - a tyranny which had gone on for some time already without talk of any military action. Why is it vilifying America to say it was revenge? It's the simple truth. Not for a moment would I say Americans ought not to have felt vengeful, but as with Iraq the response was launched without thinking through to the aftermath. The original conquest of Afghanistan by hardline Muslims wasn't exactly stopped in its tracks by the West. After all, the other side was a bit friendly with the Russians, wasn't it? And Satan himself couldn't be too bad if the Russians were on the other side, right?
And of course the American government's first responsibility is to their own people, but all too often this seems to carry the supplemental "and be damned to everyone else". I love it when supporters of Bush point out that nobody has died from terrorism on American soil since 9/11. This must be a great consolation to the relatives of those who died in London and Madrid, for example.
you don't like my saying the Afghanistan invasion was motivated by revenge. What the hell was the reason, then?
I can't speak for snark, Colin, and definitely attacking Afghanistan was sold as a revenge thing, I just don't believe that that was Bush's or Blair's real motivation. To them, 9/11 was an opportunity to enact PNAC policy. It's spelled out in their readily available charter online. It's known as the catalyst, I believe. Also, there was some dispute about gas pipelines, which pissed off the Taliban in the summer of 2001. Whole 'nother set of extenuating circumstances.
Bush wanted Bin Laden's head on a platter.
No he didn't, he just said he did because that's what a lot of people around the world wanted, and he needed them to look to the US for leadership. So Cheney could enact PNAC policy. Bin Laden was more valuable running loose; a bogey man to stoke fear, and engender trust from a traumatized public.
He had to be seen to do something after the Trade Center attack; he'd have been to say the least unpopular at home if he didn't.
That's what I'm saying. They used that to their advantage.
After the invasion, we and no doubt you folks were invited by the media to pat ourselves on the back for freeing the Afghans from the tyranny of the Taleban
Well, of course, and a lot of people believed it. They pushed that line way harder though, after their WMD excuse for invading Iraq collapsed.
Why is it vilifying America to say it was revenge?
No one said it was, did they? I was just saying that there's more to the story than how the invasion of Afghanistan was sold to the US and world at large to get support for a policy they were already planning to enact with regards to the Middle East. Under the guise of getting revenge for 9-11, they were able to get all our ships and troops ready for the invasion of Iraq. Worked, too, though the plan was totally obvious at the time. No one called 'em on it. Tragic, really.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 06:04 PMActually, I said it was vilifying because it was.
As I said, you invaded Afghanistan solely for revenge after 9/11. (Why did we tag along? Ask Tony Blair). It wasn't for anyone's "interests". -Colin.
That's what Colin wrote. He believes that the United States had no compelling interest other than revenge in striking back against those who attacked it. So, if the only motivation was revenge I think it's fair to say that Colin's statement was intended to vilify the US. Here's a concept that could also be applied to the invasion of Afghanistan, justice. The United States, working through the UN, sought redress for the 9/11 attacks from the Afghan authorities, the Taliban, on whose territory the attacks were planned and who willingly harbored those who planned the attacks. The Taliban refused so the UN sanctioned the United States to seek redress through military action. Again, you may not like it. You may disagree. But the United States was not acting solely out of revenge. Colin noted the fact that the Taliban had been in brutal control of Afghanistan for some time and the United States did nothing. Until it was attacked. This can only mean the US acted solely in revenge, he says. Bullshit. The US had no cause to do anything about the Taliban under international law before the 9/11 attacks. In fact, had they done anything Colin probably would have been around here griping about how the United States thinks it can go anywhere and do anything it wants to anybody whenever it wants. The 9/11 attacks, and the Taliban's refusal to assist the UN in bringing the perpetrators to justice constituted a casus belli. It was definitely in the interest of the United States to bring to justice those who attacked it on 9/11. To not seek to do so would have seriously damaged it's national interests.
Again, I know many who comment here seem to think that all things bad in the world somehow eminate solely from the US and that the world would be a big happy group hug if not for the US. I simply disagree.
Posted by snark at December 4, 2008 05:45 AMSo it wasn't revenge, it was "redress through military action"? Both the same thing. Congratulations on a truly American mastery of euphemism.
Before 9/11, the US "had no cause to do anything about the Taliban under international law." There are two answers to that. Firstly, if that is the case, can we not drop the (amazingly successful)propaganda that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both missions of mercy to free the populations from evil regimes and bring freedom and democracy to the countries. Secondly,your regard for "international law" doe not seem to have been shared by the US government over the years. For example, in 1989 Panama was invaded to make possible the kidnapping of Manuel Noriega. Lots of civilians were killed, but the US subsequently vetoed Security Council and General Assembly resolutions condemning the invasion. In 2003, in "Foreign Affairs", one Michael J Glennon of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, whatever that might be, was straightforward enough to say that international law and the UN Charter are a lot of "hot air", and should be eliminated because they restrict the ability of the United States to use force. Whatever you might say, I am not in fact anti-America. What the US has done for very many decades is just what Britain did before, and I would have condemned my own government just as sincerely for doing so. If you think I'm just anti-American, just ask me for a paragraph or two on what I think of Tony Blair, and his pathetic attempt to pick up some scraps of the glory he presumably thought would be earned by the invasion of Iraq
Yecch, that reads badly! Perhaps remove "just" a few times and substitute "merely".
