The only real solution is for all of us to all embrace opium and become dope addicts. Last year, Afghanistan produced nearly 4000 tons of opium, about 75 percent of the world's supply.

Freedom and democracy here and abroad demands a numb population that is too stoned to know how they are being swindled.

How many did the USSR have there?

Gen. Dan McNeill, who recently finished a 16-month tour as NATO commander in Afghanistan, said last week that we need 400,000 troops to control the country.

Fire his ass!

He's worse than Shinseki.

"...reached by telephone.." ???

How many did the USSR have there?
And, how many did they lose there, over how many years? Oh well, two wars are better (for getting re-elected) than one...

The Russians are loving this. While their economy, such as it is, is flush with oil money, our is tanking and we're mired in two unwinable occupations just as they were in the 1980s. The more things change . . .

The Russians are loving this. While their economy, such as it is, is flush with oil money, our is tanking and we're mired in two unwinable occupations just as they were in the 1980s. The more things change ...

Does that mean Obama may be our Gorbachev? (If so, he better not choose a potential Putin as his running mate.)

We have plenty of troops to stabilize Afghanistan.

They're just in Iraq.

"get started" ?

it's been 6 fucking years.

this is exactly why i thought, from the very start, that Iraq would be a colossal fuck-up; it was perfectly obvious back in 2002/3 that we weren't capable of even handling Afghanistan correctly.

The following maybe helpful for those not familiar with the Soviet Invasion of 1979. Some of the lessons are applicable for the US in 2008.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us8.pdf

Perpetuawar. Now in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Maybe it is time for Iran to join the club.

Look at the map. No wonder Cheyney wants brazillions of bases throughout the region.

The War on Terror will be fought for centuries unless intelligent discourse joins the fray.

Our economy (as a whole) is suffering from the desert/mountain wars in the region. It's quite possible that the global economy has suffered upwards of 6 trillion dollars on this mindset (costs of energy, etc.).

It's as if waging peace is passe.

We went into Afghanistan with FURY after 9/11, yet we helped create the Taliban.

Now the Taliban rises again.

Perpetuawar. God Bush us All!

Someone decided that invading Iraq and then strutting around in a goddam flightsuit was more important than actually accomplishing a, you know, mission.

Someone else needs to be thinking about history will look back at this.

Our political leadership, in their wisdom, believes that battling opium production is as important, if not more important, than battling the Taliban. You can't make this stuff up.

Fire his ass! He's worse than Shinseki. Posted by: lobbygow

Other than the fact that Shinseki was talking about Iraq and correct, you're right.

Afghanistan cannot be conquered or controlled. Westerners have been making this mistake for nearly two-hundred years.

No amount of foreign force can stabilize Afghanistan. Only genocide can pacify Afghanistan.

Our political leadership is dealing the heroin, using special forces troops to protect its distribution. When one of the special forces members objected to the drug dealing, he was shot twice in the forehead.

Interesting compare-and-contrast of stories on the Taliban here:

http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2008/06/taliban-take-district-or-not

While Afghanistan has often been considered the "good war" in this whole mess, once again the Bush gang screwed it up.

It's as if they have no clue of what other armies have gone through when trying to take the place over. Hell, Bush could have asked his BFF, Vlad "Poison" Putin about how hard it is to deal with the place, no matter how much modern equipment is used. It just ain't easy.

On the bright side, the market is flooded with heroin, so they've got that going for them ...

**bangs head on desk**

The United States will always try to exert influence and achieve favorable outcomes in its relationship with other nations. Is that the problem, that being "always"? I assume every single nation and political organization on the planet has a minder somewhere within our government, with positions and actions advocated periodically. "Doing nothing" is probably frowned upon as a policy suggestion whether our meddling and intrusions are needed, helpful, welcome or wise. MYOB is an inoperative intelligence product when your superiors deem EVERYTHING their business.

We can easily get 400000 mercenaries from the neighboring countries like India and Pakistan to fight our war, and at much lower cost.

I am sure that GWB got a tutorial from the Brits on how to control a country even as large as India with less than ten thousand colonialists.

