What's the worst that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan?

[Moonlight Graham]

Here's my argument. What if all Western forces left Afghanistan entirely by the end of the year or whatnot? What exactly is the worst that could happen from this from a security standpoint?

Let's say the Taliban did overtake the Afghan government again. So what? We are fighting the Taliban of course, but they did not attack the U.S. on 9/11 or bomb London and Madrid. None of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Afghans or from the Taliban. We are fighting the Taliban of course because they harboured al-Qeada. If NATO made a deal with the Afghan government and the Taliban to leave the country with the condition that they not harbour or support al-Qaeda or terrorists, what's the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is that the Taliban takes over the gov't again and begins to harbour al-Qaeda and other terrorists once more. If that were to happen, why not just send in some jets to bomb them and maybe put some troops back on the ground in the early stages of these terrorists setting up camps again so it wouldn't be too difficult to route them out again or eliminate them.

This effort to stay in Afghanistan to set up a democratic govt and an army/police force to defend it is ridiculous and a waste of time, money, and lives. If NATO can't defeat the Taliban, a much weaker Afghan force with little heavy equipment (tanks, air support etc.) stands little chance of defending much. We could train them for 100 years and give them a slew of tech but they'd still get whooped. Even if they did manage to fend off the Taliban, odds are quite good that the current "democratic" gov't would sooner or later turn into an authoritarian regime (via military coup or otherwise), or at the very least be entirely corrupt (as we've seen evidence already).

My point is, let's just leave, and if terrorists return to the country we can always launch more minor operations to destroy/disrupt them.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

I would tend agree. Nation building by prolonged military occupation is an extremely wasteful endeavour.

Go in, blow up your enemies, and get out. That's what I'd normally say, and what I'd recommend for any future wars.

However, in this particular case, cutting and running from Afghanistan would be a show of weakness on the part of NATO and the West. Fundamentalist Islamic groups would think they can so easily defeat us. Now that we have set ourselves the objective of building Afghanistan into a functional state, no matter how foolish and hard that task may be, we must persevere and finish it, even if it does take 100 years. Showing weakness would only invite more attacks against us.

[Moonlight Graham]

Oh, and here's the best that could happen if we leave:

- Save mountains of money!

- save our soldier's lives etc.

- save afghan civilian lives!

- stop pissing off muslims by occupying their lands and killing civilians, thus giving them less reason to attack us!

[Jack Weber]

Afghanistan is a no win situation.

No one has ever conquered it,and I highly doubt,any one ever will.The reason is that there is a strong streak of independence in that country.They may viscerally hate each other,but Afghan's sem to hate foreign occupiers even more.The Taliban will not be defeated.They might be controlled for a little while,but they won't ever be totally defeated because Islamofascism is more than what's going on in Afghanistan.

The fact of the matter is that those who get all filled up with nationalistic puffery,blathering the borrowed sloganeering of "cut and run" simply are incapable of learning from history.If we had focused entirely on Afghanistan from 2001 onward,things might be different now.But the one country that should have been focused on Afghanistan that could have made a difference,went off on a cowboy excercise in Iraq,and wasted men and money in the process.

Sadly,it's a no hope situation and by 2011 we would have been there for 10 years.That's long enough to have seen real change in the situation...It's long enough,period.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Jack Weber

[William Ashley]

I dunno to answer the question I need to know if you like Allah and mohomads interpretation of him, and various individuals interpretation of him.

[Borg]

My point is, let's just leave, and if terrorists return to the country we can always launch more minor operations to destroy/disrupt them.

It would signify that the terrorists can launch anywhere in the world and be successful

Rather fight them there than here

They will come soon enough and of course you will disagree

This will eventually turn into a much wider conflict

We will try to negotiate

They will agree and we will be happy

Then they will pull a repeat of Swot Vally

And we will be shocked and diosmayed

Of course the treatment of those we leave behind means nothing to most here - after all they are part of the problem right?

How typically canuckleheaded

Borg

[wyly]

It would signify that the terrorists can launch anywhere in the world and be successful

Rather fight them there than here

They will come soon enough and of course you will disagree

This will eventually turn into a much wider conflict

We will try to negotiate

They will agree and we will be happy

Then they will pull a repeat of Swot Vally

And we will be shocked and diosmayed

Of course the treatment of those we leave behind means nothing to most here - after all they are part of the problem right?

How typically canuckleheaded

Borg

or we could magically turn back time and have stayed out of their countries, not fucked up their politcal systems, not colonized them and they would have no issues with us or anyone else...

how typically simplistically canucklehead of you to think there is no cause and effect, that people just fly planes into buildings without being provoked...somewhat like my kid who kept poking her hampster with a stick and then was surprised when it finally bit her...

