War in Afghanistan - What to do? (opinions)

[FreezerBurns]

1. Send more troops.
2. Pull all troops.
3. Continue as is.

This is not a political poll (leave your party affiliations/rhetoric aside). This is a question of the validity of the war and how the result of it effects the world and the USA and how you believe it should be dealt with.

 

[Obsessed]

This is not a political poll (leave your party affiliations/rhetoric/reasonings aside). This is a question of the validity of the war and how the result of it effects the world and the USA and how you believe it should be dealt with.

Um, so how exactly is that not political?

(So as not to merely snipe from the sidelines, my answer is "I don't know." I just haven't had the time to give the issue the consideration it deserves.)

 

[jadam318]

Careful with this one. It could get ugly.

 

[azmark]

Yeah, I love politics but there is a time and a place for it. This is one of my safe havens where I can get away from it. We can all agree on many things and the only argument can be Cream v. Soaps.

 

[mmack66]

 

[the beav]

http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-is-protecting-afghanistans-heroin.html

 

[luvmysuper]

I got a feelin' it won't be long.

 

[Obsessed]

That's oddly mesmerizing.

 

[FreezerBurns]

Wow. This is a poll, not an argument. Vote. That's it. If you don't have an opinion, don't vote. It's nice to know you all instantly expect an inflamatory argument to break out. Did any of you even vote? Or did you just take time to go out of your way to doom the poll before anyone had a chance to vote?

 

[spanx]

One way to win this war is to use tactics of the past.How far in the past?Well this land that we call U.S.A.used to belong to another people.To do the same thing(yes it is possible) would diminish the way the world views us.So the question is, do we care what the world thinks of us?

 

[luvmysuper]

Wow. This is a poll, not an argument. Vote. That's it. If you don't have an opinion, don't vote. It's nice to know you all instantly expect an inflamatory argument to break out. Did any of you even vote? Or did you just take time to go out of your way to doom the poll before anyone had a chance to vote?

I don't think the folks are EXPECTING an inflamatory argument, I think this is their way of AVOIDING one.

 

[Fnord5]

Fight it to win it, no half measures.

 

[FreezerBurns]

Um, so how exactly is that not political?

(So as not to merely snipe from the sidelines, my answer is "I don't know." I just haven't had the time to give the issue the consideration it deserves.)

That's a good question, allow me to explain so that we can all have an accurate understanding of the poll: I'm asking for your opinion as a man/woman. Not what you heard on the news. Not what your political party demands. Not who are you going to vote for based on the war. Not what you think of the Presidents decisions. Mainly, the question is What would you do?

 

[FreezerBurns]

I don't think the folks are EXPECTING an inflamatory argument, I think this is their way of AVOIDING one.

I would think avoiding an argument would be to avoid the topic all together. This place has excellent mods, if folks can't post without being offensive they'll be dealt with accordingly. Dooming a poll to avoid an argument would mean the doomer expects an argument.

 

[mr_economy]

I haven't come to a firm decision about what change of course I support, but I do know one thing: advocating for one form of action (namely, a troop "surge") based on its success in Iraq is the hallmark of ignorance about the Middle East.

Iraq and Afghanistan were, and are, fundamentally different conflicts in fundamentally different countries. That does not mean a surge is the wrong idea, rather that there needs to be a better justification than "it worked over there."

Afghanistan is far more fragmented into a sort of tribal system than was Iraq, which makes determining and taking advantage of power balances more difficult. The "Sunni Awakening" is credited with helping in Iraq at a crucial time, and we have been able to buy the allegiance of many religious leaders who at one point were a thorn in our sides. This is not so easy to do in Afghanistan, and is not helped by the severe underfunding and lack of manpower throughout the entire conflict.

Also crucial is public perception of the US in Afghanistan. As the conflict has drawn on, many who at first supported the overthrow of the Taliban have come to see US and NATO forces as occupiers. A resistance movement that was initially mostly religious in nature is now fueled by both radical Islamist groups and a healthy dose of nationalism. It's worth noting that IEDs were relatively rare (though sometimes found) in Afghanistan before NATO forces started an aggressive crackdown on the light insurgence that existed shortly after overthrowing the Taliban. The casualties and numbers of attacks against US forces skyrocketed after that strategy.