So whatever is causing Kevin to be so pessimistic is not a long term situation, and our President will solve the problem in 6 days, 4 weeks, two months max, I doubt four months.

Relax. President McCain will start with a clean slate in January 2009, with prosperity at home and peace abroad.

Jeff II nailed it. George W. Bush = the American Nero. Fiddling while America burns....

Well, if they want a set-piece battle, that'd be good news. That we could win.

Pacifying the country? Sigh.

We wouldn't have to work so damned hard to "pacify" Afghanistan if we weren't so determined to prevent the people there from growing the plants they want to grow. There is no limit to human stupidity . Maybe I will vote for Bob Barr.

If the Taliban are proposing to fight NATO and Afghan government troops in a set piece battle, they will be militarily defeated again, just as they were in 2001. Air power will do the trick again. There will not be enough NATO or Afghan troops to pursue or cut off the survivors, or to retake and hold the regained territory. There wil also be considerable collateral damage, with no available resources to repair it.

Still one questions the inability of the Taliban to figure out that fighting a comparatively low-grade insurgent campaign for years is far better than attempting to fight a stand-up conventional battle against a conventional foe. A potential opportunity for NATO and Afghan forces, if they can follow up.

There is no limit to human stupidity. Maybe I will vote for Bob Barr.

Folks, you can't make up comedy like this.

Q: [W]e might want to get started on thinking about this.

A: Mission accomplished. We went there and disrupted Al Qaeda, and we're incapable of controlling Afghanistan, so as much as we'd like to not leave places a mess, and as much as the Republicans would like the world to believe that whenever they use military forces they shit ice cream-- it's time to go home.

I think Gregor's comment at 1:00 is kind of ignorant or dumb. The British actually ultimately got kicked out of India-- by passive resistance.

Some Republican troll might characterize it as a willing withdrawal, but that is just as total a mischaracterization as saying America didn't win the American Revolution, but was just let go by the Brits, simply because the Brits had more troops they could have used if they cracked down harder. Hey, if the Brits looked at what they had to work with, and calculated that trying harder ultimately wasn't going to work, that's not "letting someone get away"-- that's making a rational calculation that you're not likley enough to win the fight, or win it at a cost that really still makes it a win, so it's time to be smart and stop fighting earlier, rather than later. Same with Ireland. The Brits just weren't able to hold onto their empire any longer.

Contrary to India, a country that had and has more than its share af passive, thinking types, Afghanistan is like the Wild West of fiction-- completely full of guns and people who are eager to fight for their land, their livelihoods and their pride. And sure we threw our weight around for a while, but even though we were unprecedentedly successful, that may not be reason enough to totally discount the prior history-- the Afghanis have historically been able to turn their country into a Vietnam for many an invader. Don't try doing it without troops.

..."we" have only a quarter of the troops it would take to stabilize the country on "our own"

In point of fact "we" is overly inclusive. There are thousands of NATO troops from other countries in the "our own" component. And their continued presence and activity is contingent on some semblance of US political pressure to soldier on. I think it unlikely that the status quo will persist long after January 2009. Afghanistan is a terminally hostile place for foreigners. The NATO forces will have to leave, likely in disarray.

Karzai and the boys can go back to running their convenience stores in suburban Detroit. And the rest of us will rue the day Bush let Osama escape from Tora Bora through loss of nerve and will. It could all have been wrapped up with a bow on top at that point if the residue of the AQ had been liquidated in the mountains. Now, its become impossible. It will soon be time to get out. The Russians withdrew in good order. Doubt that will happen this time. What an alround waste of time, lives and money this has been. Extraordinary bungle.

Its tempting to blame Junior for this ungodly mess but I think much of the blame has to be laid at the feet of the general staff of the US Army. They were given a winning hand to play in 2001 and they have blown it badly. Its not just bad doctrine, its comprehensive failure at all levels. I'd be adding an embarrassment checkbox to the listed 'reasons for resigning your commission' question on the exit interview form. There will be plenty used in the next couple of years.

Another lost war to develop amnesia about. Practice makes perfect.

The Barr comment wasn't serious. Sheesh.

