Why Our Mission In Afghanistan Is Doomed

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 9, 2009.

  1. Along with conservative commentators Pat Buchanan and George Will, I have concluded our mission in Aghanistan is doomed and we should withdraw. This article about Camp Keating, a remote outpost which was recently attcked and nearly overrun, makes it clear why we cannot hope to win and why it is immoral to continue to expose our troops to death. In short, our rules of engagement are a joke, apparently prompted more by concerns about politcal correctness and media relations than such factors as winning or protecting troops.

    I had previosuly read complaints that troops can only fire at insurgents they see firing at them. So if, for example, they are firing from within a house, our troops cannot return fire because of the possibility that civilians are inside the house. Now we learn that mosques are totally off limits, so they are being used as armories for insurgents. obviously the local muslim clerics and everyone in the village know what is going on, yet we treat them like innocent civilians.

    Fight to win or get out. Those are the only acceptable choices. I'd have a lot meor respect for the republican pols if they would get on board and stop supporting the sort of sappy nation-building they rightly criticized when Clinton tried it.

    from an article at http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/afghanistan-attack-kills-us-soldiers/Story?id=8759747&page=2 :

    According to an American who has consulted with U.S. forces on their deployment into Nuristan, the effort in the north can only be seen as a failure.

    "What have we done there in the last three, four years," he said. "We didn't gain anything. We weren't able to open the road up or make the area secure.

    Despite the inherent physical vulnerabilities of Camp Keating, until this weekend, the base had suffered no casualties from hostile fire. The base itself was named after Lieutenant Benjamin Keating, who was killed in vehicle accident nearby in Nov. 2006.

    But on Saturday, a force of as many as 300 insurgents attacked the vulnerable base in what the military has termed a "complex" attack that began in a neighboring village mosque. According to an Afghan translator for American forces in Nuristan, the village mosque was used to store the weapons and ammunition used in the attack. The rules of engagement generally prevent U.S. forces from searching or attacking Afghan mosques.

    According to the Afghan translator, most of the insurgents were local. Eastern Nuristan has long been filled by the insurgent group led by former mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, called Hezb-e-Islami. U.S. officials believe that Hekmatyar is hiding in Pakistan, and helps coordinate insurgent attacks throughout eastern Afghanistan.

  2. This is exactly right.
  3. There is no "Win" when the objective is destruction of the Taliban. That is and always has been a ridiculous objective. The Taliban makes up 30% of the population in Afganistan. Destoying the Taliban makes as much sense as trying to destroy Christian fundementalism in America. While its true that the end of both these philosophies would be great for the world: it isn't going to happen.

    Obama has corrected our current war objective this week by announcing that we are concerned about Al Quida: not the destruction of the Taliban. There is vigorious discussions going on in own government and our NATO allies as to the proper course to take. Many want unilateral withdrawal while others are calling for troop increases of 40,000 soldiers. I suspect that the correct course of action lies somewhere in the middle. In the MIDDLE is where Obama is governing from.
  4. Don't confuse weakness with moderation. Obama's decision will be all about politics, not about what is best for America.

    Your comparison of the taliban to Christian fundamentalists is highly offensive and displays astounding ignorance on your part.
  5. Go Drama Queen...Go Drama Queen.

  6. Tell me how the Taliban differ from Christian fundementalist? Religious intolerance is the hallmark of each group. Superstition is superstition.

    But all that aside, exactly WHAT is 'best' for America in regards to this stupid war? Also, exactly HOW do you EVER separate 'politics' from any foreign policy military or otherwise? Obama will do what's right for America and I suspect his knowledge of the situation and his world view is far wider than ours.
  7. Diference is how they spreading the " word "
    As far as i know there are no casualties reported from expansion of the fundamentalist christian movement .
    taliban on the other hand.... well, even you know the story .
  8. Tell that to the ever-growing ranks of military personnel who think they are waging a 'war for Jesus'.

    As I've pointed out numerous times on this forum, we, the USA, is responsible for far, far more deaths on this planet since 1950 than all terrorists, left or right, combined. Although the most obvious reason for this is economic, lying not-too-deep in the psych of many Americans, is the dream of spreading Christianity through conquest.

    I certainly don't approve of Taliban/Christain philosophy, Al Quida terrorism (or any other violent terrorism), but I think we should worry about the plank in our eye instead of focusing on the sawdust in the eyes of others.

    Obama won the Noble Peace Prize today because he is preaching that exact same philosophy.
    #10     Oct 9, 2009