Afghanistan war un-winnable?

[jdobbin]

If we pull out, we will have to bear some responsibility for what ever happens to those people because of our doing so.

This is the rationale that often keeps a country as a permanent occupying force. There never comes a point where security is guaranteed.

[Wilber]

This is the rationale that often keeps a country as a permanent occupying force. There never comes a point where security is guaranteed.

Nothing in life is guaranteed except death. If you need a permanent occupying force to prevent innocent people from being terrorized, then you either continue to provide it, make sure someone else is there to provide it or take responsibility for the result when you walk away. If we leave without someone replacing us and see the Taliban doing the same kind of things they were prior to 2001, it will be because we let them.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

If we leave without someone replacing us and see the Taliban doing the same kind of things they were prior to 2001, it will be because we let them.

If we leave without Afghanistanis replacing us, it will because they let us.

[Wilber]

If we leave without Afghanistanis replacing us, it will because they let us.

They have to be ready to replace us before they can. When that day comes depends on both them and us. Not being there, I don't know whether that is possible or not but I am willing to take the word of people like Army Guy because I don't think he and his comrades want to spend the rest of their lives doing tours there. Seems to me that if they thought it was a waste of time and lives, they would be the first ones to want out. After all, it is their time and their lives.

[jdobbin]

They have to be ready to replace us before they can. When that day comes depends on both them and us.

I don't know if that day will ever come. Other analysts including those on the ground are starting to lose faith that the government will ever be ready enough for the task.

[eyeball]

I call bullshit, provide a link that even suggest that the 2 wars are linked, and identical....or are you pulling this out of that 1/4 inch speaker located in your southern quaters.....

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History — Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran — November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état. [2][3] Known examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support (recruitment, training, arming, deployment) of radical Fundamentalist Muslim extremists to fight an anti-Communist, proxy guerrilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; and US support of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Ba’athist government against the Shi’ite Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s; in the event, the consequence (blowback) of said secret wars lead the sponsored fundamentalist Muslims to attack their sponsor — the United States.

Link

The wars are linked, the root cause is identical in each case, in-ter-fer-ance.

No Survivors, shit thats funney, have to remember that next time i'm outside the wire...

The attackers we're all killed.

The treaties we live under do not have caveats that allow Canada to pick and choose what we respond to...

Then how do you explain our not being involved in the invasion of Iraq? Are you saying our allies have a gun to our head? You're either with us or...bang?

Besides those westerners you keep refering to pay most of our defence bills, until we can pay for our own defence we are stuck with those defence treaties and all of our obligations...

I just say that to stay honest, BC2004 always corrects me if I say the US instead of "the west" and he's right to do so.

Canada is definitely a target now, we're going to need you people here at home to help deal with that. You're not doing a thing to protect Canada over there.

Edited March 11, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

It was definitely a military operation launched by a major guerrilla organization. What difference does it make how the attack was launched, the fact is it was launched by people based in Afghanistan and supported by the then Afghan government. It was never shown that the US was attacked by people based in Iraq or supported by the Iraqi government therefore Canada had no obligation under NATO to take part in an invasion of Iraq.

No, Canada had an obligation under international law to have George Bush arrested and tried for war crimes and crimes agaist humanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, Canada had an obligation under international law to have George Bush arrested and tried for war crimes and crimes agaist humanity.

Sure, just as soon as you arrest and try Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton, and Chirac.

Good luck with that.....

[Oleg Bach]

Sure, just as soon as you arrest and try Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton, and Chirac.

Good luck with that.....

Oh there is a long list - let's not forget that Tredeau character who liked to drink wine and dine with coke kingpins and dealers of rapid death who were involved in illicit weapons dealings - the list can go on and on - wonder how many Canadian companies trade with the American industrial complex - none?

[eyeball]

Sure, just as soon as you arrest and try Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton, and Chirac.

Good luck with that.....

In lieu of an ICC I'd settle for an International Truth and Reconciliation Summit. We can't just keep sweeping things under history's carpet forever without making things even messier.