There is no limit to human stupidity . Maybe I will vote for Bob Barr.

First state the proposition, then offer proof.

Alright, I've got to do a P.S.:

I'd consider staying in Afghanistan if we withdrew from Iraq and dedicated some of our forces used in Iraq to cleaning up Afghanistan. But I'd keep in view the fact that many of our troops are not doing too hot because of their wounds or combat fatigue from prior tours in Iraq, so the numbers we have on paper may have to be scrutinized carefully for whether or not they are really combat-effective. I'm not counting on us having enough guys to hold Afghanistan even if we can free up what we're using in Iraq, in other words, just saying I'd consider the idea.

Swan: I think Gregor's comment at 1:00 is kind of ignorant or dumb.

Or maybe, just maybe, he was being sarcastic? Jeebus.

Swan: I think Gregor's comment at 1:00 is kind of ignorant or dumb.

Or maybe, just maybe, he was being sarcastic? Jeebus. Posted by: thersites

Do you think Swan and Will Allen hang out together and play army?

CONCIDER, WE went into Afghanistan to CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN. He's gone, no matter what one may say about AFGHANISTAN, it will not produce OSAMA BIN LADEN, just like George Bush cannot produce OSAMA BIN LADEN. So one must ask, "What is the TRUE goal of Afghanistan?" Another wild goose chase for FREEDOM? Stability in the ME? Democracy? WMD's? It can't be BIN LADEN--HE AIN'T THERE NO MORE. (and George said he's irrevelant so George ain't lookin')

so we're officially losing TWO WARS

guess the surge didn't work out so well, after all

anybody got a clue what victory would even look loke ???

anybody got a clue what victory would even look loke ???

But I'm pretty sure a destroyed village will figure prominently.

The next 6 months in Afghanistan will be,,,,,,,,,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Getting troops from India to go into Afghanistan with troops from Pakistan?? I think that idea might require a bit more thought...

1. All border crossing areas between Afghanistan and its neighbors, on the Afghan side, must be controlled or closed even if it means bombing rubble in the passes.
2. All crossing areas must be directly connected to law enforcement and/or military to also control drug material dissemination.
3. Areas like Kandahar, with collections of enemy forces, need to be surrounded, friendly folks told to leave and enter temporary housing arrangements using proper identification vetting, everything inside the circle is destroyed by aircraft/arty/non-breather weapons (no troops on the ground inside the circle)only then do troops enter the area to clean up the mess. No friendly forces should die for their country in this type of an event.
4. People are invited back in to help renovate and redevelop their town.
5. All of this must be done with it appearing or in fact as though Karzai is in charge asking NATO/ISAF/US assistance to help his contry not like we decided to do it in spite of him.
6. I guarantee you this type of an event will only occur once or twice on a large scale. The behavior modification will be enormous.
7. We need to stop chasing roaches around the kitchen. In this manner we have way more than enough help on the ground to sort this out and get back to governing.
Thanks for listening.
Your Afghan veteran,
redtiger

Will Allen wrote: "We wouldn't have to work so damned hard to "pacify" Afghanistan if we weren't so determined to prevent the people there from growing the plants they want to grow ... Maybe I will vote for Bob Barr."

Would that be the same Bob Barr who championed The War On (Some) Drugs and blocked the District of Columbia from even counting the votes cast on a referendum to legalize medical marijuana?

The fact that Bob Barr is now the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party is hilarious. The guy based his entire career in government on being the furthest thing from a libertarian that can be imagined. He was a pillar of the totalitarian "social-conservative" far right wing of the Republican Party.

It is unfortunate that the Libertarian Party folks can be so easily bamboozled by a transparent, cynical fraud like Bob Barr, but I guess if he can peel off a few votes from McCain, more power to him.

"What is the TRUE goal of Afghanistan?"

The UnoCal pipeline and no Chinese pipeline.

It's still and always about oil and ngas.

Getting troops from India to go into Afghanistan with troops from Pakistan?? I think that idea might require a bit more thought...

Indian and Pakistani troops have been working together in the UN mission in the DR Congo. But, yes, in the Afghan context, maybe not.