Edited July 22, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Here's my argument. What if all Western forces left Afghanistan entirely by the end of the year or whatnot? What exactly is the worst that could happen from this from a security standpoint?

Let's say the Taliban did overtake the Afghan government again. So what? We are fighting the Taliban of course, but they did not attack the U.S. on 9/11 or bomb London and Madrid. None of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Afghans or from the Taliban. We are fighting the Taliban of course because they harboured al-Qeada. If NATO made a deal with the Afghan government and the Taliban to leave the country with the condition that they not harbour or support al-Qaeda or terrorists, what's the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is that the Taliban takes over the gov't again and begins to harbour al-Qaeda and other terrorists once more. If that were to happen, why not just send in some jets to bomb them and maybe put some troops back on the ground in the early stages of these terrorists setting up camps again so it wouldn't be too difficult to route them out again or eliminate them.

This effort to stay in Afghanistan to set up a democratic govt and an army/police force to defend it is ridiculous and a waste of time, money, and lives. If NATO can't defeat the Taliban, a much weaker Afghan force with little heavy equipment (tanks, air support etc.) stands little chance of defending much. We could train them for 100 years and give them a slew of tech but they'd still get whooped. Even if they did manage to fend off the Taliban, odds are quite good that the current "democratic" gov't would sooner or later turn into an authoritarian regime (via military coup or otherwise), or at the very least be entirely corrupt (as we've seen evidence already).

My point is, let's just leave, and if terrorists return to the country we can always launch more minor operations to destroy/disrupt them.

for the most part I agree...the Afghans may actually win if NATO left, NATO is hampered by the Geneva Convention the Afghan government troops won't give a damn and that's about the only way to defeat civil war of this type, kill everything... not saying I support support ethnic cleansing

[DogOnPorch]

The ANA will fall apart faster than the ARVN.

Edited July 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[wyly]

The ANA will fall apart faster than the ARVN.

that's a possibility as well...

[Remiel]

However, in this particular case, cutting and running from Afghanistan would be a show of weakness on the part of NATO and the West. Fundamentalist Islamic groups would think they can so easily defeat us. Now that we have set ourselves the objective of building Afghanistan into a functional state, no matter how foolish and hard that task may be, we must persevere and finish it, even if it does take 100 years. Showing weakness would only invite more attacks against us.

I am sure that sort of argument was made in Vietnam too, yet we all know how that turned out in the end. There are always other factors in play.

Also, a person on their side would have to be really, really dumb to mistake victory with easy victory. Victories in which you win because the other side lost interest and gave up are never easy. They are slogs of the worst kind. I will bet you that a lot of the rank and file will be breathing a sigh of relief that they can finally take a break from getting shot at, shelled, bombed, et cetera.

Also, in terms of weakness, who exactly are we showing weakness to that has not been trying to attack us over here the entire time? The Russians? They probably think our staying as long as we have when they already failed is the sign of weakness.

[Bonam]

I am sure that sort of argument was made in Vietnam too, yet we all know how that turned out in the end. There are always other factors in play.

Also, a person on their side would have to be really, really dumb to mistake victory with easy victory.

Don't kid yourself, we haven't made it hard for them at all.

Victories in which you win because the other side lost interest and gave up are never easy. They are slogs of the worst kind. I will bet you that a lot of the rank and file will be breathing a sigh of relief that they can finally take a break from getting shot at, shelled, bombed, et cetera.

Yeah a sigh. And that's all we'll get before they go on to the next place, like Pakistan (already somewhat unstable), where if they gain power, they also gain a large arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Also, in terms of weakness, who exactly are we showing weakness to that has not been trying to attack us over here the entire time? The Russians? They probably think our staying as long as we have when they already failed is the sign of weakness.

I'm not talking about the Russians, but about Islamic terrorist groups. If they feel that they can repel a full scale invasion, committed to by the entire alliance of the West, the great Satan and all its minions, they will only be further spurred on in their jihad.

[Remiel]

I'm not talking about the Russians, but about Islamic terrorist groups. If they feel that they can repel a full scale invasion, committed to by the entire alliance of the West, the great Satan and all its minions, they will only be further spurred on in their jihad.

The most implacable enemies in Afghanistan are nationalists first, not terrorists. If the only people fighting in Afghanistan were primarily terrorists, we would have won ages ago. In any case, Al-Qaeda would find a way to put a spin on it that suited their goals regardless of the actual results. Their ideology already contains the premise that the West is weak. At worst, a sign of weakness would only be confirmation of what they already believed and were acting on. Thus, the " spurring " would be rather limited.