[M.Dancer]

No, Canada had an obligation under international law to have George Bush arrested and tried for war crimes and crimes agaist humanity.

Unfortunately for you and your buzz, indictments don't appear simply because a hippy wishes it so...

[M.Dancer]

The wars are linked,

NEWSFLASH: Burnout links Iraq, Afghansistan...shows seni-colon as proof.

The attackers we're all killed.

I would say you are smarter than that but I know you.

[Rue]

From what is being said in military circles, the draw down won't be that much, our main focus of mission will change, location wont change still down south....but it won't change much for the soldier outside the wire...

Exactly. Or in otherwords their exposure to danger will not chang. They will still be sitting ducks if the Taliban want to engage in attacks against them using hidden ordinances on the road, suicide bombers, etc.

Canadian troops will still be placed in situations of having to search out and take out Taliban. They just won't do certain patrols they do now.

If I may put my two cents in. No Canadian soldier let alone their superior officers ever went into this conflict with the impression it was a conventional war they would win. That is a civilian notion. It is how civilians talk about war based on watching t.v. and movies where they think there are good and bad guys and a visible enemy with buck teeth that yells Banzai or silly looking caucasian guy yelling achtung and then dying and they dying as he flies in the air but never bleeds or messes his hair let alone damage his capped teeth.

The Canadian military knew this was a conflict that will not end and at best is a conflict of atttrition, i.e.,a series of exchanges between soldiers in uniform and Taliban in civilian outfits who would avoid direct conventional exchanges as much as possible and instead rely on passsive aggressive sabotage designed to try make Canadian soldiers and Afghani civilians fear normal day to day movement or public exposure anywhere.

Canadian soldiers went into this knowing exactly what they were getting into.

The bottom line is this. No one has ever won a war on the ground in Afghanistan and never will. The physical geography of the nation makes that impossible.

NATO went into Afghanistan to secure the ground in an attempt to pave the way for the building and securing of oil pipelines from the Black and Caspian Seas to the West to service energy needs.

The countries that would benefit from these pipelines the most, Western European nations with the exception of Britain, Denmark, Poland, and Holland, have avoided the conflict.

Canada, Britain, Holland, Poland and the U.S. have taken the full brunt of deaths precisely because other nations politically did not wish to expose themselves to domestic political news stories of their soldiers dying.

Many think the West should not use NATO and instead accept and work with the Taliban. This is a ridiculously naive concept based on typical human nature-wishful thinking. It is how some of us deal with phenomena we may not be able to find a way to peacefully deal with. Some humans cope with evil by telling themselves the demon is not evil, just misunderstood. Charlie Manson isn't evil, he's just misunderstood. He's a product of his environment. It is just a simple cultural misunderstanding. The government in Sudan? They are simply fighting colonialism in Darfur. The Taliban? Misunderstood. Just people of a different culture resisting Western coruption and imperialism.

Yes the Taliban are huggable. They simply want to be understood and respected. Just a bunch of guys with beards who mean well for their people. We need to reach out and touch.

I think the vast majority of Canadian soldiers are not stupid and naive neither are those of us who are realists and understand the energy implications of this exercise.

Some of us who are realistic about the energy agenda behind the conflict are also equally as realistic in our belief that also believe that what the Taliban represents and wishes to promulgate in its Islamic fundamentalist version of society is not just about what society there should be in Afghanistan, but the globe and their beliefs are just as expansionist and imperilaist or colonialist as ours.

So some of us believe conflict with Islamic extemism is inevitable and if it is not in Aghanistan it will be elsewhere.

Some of us believe such extremists cannot be appeased and in fact appeasement fuels them and empowers them to expand outword past their borders.

So as much as I hate this war and the intense number of deaths I understand why our soldiers believe in what they are doing and I also believe this is not just about energy but a genuine conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and Western style democracies.