3. You make Timothy McVeigh proud.

7. Govern like its Auschwitz.

Your Afghan veteran,
redtiger

I feel for you man. There is nothing worse than coming home and realizing how FUBAR the whole thing was. (OK not coming home is worse and I had way too many friends that didn't).

All we had to do was close the Ho Chi Minh trail. You know how that worked out, right? But, at some point, you just come to grips with the fact that an occupation force just can't win. The price is always way too high.

Think about what any of us would do if it was our country that was being occupied. We would be reaching for the "ole smoke stick" in nanoseconds. And, we would make them pay for every inch of ground.

See how easy it is when you walk in their shoes...

What MLuther said.

redtiger, you're angry at the wrong people. Just like a lot of us Vietnam vets were, and some of us still are. But one hopes to get over it.

Contrary to India, a country that had and has more than its share af passive, thinking types, Afghanistan is like the Wild West of fiction-- completely full of guns and people who are eager to fight for their land, their livelihoods and their pride.

You've never been to India or read much Indian history, have you? The notion that India is populated by "passive, thinking types" and lacks guns and people eager to fight for their land....well, it's good for a chuckle, anyway.

1. All border crossing areas between Afghanistan and its neighbors, on the Afghan side, must be controlled or closed even if it means bombing rubble in the passes. 2. All crossing areas must be directly connected to law enforcement and/or military to also control drug material dissemination. 3. Areas like Kandahar, with collections of enemy forces, need to be surrounded, friendly folks told to leave and enter temporary housing arrangements using proper identification vetting, everything inside the circle is destroyed by aircraft/arty/non-breather weapons (no troops on the ground inside the circle)only then do troops enter the area to clean up the mess. No friendly forces should die for their country in this type of an event.
4. People are invited back in to help renovate and redevelop their town. 5. All of this must be done with it appearing or in fact as though Karzai is in charge asking NATO/ISAF/US assistance to help his contry not like we decided to do it in spite of him. 6. I guarantee you this type of an event will only occur once or twice on a large scale. The behavior modification will be enormous.7. We need to stop chasing roaches around the kitchen. In this manner we have way more than enough help on the ground to sort this out and get back to governing. Thanks for listening. Your Afghan veteran, redtiger

Actually, this was tried already. By the Soviets. In the 1980s.

How'd that work out for them?

"WE went into Afghanistan to CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN."
_____________________

Only partially and only because he led al Qaeda. In military terms, our mission was to destroy al Qaeda's leadership and infrastructure and to remove the Taliban from power in order to eliminate the sanctuary for al Qaeda.

It was always going to be a mixed result, at best, given the nature of the country in which we are fighting. It doesn't help that some of our NATO allies have such ridiculous ROE that they are almost useless. Some cannot even fire their weapons unless they are directly attacked.

We shouldn't get too upset at another Taliban incursion. The Canadians are somewhat conflicted about what they envision as their mission, but we should be able to winkle the enemy out of their positions soon enough. Of course, most will simply fade back into the Kush and wait for another chance.

The mission in Afghanistan is the same as that in Iraq - foster a government that can hold off the enemy - in this case, the Pushtans who are the backbone of the Taliban. Given the lesser infrastructure in Afghanistan and weaker national cohesion, it will take far longer than in Iraq. It might never get done, entirely, though we'll make the Afghan government and army as strong as we can.

"What is the TRUE goal of Afghanistan?"

The UnoCal pipeline and no Chinese pipeline.

It's still and always about oil and ngas.
Posted by: MLuther on June 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Didn't see this earlier. MLuther wins.

We wouldn't have to work so damned hard to "pacify" Afghanistan if we weren't so determined to prevent the people there from growing the plants they want to grow. There is no limit to human stupidity . Maybe I will vote for Bob Barr.

No one who voted for George W. Bush, twice, has any right to complain about the quality of the candidates this year. Neither of them are as ill-equipped to be President is as George W. Bush was - even after four years on the job.

trashhauler, few will admit this but we went to Afghanistan for revenge. The idiots in the Bush administration didn't care about the Taliban. They have never, in spite of the humanitarian goals that complete fucking morons will attribute to them in Iraq, never gave a shit about human rights abuses anywhere. The Bush people went to Afghanistan for one simple reason - to stoke the fires of anti-Islamic sentiment long enough to do what they wanted to do before they even stole the election - slaughter Iraqis.