[dre]

I actually think that we have made our enemy much smarter and more capable by invading afhganistan, as opposed to weakening them. AQ would have been a lot easier to track as a centrally managed group. Weve now forced them to diversify and decentralize which makes it a lot harder to know whats going on. AQ and its various affiliates have operations in literally dozens of countries and they are better off without a central base.

[DogOnPorch]

I actually think that we have made our enemy much smarter and more capable by invading afhganistan, as opposed to weakening them. AQ would have been a lot easier to track as a centrally managed group. Weve now forced them to diversify and decentralize which makes it a lot harder to know whats going on. AQ and its various affiliates have operations in literally dozens of countries and they are better off without a central base.

That's a bit of a stretch...it assumes Al-Qaeda only existed in Afghanistan prior to the invasion.

[dre]

That's a bit of a stretch...it assumes Al-Qaeda only existed in Afghanistan prior to the invasion.

No it assumes that we have forced them to become more diverse and decentralized, and therefore potentially more dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

...how typically simplistically canucklehead of you to think there is no cause and effect, that people just fly planes into buildings without being provoked...somewhat like my kid who kept poking her hampster with a stick and then was surprised when it finally bit her...

Except in this case the stated provocation was removing the jaws of a wolf from the hampster.

[ToadBrother]

The most implacable enemies in Afghanistan are nationalists first, not terrorists. If the only people fighting in Afghanistan were primarily terrorists, we would have won ages ago. In any case, Al-Qaeda would find a way to put a spin on it that suited their goals regardless of the actual results. Their ideology already contains the premise that the West is weak. At worst, a sign of weakness would only be confirmation of what they already believed and were acting on. Thus, the " spurring " would be rather limited.

I don't see how the Taliban are nationalistic. They are tribalistic, and so far as anyone can tell, the border with Pakistan is sufficiently porous that the Taliban seem quite capable of hopping back and forth.

[Topaz]

If Russia couldn't defeat them why does NATO think they can. The Taliban had the US helping them so I imagine Russia and China and Iran are helping the Taliban now. The US debt is out of this world and ours is getting much worse too, so what are we suppose to do,wait until we are broke like Russia was?? Wait until all our military are dead? There's a time to stay and fight and a time to go and if the US hadn't pulled so quickly the first time, to go to Iraq, we wouldn't have to be there now.

[Guest American Woman]

how typically simplistically canucklehead of you to think there is no cause and effect, that people just fly planes into buildings without being provoked...somewhat like my kid who kept poking her hampster with a stick and then was surprised when it finally bit her...

So you honestly believe that every attack people have been subjected to in the world was because of cause and effect. The people making the attacks were always just innocent hamsters, so to speak, getting poked by the people they attacked.

You really need to brush up on your world history.

[dre]

In any case whatever we are trying to do there, we SUCK ASS at it. I dont see any reason to believe we wont be in the same boat after 20 years, that we are now after 10 years.

Furthermore we are chasing a false hope. People keep saying that we win once the Afghan government can remain stable, and keep terrorists out of the country, but anyone with any knowledge of the place knows how silly this is. Such a government would cost more than Afghanistans entire GDP. The only possible way to fund it would be through permanent foreign subsidy or drug trade.

[eyeball]

What's the worst that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan?

The perception that our soldiers will have died in vain because the damn lefties are soft on terror.

This will polarize arguments and flame wars for generations.

[Shady]

- save afghan civilian lives!

I tend to agree with you about bombing if the Taliban harours Al Qaeda, but the saving civilian lives is incorrect. If you wanna know the worst thing that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan. It would be a complete purging of any and all Afghans who cooperated or were at all affiliated with anything involving NATO. In other words, a slaughter of tens of thousnads of people in a very short period of time.

See Vietnam and Cambodia as examples. Millions of people were killed.

[DogOnPorch]

I tend to agree with you about bombing if the Taliban harours Al Qaeda, but the saving civilian lives is incorrect. If you wanna know the worst thing that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan. It would be a complete purging of any and all Afghans who cooperated or were at all affiliated with anything involving NATO. In other words, a slaughter of tens of thousnads of people in a very short period of time.

See Vietnam and Cambodia as examples. Millions of people were killed.

Yup...the great hippy victory...Viet-Nam. Over 2,000,000 dead by pulling out of Indo China.

[dre]

I tend to agree with you about bombing if the Taliban harours Al Qaeda, but the saving civilian lives is incorrect. If you wanna know the worst thing that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan. It would be a complete purging of any and all Afghans who cooperated or were at all affiliated with anything involving NATO. In other words, a slaughter of tens of thousnads of people in a very short period of time.

See Vietnam and Cambodia as examples. Millions of people were killed.

Thats gonna happen whether we leave now, or in another 10 years.