I personally am critical of our politicians for sending our troops in on the ground without proper equipment. The vehicles we put our soldiers in exposed them to danger. Most importantly they came in on the ground after Taliban in loud, slow moving convoys precisely because we did not give them helicopters to move in and out with lightening speed to prevent the Taliban from preparing positions as they can do waiting for slow moving covoys to get to them.

Our politicians embraced politically popular policies that reduced military spending to strip out armed forces to an inoperable and crippled shell which then forced our troops to unecessary deaths having to engage in slow covoy movement which is the exact opposite strategy you need to effectively fight guerillas.

To fight guerillas you need to have small, light, elite commando units with the latest in equipment moving in and out unpredictably with helicopters.

Our forces are extremely well trained to fight despite their crappy weapons and lack of air mobility. It is a testament to how good they are even more have not died as they have had to move in sitting duck convous telecasting every punch they will make.

The Canadian military knew they could not fight the Taliban the way they should with quick and lightening speed mobile to ground precision attacks. They knew the politicians crritically impaired their operational abilities forcing them to engage in tactics they knew would get them killed. They accepted this. They knew what they were getting into and how the politicians crippled and compromised their ability to properly fight.

Had our politicians obtained the helicopters now moving Canadian soldiers we could have reduce deaths and been more efficient but it took this long to get them.

Of course the Taliban will constantly adjust their tactics in response to ours even now that we can move in faster. It is what conflicts of attrition are about-now clear cut win-constant tit for tats.

The question is will standing up to the Taliban cause average every day Afghanis to want to take a change on something other than fundamentalist extremism. Are we simply trying to give them that chance to make them willing slaves to get their oil or are we doing it for genuine reasons of idealism.

I think we are doing it for both reasons. I think the soldiers are doing it based on genuine idealism and the belief in democratic values and their mission is to try present them as an alternative to fundamentalist extremism but I also do not doubt that some of the politicians behind the conflict could care less about our soldiers or Afghanis and to them it is all about business.

To those of you who see evil business behind it I simply ask this question-if they are so evil are you willing to give up your car? More to the point, would you prefer to live in a world of fundamentalist extremism or the world those evil business people and their activities finance. The choice is yours.

Me I hate people with beards. I also don't trust people that tell me they are holy. Don't trust certain business executives either. Either way, I try keep a healthy perspective.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Rue

[Army Guy]

Plus, you have to take into account that the U.S. would likely regard it as a hostile move if Canada took over its own defence.

I don't think so, i think they would be elated if we just took over our share of defending Canada, which in it self is a sad statement really. we have the resources, we have the ability, yet we just refuse to because of the finicial commitment....For a nation that prides it self on being unamerican, we sure depend on the US for everything, our very existance depends on the US, and how do we reward them for that by shouting to the world just how unamerican we are...

Look how we stuggle with other nations over key areas of our north, can we honestly say we would be having these conversations if we could deploy military forces in strength to our north. or if we could even patrol them regularly...How many times has Denmark, landed armed troops on disbuted land, how many times have they planted thier flag on that island....and if we can't get little Denmark to take us seriously can you imigine how Russia and the US must be laughing when we demand that this land is our land...

I got this quote from an Army manual i had kicking around. "the largly unremarked practice of founding defence policy on the premise that Canada should have as little defence structure as it can get away with may no longer be acceptable" it was followed up by this tidbit....

These words presage the post Sprt 11 outcry over a possible "canadian conection with the terrorist involved" If Canada was ever perceived either thru action or inaction to present a threat to American saercurity the consquences would be in calculable....there is little irony in the idea that our greatest guarantor od sovereighty might also be considered in some ways it's greatest threat...

It's not written to scare up bogey men, but rather make us think that perhaps our free ride is over, and we should be taking defnece alot more seriously....

Even Biden today says the war is not being won. A surge of troops might help but we can't do it alone and we can't be taken advantage of by other NATO members who want Canadians to shoulder much of the insurgency.