The fact that some on the left thought Afghanistan was the "good war" proves that they weren't really thinking it through. You don't let vicious warmongers like Bush choose war. That Bush shifted forces away to prep for his unprovoked assault on Iraq was as predictable as stupid comments from Bush voting morons. The idea that Bush was going to accomplish leftist goals like cleaning up Afghanistan was stupid from the start.

In military terms, our mission was to destroy al Qaeda's leadership

Failed.

and infrastructure

Failed.

and to remove the Taliban from power

Succeeded only partially, because while we removed them from power we didn't destroy them.

in order to eliminate the sanctuary for al Qaeda.

Failed. They have new sanctuary in Pakistan which makes them in some ways more untouchable then when they were in Afghanistan.

So all our military goals related to al Qaeda, the actual perpetrators of 9/11, were failures, while our one success, the removal of the Taliban from de facto power, was only tangentially relevant to our real goal of removing them as a strut of al Qaeda support.

"trashhauler, few will admit this but we went to Afghanistan for revenge."
____________________

Well, historically, revenge has always been a tried and true casus belli. In fact, revenge fits the just war model quite a bit more than other reasons for going to war.

I'm less sure about the "viscious warmonger" label for President Bush, but opinions may differ. How does one tell a viscious warmonger apart from a gallant leader simply defending his country? It appears to me that the difference is in one's perception of the war being mongered, as well as one's initial opinion of the monger himself. It makes for deliciously good posts, full of angst and fury, but little else of value to the warfighters.

In reality, the difference becomes muddied as soon as the operations begin. Once a President sets us on a course for war, certain values kick in, regardless of his original intent. These values, derived from our national ideology, usually set the limits for our specific strategy. For example, though it might have suited the Afghanis better if we had reinstalled the Afghan monarchy, our ideology dictated that we had to work for a representative democracy. Similarly, having been told that the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda were caused, at least partially, by our abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets left, we are henceforth required to not do it again. There are no secret strategies in play, because our system isn't designed to easily accommodate such things.

People should pay more attention to what our official policies really say, as opposed to believing any hairbrained theory about why we do what we do. In the end, even if the President has ulterior motives, the manner in which he attempts to reach his goals must be couched in properly vetted, traditional democractic values. That's only as it should be - it allows us to work for the better good, even after that particular President is gone.

trashhauler: revenge fits the just war model quite a bit more than other reasons for going to war.

Well, no. Following that logic we would've gone to war against Saudi Arabia. We would have not gone to war with Iraq.

Revenge is good for whipping up support for a war. Revenge by itself is never a rationale for a "just" war.

How does one tell a vicious warmonger apart from a gallant leader simply defending his country?

Examine the words and deeds of FDR. Then, examine the words and deeds of of G.W. "romantic war" Bush. Examine the bulge in W's crotch as he struts across the flight deck of the aircraft carrier in a flight suit.

Well, historically, revenge has always been a tried and true casus belli. In fact, revenge fits the just war model quite a bit more than other reasons for going to war.

Actually revenge is specifically repudiated by the various just war models as an illegitimate to wage war. But it's pretty typical of you to be wrong about very basic factual issues.

Also, wars of self-aggrandizement or colonial adventure -- e.g. strategic basing in the middle east, control of the flow of oil -- are also forbidden under just war theory.

There are no secret strategies in play, because our system isn't designed to easily accommodate such things.

You must be fucking kidding us. Are you twelve? Have you read no recent American history? Or just a tireless propagandist?

People should pay more attention to what our official policies really say

Since the official policies under this administration have proven time and again to be bald-faced lies, as even attested to by former administration members themselves -- I'd say it would be more prudent to pay less attention to them and follow the money and ideological agendas.