The border with Pakistan is porous at best, and the Pakistani government has not shown nearly enough initiative in gaining control over its lawless Waziristan region. We need to be careful to ensure that a 'victory' in Afghanistan would not simply mean pushing the opposition forces into Pakistan, which could cause dangerous instability in a nuclear power locked in a sometimes intense cold war with another nuclear power, India. I don't think I fully agree with Joe Biden's advocacy regarding Afghanistan, but I think he's spot on that our greatest national security threat exists in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

The article on heroin raises an important issue as well. A staple of American political strategy since Clinton defeated Bush Sr has been, "it's the economy stupid." Afghanistan happens to be the world's third poorest country, and much of the income its citizens can eke out comes from growing the poppy used to make heroin. The Taliban protected Afghan poppy crops, and US strategy as of late has been to destroy them as part of the global war on drugs. Taking away the sole livelihood of someone already on the verge of starvation is not a good way to win favor with the locals, but it is a great way to stoke the flames of nationalist resentment.

More than boots, guns, and bombs, I think we need men and women who know how to build nations. Both missions in Iraq and Afghanistan accomplished their initial overthrow missions with breathtaking speed - a testament to the power and awesomeness of our armed forces - but we simply did not have the right strategy or enough personnel for nation building. Actually, I think we did have the right initial strategy in Afghanistan - but a "little distraction" to the West consumed too many resources for too long, and that initial strategy could not hold. The problems in Afghanistan are as much political as they are military in nature, and any change in policy will have to improve on both fronts.

 

[castlecraver]

Guys... re-lax. Lately, these threads have done a good job of running their course and then petering out into off-topic-land. My colleagues and I will address it if things get out of hand. Just answer the question I guess and don't argue about... um... the possibility of arguing.

Not that I want to get involved in the discussion, but I will point out that sending more troops and removing all troops aren't the only options. Surely the latter is the goal we all want to reach at some point, but I'm guessing the OP's question is presenting more of a near-term decision?

 

[The Nid Hog]

Come on man. How is this not political? I wouldn't go over to the Council on Foreign Relations website and start a thread debating soap over cream. Don't start something like this here.

 

[FreezerBurns]

Guys... re-lax. Lately, these threads have done a good job of running their course and then petering out into off-topic-land. My colleagues and I will address it if things get out of hand. Just answer the question I guess and don't argue about... um... the possibility of arguing.

Not that I want to get involved in the discussion, but I will point out that sending more troops and removing all troops aren't the only options. Surely the latter is the goal we all want to reach at some point, but I'm guessing the OP's question is presenting more of a near-term decision?

That's correct. It's been weeks since the request from the military was made for more troops. The question is simply, what would you do?

 

[airplanedoc]

I'm asking for your opinion as a man/woman. Not what you heard on the news. Not what your political party demands. Not who are you going to vote for based on the war. Not what you think of the Presidents decisions. Mainly, the question is What would you do?

If we had all the resources to make such a decision, not just what the news feeds us mushrooms more of us would be able to answer the question.

Q. Can we win and what resources will it consume?
A. I think there are many historical arguments that would not be in our favor. On the other hand if given the resources and decsion making, the US military is a quite powerful force.

Q. What are the ramifications if we pull out?
Q. Who will fill the void if we pull out?
Q. Afganastan may be the place but who are we really fighting?
Q. Can we win the hearts and minds of the Afgan tribes, if so how?
Q. What do the generals and guys on the ground really need, want, and think about the situation? Not the BS they spew in news clips to keep out of the brig?
Q. How do we get the decision making out of Washington, and into the people who need to be making decisions onth ground or at least in the region?

Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc

 

[Obsessed]

I wouldn't go over to the Council on Foreign Relations website and start a thread debating soap over cream.

Actually, it would be interesting to see how they'd react.