Perhaps the wrong chioce of words i'm not sure, but lets put this in context, a nation with 36 mil, has a military of only 60,000 people which has a hard time coming up with every 6 mths the 3200 soldiers required to do this mission. And while i'm not cutting up our commitment by any means, there are nations that are shouldering most of the burden, mainly the US, and soon the British. who's numbers are much greater than ours...

And while you do have a very valid piont there is many nations that are not pulling thier weight, we should let the big boys piont that out, and continue to do more than our part in this one mission...

[jdobbin]

I don't think so, i think they would be elated if we just took over our share of defending Canada, which in it self is a sad statement really. we have the resources, we have the ability, yet we just refuse to because of the finicial commitment....For a nation that prides it self on being unamerican, we sure depend on the US for everything, our very existance depends on the US, and how do we reward them for that by shouting to the world just how unamerican we are...

I think you are mistaken that they would be happy. If Canada said they were no longer part of the alliance and said we were going to take over all of northern defence, the U.S. would feel hostility toward that. It wouldn't matter how friendly we were about it.

The U.S. certainly reacted negatively when Canada thought about nuclear subs to patrol under the ice.

If we said we were going to make nuclear weapons, something we have been capable of doing since 1945, the reaction would be universally hostile.

If we simply said we were going to building up our military substantially and acting more independently, we would see a reaction in the U.S. and I don't think it would be hallelujah.

Look how we stuggle with other nations over key areas of our north, can we honestly say we would be having these conversations if we could deploy military forces in strength to our north. or if we could even patrol them regularly...How many times has Denmark, landed armed troops on disbuted land, how many times have they planted thier flag on that island....and if we can't get little Denmark to take us seriously can you imigine how Russia and the US must be laughing when we demand that this land is our land...

I don't disagree that we should take more responsibility for the north and that is why I supported Harper's icebreaker promise in 2006. Sadly, he broke that promise and decided on the slushbreakers which I think insufficient and as mistaken as the Mulroney icebreaker/patrol boats.

I got this quote from an Army manual i had kicking around. "the largly unremarked practice of founding defence policy on the premise that Canada should have as little defence structure as it can get away with may no longer be acceptable" it was followed up by this tidbit....

These words presage the post Sprt 11 outcry over a possible "canadian conection with the terrorist involved" If Canada was ever perceived either thru action or inaction to present a threat to American saercurity the consquences would be in calculable....there is little irony in the idea that our greatest guarantor od sovereighty might also be considered in some ways it's greatest threat...

I think there would be a great unease about a large Canadian military build up since it would likely have an effect on U.S. interests in the north.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't defend our interests but I am saying here and now that would be a hostile reaction to Canadian patrols in the north that tried to assert Canada's control of the north.

It's not written to scare up bogey men, but rather make us think that perhaps our free ride is over, and we should be taking defnece alot more seriously....

And I am saying the U.S. would feel threatened by it and we would have to deal with it.

Perhaps the wrong chioce of words i'm not sure, but lets put this in context, a nation with 36 mil, has a military of only 60,000 people which has a hard time coming up with every 6 mths the 3200 soldiers required to do this mission. And while i'm not cutting up our commitment by any means, there are nations that are shouldering most of the burden, mainly the US, and soon the British. who's numbers are much greater than ours...

On a per capital level, Canada's losses are way up there as is our spending. We are in one of the most hostile environment and punching above our weight level. It is why Bush and Obama have nothing bad to say about what we are doing.

And while you do have a very valid piont there is many nations that are not pulling thier weight, we should let the big boys piont that out, and continue to do more than our part in this one mission...

We are one of the big boys in this. We should have the same guarantees that we have had in every modern battle about rotating in and out of hotspots and knowing that our allies will back us up. We don't have that now.

We are in Kandahar now and we will be there to 2011 and we'd be there forever if we didn't state that there was a timeline for which we expected replacements.

Edited March 13, 2009 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

If I may put my two cents in. No Canadian soldier let alone their superior officers ever went into this conflict with the impression it was a conventional war they would win. That is a civilian notion. It is how civilians talk about war based on watching t.v. and movies where they think there are good and bad guys and a visible enemy with buck teeth that yells Banzai or silly looking caucasian guy yelling achtung and then dying and they dying as he flies in the air but never bleeds or messes his hair let alone damage his capped teeth.