Posted by Colin at December 4, 2008 06:31 AMSo it wasn't revenge, it was "redress through military action"? Both the same thing. Congratulations on a truly American mastery of euphemism.
Following your reasoning, seeking redress for any wrong is nothing more than revenge. Congratulations on your mastery of absurdity.
There are two answers to that. Firstly, if that is the case, can we not drop the (amazingly successful)propaganda that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both missions of mercy to free the populations from evil regimes and bring freedom and democracy to the countries.
That is not an answer to the fact that the US had no cause to do anything about deposing the Taliban prior to the 9/11 attacks. It's simply a strawman. An argument that I have never advanced and make no claim to agreeing with.
Secondly,your regard for "international law" doe not seem to have been shared by the US government over the years.
Again, that is not an answer to what I stated. Another strawman. We might just as well debate the fact that I drive a Honda. It has as much relevance to our reasons and justifications for going into Afghanistan as does the invasion of Panama.
Whatever you might say, I am not in fact anti-America. What the US has done for very many decades is just what Britain did before, and I would have condemned my own government just as sincerely for doing so.
I didn't call you anti-America.
If you think I'm just anti-American, just ask me for a paragraph or two on what I think of Tony Blair, and his pathetic attempt to pick up some scraps of the glory he presumably thought would be earned by the invasion of Iraq.
Again, I did not call you anti-America. Try and follow along. But in any event, I don't see how your being opposed to Tony Blair is supposed to be a counter agrument to a charge of being anti-America? (A charge I did not make.) I don't see how claiming you don't like "A" demonstrates that you like "B".
Posted by snark at December 4, 2008 06:43 AMRedress in the sense of taking someone o court and seeing a fine or prison sentence imposed on them BY THE COURT is one thing. Redress through YOUR OWN military action is another. How is it different from, say, the guy next door hitting your kid and you calling on him and punching him out? Revenge!
My point about invading and not invading and the Taliban, was not a strawman argument. What I meant was, I was relieved to see you say that America had no reason previously to attack said Taliban. In other words, the invasion was not a mission of mercy to the local inhabitants. Maybe you haven't claimed that it was, but the pro-invasion lobby here and in the US have certainly tried to perform an Orwellian retrospective adjustment of motives. So now I know at least one (your good self)isn't trying to do so.
For Pete's sake, I wasn't comparing the actual invasions of Panama and Afghanistan. I was merely pointing out that the US has often enough ignored the international law you invoke in discussing the later event.
You didn't call me anti-American? Not in those exact words,but you did say "many who comment here seem to think that all things bad in the world somehow emanate solely from the U.S." Since that was in a reply to my remarks, I'd say it was pretty close to calling me anti-American.
If Peter is still around, this is for him:on Dec 3, in reply to my quote, you wrote -
"In October,the UK's commander in Afghanistan said we should not expect "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan."
Didn't we hear this before in Iraq? So much for experts. Petraeus and company have yet to be heard from. I like our chances.
Indeed we did hear it in Iraq, and who said it? PETRAUS, matey, that's who! He said:
recent security gains were "not irreversible" and the US still faced a "long struggle".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that had to be addressed".
Still optimistic?
Redress in the sense of taking someone o court and seeing a fine or prison sentence imposed on them BY THE COURT is one thing.
Did the US, through the UN not seek to have the Taliban turn over, or allow us access to Afghan territory to apprehend, bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11?
Redress through YOUR OWN military action is another.
And when someone ignores a court order and the authorities need to forcibly take a person into custody does that action then become revenge? Ludacris.
How is it different from, say, the guy next door hitting your kid and you calling on him and punching him out? Revenge!
If you can't see the difference between the scenario you just described and what the US did before going into Afghanistan then I really have nothing else to discuss with you. Your neighbor analogy is just silly.
My point about invading and not invading and the Taliban, was not a strawman argument. What I meant was, I was relieved to see you say that America had no reason previously to attack said Taliban. In other words, the invasion was not a mission of mercy to the local inhabitants. Maybe you haven't claimed that it was, but the pro-invasion lobby here and in the US have certainly tried to perform an Orwellian retrospective adjustment of motives. So now I know at least one (your good self)isn't trying to do so.
And when did you stop beating your wife?
For Pete's sake, I wasn't comparing the actual invasions of Panama and Afghanistan. I was merely pointing out that the US has often enough ignored the international law you invoke in discussing the later event.
The two situations are completely irrelevant to one another. Must I defend every action previously taken by the US in order to defend the invasion of Afghanistan?
You didn't call me anti-American? Not in those exact words,but you did say "many who comment here seem to think that all things bad in the world somehow emanate solely from the U.S." Since that was in a reply to my remarks, I'd say it was pretty close to calling me anti-American.
Sorry, I don't equate being critical of the US with being anti-American. That's a conservative trait. I'm not a conservative.