"You must be fucking kidding us. Are you twelve? Have you read no recent American history? Or just a tireless propagandist?"
____________________

No, just someone who's watched it happen first hand. I didn't say we never have secret agendas, I said our system doesn't accommodate secret strategies very well.

Sure, we've had secret bombing campaigns, secret assasination programs, all sorts of secrets. But our intent is generally pretty straightforward, regardless of those claiming otherwise.

"Revenge is good for whipping up support for a war. Revenge by itself is never a rationale for a 'just' war."
______________________

Oh, of course, revenge is always dressed up in fine words. We are "righting a wrong" or "defending ourselves from further agression." But it still comes down to "somebody did us dirty and we're going to smash them."

In the American system of war, crystallized in the latter part of our history, the idea has developed that a separate war aim for any conflict is to rehabilitate the enemy, to make them our friends. Therefore, we don't abandon a defeated enemy, we build them back up. So what starts as revenge, quickly becomes reconstruction and support for a struggling nation.

"Since the official policies under this administration have proven time and again to be bald-faced lies, as even attested to by former administration members themselves -- I'd say it would be more prudent to pay less attention to them and follow the money and ideological agendas."
_________________

You follow unknown "ideological agendas" because that's what you are interested in. I'll bet a nickel you've never read any of our official policy documents regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.

You should, you know, because President Obama will have the task of accepting them or rewriting them - and then issuing orders accordingly. The fact is that President Obama won't find much to change in them, and only limited options about how he wants us to carry them out. The changes will all be on the margins, though you'll undoubtedly be satisfied because you'll trust him to have few hidden agendas with which you disagree.

I want what trashhauler is smoking.

I'll bet a nickel you've never read any of our official policy documents regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.

Useless and riddled with unproven assertions and blatant falsehoods as they are, in point of fact I have read them and critiqued them on this very blog .

Why do all of your arguments end in appeals to authority that fall flat on their face?

You follow unknown "ideological agendas" because that's what you are interested in

I was referring here to the neoconservative ideology that believes it can, though war, create an American hegemony. It is no secret that the members of this administration follow this ideology and that it is their reason for invading Iraq, since they signed their fucking names to a PNAC document that explicitly states this belief.

I want what trashhauler is smoking.

Has trashhauler been pinching some of the cargo he has been flying for the Carlyle Group? They cut off heads for that.

"I was referring here to the neoconservative ideology that believes it can, though war, create an American hegemony."
________________

That's a specific theory, not an ideology. As a theory, it has flaws, as every theory does, but it isn't the worst theory ever advanced. It certainly is more practical than your own if-a-Republican-is-for-it, I'm-against-it theory.

I'll still bet you haven't read them, but so what, I'll lose my nickel. Our strategic documents might be useless to you, but then, what wouldn't be useless to a do-nothing nihilist such as yourself? To the rest of us, they supply the framework for specific diplomatic and military actions.

The same documents won't look too different under President Obama, though, of course, you'll count on nobody ever pointing that out to you. What a blowhard.

"They cut off heads for that."
_____________

Nah, you're thinking of what your cousins do to any Bosnian child they meet.

That's a specific theory, not an ideology

No, quite the reverse: it's an ideology because it's based on an inherent belief in American exceptionalism and a vision of a worldwide American hegemony. In that sense it's no different than Communism.

Conversely, it's not a theory because it is willing to press forward in the face of evidence that shows it to be both ineffective and counterproductive.

I'll still bet you haven't read them, but so what, I'll lose my nickel.

Uh, did you not read my link? I both quoted and critiqued the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

Our strategic documents might be useless to you, but then, what wouldn't be useless to a do-nothing nihilist such as yourself?

??? Because I'm not currently dropping bombs from a plane on a Middle Eastern country I'm a "do-nothing nihilist"? War truly is the end and sum of the world for you, isn't it?

I'm fairly certain that is not the vision the Founders had for this country.

To the rest of us, they supply the framework for specific diplomatic and military actions.

Do they now? Illegally invading a country that was no threat to the United States based on a propaganda campaign of falsehoods in order to turn a certain percentage of its citizens into people willing to take up arms against us?

Sheer genius.

Stop flying dope for Carlyle and W.