This sort of condescending attitude is what many civilians expect from politicians and apologists who make 'promises' or otherwise candy-coat their shit with truthiness.

I accurately pegged this stupid war as a bottomless quagmire within 5 minutes of hearing about it. It only took about half as long as figuring out why anyone would want to fly an airplane into a building.

Imagining people who disagree with you are stupid is a particularily stupid thing to do.

[Army Guy]

I think you are mistaken that they would be happy. If Canada said they were no longer part of the alliance and said we were going to take over all of northern defence, the U.S. would feel hostility toward that. It wouldn't matter how friendly we were about it.

Thats not what i was impling, all i said was take over our share of the defence of Canada, nothing about leaving NATO, or NORAD...but rather doing atleast our 50% of the job. That it was a sad statement when we our content, even happy about not even pulling our weight in the defence of our own nation...Currently getting out of any of our defence agreements would not be good for the nation...shit we can't afford to keep our small military afloat now, can you imigine the bill if we decided to take it all on....

No the Americans have been very forward in trying to get us to place more attention on defence, such as the American Ambassador, during the liberal reign, along with countless American generals, politicians, etc etc....i think if they where told we were expanding our military and taking over more of our defence responsbilities they would throw a party....

The U.S. certainly reacted negatively when Canada thought about nuclear subs to patrol under the ice.

Yes the PC plan that never even made it off the paper it was written on....kind of like buying a formula one car going to the local corner store...I think thier disappiontment was that we had forgotton about the rest of the defence problem....like an ARMY or the rest of the NAVY, instead we ran right over to the shinney stuff and well it was a dream paper anyway....

If we simply said we were going to building up our military substantially and acting more independently, we would see a reaction in the U.S. and I don't think it would be hallelujah.

then you have not been paying attention...

I don't disagree that we should take more responsibility for the north and that is why I supported Harper's icebreaker promise in 2006. Sadly, he broke that promise and decided on the slushbreakers which I think insufficient and as mistaken as the Mulroney icebreaker/patrol boats.

It was a good plan , putting a military presence in the north, but Armed ice breakers....wrong chioce of equipment...the military is not in the ice breaking bussiness thats a coast guard function, one that is really in need of an up grade....no what was need is Ice hardened frigates of corvettes like the danes have....a military ship designed for warefare....big enough to haul up a coy of troops 150 or more and land them and support them for short periods...

I think there would be a great unease about a large Canadian military build up since it would likely have an effect on U.S. interests in the north

I'm sure it would concern them, and it would put Canada in a better driving seat, but realistically they would still enjoy massive military advantage over anything we could put up north....

It doesn't mean we shouldn't defend our interests but I am saying here and now that would be a hostile reaction to Canadian patrols in the north that tried to assert Canada's control of the north.

Then lets make up our minds do we have national sovereighty over our north or not because if we do then we should be prepared to claim it or defend it, if we don't then lets deny we have it....

On a per capital level, Canada's losses are way up there as is our spending. We are in one of the most hostile environment and punching above our weight level. It is why Bush and Obama have nothing bad to say about what we are doing.

Are we saying we can't do or give any more....or that we are doing as much or a little bit more than the dead beats....keep in mind what is at stake here....If this mission fails and the big boys decide that perhaps NATO has outlived it's usefullness, and perhaps a new coalition needs to be formed....will Canada be included....

We are one of the big boys in this. We should have the same guarantees that we have had in every modern battle about rotating in and out of hotspots and knowing that our allies will back us up. We don't have that now.

No we are one of the larger small fries in Afghan, the US being the largest, with Britain coming in second...keeping in mind that they are also in 2 or more threaters as well....as far as being rotated in and out we've always played a bigger role than we could handle, historically our history is full of it, the Italian campaign, liberation of holland, not to mention the countless examples during WWI, no we've always been in the fight, always punching way ahead of our weight....If our government does decide to pull out in 2011 , our postion will be absorded by the US or British....putting that much more strain on our allies....i think it will be a long time coming before any of the other allies step up.....

[bush_cheney2004]

...We are one of the big boys in this. We should have the same guarantees that we have had in every modern battle about rotating in and out of hotspots and knowing that our allies will back us up. We don't have that now.

Guarantees? Great....so when can the US and UK rotate out?

[neutralguy]

This sort of condescending attitude is what many civilians expect from politicians and apologists who make 'promises' or otherwise candy-coat their shit with truthiness.

I accurately pegged this stupid war as a bottomless quagmire within 5 minutes of hearing about it. It only took about half as long as figuring out why anyone would want to fly an airplane into a building.

Imagining people who disagree with you are stupid is a particularily stupid thing to do.

Well, George W Bush was right on one thing (i'll give him that one - he needs it) that the true judgement in Iraq will come much more into the future. When there is a new govt. there and it functions much like any other nation.

Same thing in afghanistan..success/failure..you won't really know for a long long time. I would say a success is anything where there is a democractic country in place, the people have power, and they can secure their own country.

Edited March 13, 2009 by neutralguy

[jdobbin]

Thats not what i was impling, all i said was take over our share of the defence of Canada, nothing about leaving NATO, or NORAD...but rather doing atleast our 50% of the job. That it was a sad statement when we our content, even happy about not even pulling our weight in the defence of our own nation...Currently getting out of any of our defence agreements would not be good for the nation...shit we can't afford to keep our small military afloat now, can you imigine the bill if we decided to take it all on....

I have no problem about doing more for Canadian defence. I just know that it will be regarded suspiciously by the U.S. if we start in earnest.

No the Americans have been very forward in trying to get us to place more attention on defence, such as the American Ambassador, during the liberal reign, along with countless American generals, politicians, etc etc....i think if they where told we were expanding our military and taking over more of our defence responsbilities they would throw a party....

While other strategists and State department people regarded any northern build up on our part as a threat to U.S. interests in the area. You know that. You've seen that.

Yes the PC plan that never even made it off the paper it was written on....kind of like buying a formula one car going to the local corner store...I think thier disappiontment was that we had forgotton about the rest of the defence problem....like an ARMY or the rest of the NAVY, instead we ran right over to the shinney stuff and well it was a dream paper anyway....

It really affected their credibility making promises like that only to neglect them a few months later.

then you have not been paying attention...

I have. I watched U.S. commentators mention the threat Canada would pose if it tried to assert itself in the north.

It was a good plan , putting a military presence in the north, but Armed ice breakers....wrong chioce of equipment...the military is not in the ice breaking bussiness thats a coast guard function, one that is really in need of an up grade....no what was need is Ice hardened frigates of corvettes like the danes have....a military ship designed for warefare....big enough to haul up a coy of troops 150 or more and land them and support them for short periods...

They should have stuck with the four icebreakers and made Churchill the military port.

My guess is the place they did select for a port won't get done or it will cost billions more than they promised. At least with Churchill, you have rail, air and ship links in place already.

I'm sure it would concern them, and it would put Canada in a better driving seat, but realistically they would still enjoy massive military advantage over anything we could put up north....

In other words, they would intimidate us from asserting our authority over say...commercial traffic because it might affect their interests.

Then lets make up our minds do we have national sovereighty over our north or not because if we do then we should be prepared to claim it or defend it, if we don't then lets deny we have it....

If we want to assert authority in the north, it will be more than troops, planes and ships. Build a road from northern Manitoba to Nunavut and back to Yellowknife. That would do more for control of the north than any other project.

Are we saying we can't do or give any more....or that we are doing as much or a little bit more than the dead beats....keep in mind what is at stake here....If this mission fails and the big boys decide that perhaps NATO has outlived it's usefullness, and perhaps a new coalition needs to be formed....will Canada be included....

We have given more and it not us being regarded as deadbeats. We should be able to rotate in and out of areas as per our alliance. What I keep hearing is that there is no one else.

No we are one of the larger small fries in Afghan, the US being the largest, with Britain coming in second...keeping in mind that they are also in 2 or more threaters as well....as far as being rotated in and out we've always played a bigger role than we could handle, historically our history is full of it, the Italian campaign, liberation of holland, not to mention the countless examples during WWI, no we've always been in the fight, always punching way ahead of our weight....If our government does decide to pull out in 2011 , our postion will be absorded by the US or British....putting that much more strain on our allies....i think it will be a long time coming before any of the other allies step up.....

I don't think support beyond 2011 is going to be strong from Britain and the U.S. either. If we don't start seeing some Afghan government improvement, I suspect we will see a pull out to bases outside of Afghanistan with the promise to strike any external threats.

The Afghans have to show more work toward controlling their own country.

We can't be there the next 10, 20 or 30 years fighting an insurgency. No one in NATO wants to send 500,000 troops to do the job. No one can guarantee that many will be able to end the tribalism and violence.

[Oleg Bach]

I saw a new add on a bus shelter. It was to encourage enlistment in the Canadian armed forces..nice at - top line "Fighting" - as if there is a war going on or something? The bottom line read, you will get a free education --- this is geared for the underprivledged and the crazed. Not one mention was made that "It can also shorten your life and you may die at 22 years old...Military must evlove - and it must be strong and bright - and it should be so damned good that not one dies other than from a roll over or tripping over his gun....I don't get these "armoured vehicles" getting blown up - why don't they just call them un-armoured..cos apperntly that's what they are. A good and modern soldier should not have dieing as a possiblity - real warriors always leave the battel field alive - that is a hero - not road kill ...and a visit to the curious researchers at the coroners office.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We can't be there the next 10, 20 or 30 years fighting an insurgency. No one in NATO wants to send 500,000 troops to do the job. No one can guarantee that many will be able to end the tribalism and violence.

There it is again....this idea of a "guarantee"...which has never existed.

Are challenges to be abandoned because of a lacking guarantee?

[neutralguy]

I agree with Bush/Cheney here.

I went through a war in Bosnia. Wars are not without loss, not without struggle, not without many things going off course. But none of that means there is never a positive end to such a story. Many of us view the world in us/me/individual terms, but really, many don't. Soldiers are basically those types of thinkers. They know they could die but they see their service as something greater than themselves. That is why they join. That is why they can risk their life. And that is why we have to be more sympathetic about what we say.

What's going on in Afghanistan is indeed very sad but it is winnable.

[Oleg Bach]

An end to "tribalism and violence" - Tribalism (family) - violence (protection of that family) - nope - If I were a patriarch and had a tribe - no way would I give in to some invaders who wanted to destroy the sytem that I lived within for 5000 years - I would pass the cause of family atonomy down to my sons and they would continue to harrass the hell out of all intruders with their fancey dis-honest western ways...It will never end - and why should it - can you imagine if someone decieded to come here and dismantle your family and depose matriarchs and partriarchs from their positions of authority? wait a sec ----------------they do that here - we have a system that does that to our own -----Jezzzzz - I guess we are just jealous of real men and woman with real atonomus families - so we seek to kill the male heads ---- Just like the Russians and Americans did in Africa with their surrogate wars - get rid of the men - and take the place over...

[jdobbin]

What's going on in Afghanistan is indeed very sad but it is winnable.

Not without support from Afghans themselves, our allies or benchmarks to measure success.

If we are still fighting an insurgency 20 or 30 years from now, I'd hate to hear the same old story that it is winnable. That has to come from Afghanistan itself and all I have seen is a weak, corrupt and fractured government. As for our allies, if only four to eight countries do the heavy lifting, it remains unsustainable if it lacks decades.

An insurgency is never won by outside forces. It is won when the people of that affected country put a stop to it through their own means.