Is Afghanistan worth it?

[dre]

I wouldn’t call it a total waste but for a few small items which I’ll highlight later. The principle in of itself of the initial phases of the war were good in theory, it’s the following nine years that were a wasted effort. To explain further, the idea to “punish” the Taliban Government and cut off/destroy any terrorist “safe havens” was sound, both in theory and execution…….This is made evident by the opening phases of the war, conducted by namely special forces, intelligence operatives and airpower. Most of the initial goals were achieved for very little loss of (Allied/NATO) lives.

Where things started to derail was the collision of both the reconstruction & and “doing things lightly” (Cheap) mantras……..To add the National caveats placed upon some nations forces for purely political reasons hindered this already failed strategy. What should have been done, was a quick, surgical campaign of total war, following along the lines of the Powell Doctrine.

The only positives that I can find are these:

1. NATO has been truly defined by it’s divisions of “Can do” and “can’t do” nations, in other words, we know where we stand . As I said earlier in other threads, I think we should leave NATO yesterday.

2. We now have a cadre of troops that are battle tested, and will be able to convey their experiences to the next generation for the next ~30 years……We know what works and what doesn’t.

3. No political party will expend so much political capital on such a fruitless effort for generations.

To contrast, war for the foreseeable future will mimic Libya, not Afghanistan or Iraq…….And this will be the case with any future conflict with Iran.

To explain further, the idea to “punish” the Taliban Government and cut off/destroy any terrorist “safe havens” was sound, both in theory and execution

No its not sound. Its a recipe for a perpetual game of whack-a-mole and each swing of the hammer costs a trillion dollars. Western nations face a far greater threat from spending borrowed money on nation building then we ever faced from terrorists. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into the GWOT, and terrorism is as much of a threat as it was before, or worse.

The irony here, is that the REAL damage terrorists did to us, was to unleash our own governments and private corporations on us, and give them an excuse to loot tax payers for trillions of dollars.

``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said, according to the al-Jazeera transcript.

We were tricked. The middle east is a trap, and 911 was bait.

[Shady]

Notice too how China seems to be getting it right when it comes to competing with the world economically.

Sure, they cozy up to every brutal dictator and regime, all in order to reap the benefits of their resources. Isn't that what you and your ilk complain about the west doing? Why is it ok for China to do it? When did that become "getting it right?"

Edited February 4, 2012 by Shady

[Shady]

I was thinking more along the lines of fixing up our aging infrastructure

We already do that.

Sounds like youre all for nation building unless someone suggests we build our OWN.

We have a massive budget almost entirely focused on our domestic agenda. Spending more money, money that we don't have, on the same thing makes no sense.

[Guest Derek L]

No its not sound. Its a recipe for a perpetual game of whack-a-mole and each swing of the hammer costs a trillion dollars. Western nations face a far greater threat from spending borrowed money on nation building then we ever faced from terrorists. Trillions of dollars have been pumped into the GWOT, and terrorism is as much of a threat as it was before, or worse.

The irony here, is that the REAL damage terrorists did to us, was to unleash our own governments and private corporations on us, and give them an excuse to loot tax payers for trillions of dollars.

We were tricked. The middle east is a trap, and 911 was bait.

That sounds like a manufactured response………As I said, the way in which both Iraq and Afghanistan (And the Soviets crack at it) and even Vietnam were fought was incorrect…..You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Test their resolve and see if they will allow the ones they love to be the actual martyrs

[waldo]

Notice too how China seems to be getting it right when it comes to competing with the world economically.

Sure, they cozy up to every brutal dictator and regime, all in order to reap the benefits of their resources. Isn't that what you and your ilk complain about the west doing? Why is it ok for China to do it? When did that become "getting it right?"

keep rolling those eyes, lil' buddy!

(Interactive) China Global Investment Tracker

... last 5 years: run it, Shady... sure you can! Just look at all those, "brutal dictators and regimes"!

[dre]

That sounds like a manufactured response………As I said, the way in which both Iraq and Afghanistan (And the Soviets crack at it) and even Vietnam were fought was incorrect…..You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Test their resolve and see if they will allow the ones they love to be the actual martyrs

No what you described is the textbook way to LOSE to a guerilla movement. Guerilla movements thrive when there is support for them in the areas where they live so they try to trick their militarily superior opponent into attacks with lots of collateral damage which serve to galvanize support for the guerillas. And they try to trick them into "going big" and spending lots of money.

Your plan seems to be to create as many terrorists as humanly possible?

[WWWTT]

You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Your a sick minded individual for writing this!

Your promoting violence against innocent people by writing this!

You should be banned from this site!

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Calm down. For all you know he's just trying to provoke a response.

[August1991]

The West has been stupid not to see the difference in fighting the Taliban and fighting al-Qaeda. We went there to get rid of West-killing terrorists, and we've been mostly stuck fighting the people who harboured them but haven't attacked us beyond their borders (to my knowledge).

I tend to agree.

NATO went to Afghanistan because the Taliban harboured al-Qaeda. IMV, NATO's basic mission was to ensure that Afghanistan/ Taliban, other rogue states/regimes will not threaten the West.

In this, I never cared much whether Afghan girls could go to school or not, or whether villagers had access to a water well. (Of course, I prefer educated children and fresh water for all, but I reckon that Afghans (or Somalis) are better placed to figure this out than I.)

The only positives that I can find are these:

1. NATO has been truly defined by it’s divisions of “Can do” and “can’t do” nations, in other words, we know where we stand . As I said earlier in other threads, I think we should leave NATO yesterday.

2. We now have a cadre of troops that are battle tested, and will be able to convey their experiences to the next generation for the next ~30 years……We know what works and what doesn’t.

3. No political party will expend so much political capital on such a fruitless effort for generations.

IMHO, your No. 3 is a negative.

As to your No. 2, I reckon that we will face more such conflicts in the future. I am happy to know that the US military understands how to use predator drones. NATO military has a better understanding of IEDs.

No. 3? This was no fruitless effort. The political capital, in fact, was small. A generation or two ago, we in the West had bigger balls. How many Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan, and how many are buried in France or Holland?

Derek L, our military in Afghanistan did tremendous good. But I fear how people in the West now view the word "good".

-----

It is not politically correct to call this a "crusade" but in fact that is what this new war is. We in the West now confront the ignorance, superstition and backwardness of those around us.

Faced with Medieval people who manage to fly our planes into our buildings to kill us, we should be direct. For the others, we should show clearly that we are the faster horse.

Galileo, Peter the First, Michelangelo and Frederick the Great would understand our problem. So would Einstein and Newton. It's not new.

Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991

[Guest Derek L]

There’s nothing dignified or humane about war……These same methods were used successfully for thousands of years……From the Romans to the Vikings and the Crusades, to the Spanish conquistadors, the American war on the natives and British concentration camps during the Boer War to the area bombing of British, German and Japanese cities…….

The key being, all of these (amongst many others) examples are ones in which said party saw through their actions to a successful outcome…….Just in a few uncomfortable sentences, we’ve outlined why modern western culture is incapable of winning an insurgency against an opponent that isn’t encumbered by our cultural niceties…….They know, and don’t think twice about killing our parents, wives or children where they work, commute or vacation.

Those that responded with disgust from my previous, honest and factual, suggestions have demonstrated the exact response that we should wish to illicit from those that do kill our parents, wives and children……In that in doing so, they will invite an even worse plight on their own kind.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

No what you described is the textbook way to LOSE to a guerilla movement. Guerilla movements thrive when there is support for them in the areas where they live so they try to trick their militarily superior opponent into attacks with lots of collateral damage which serve to galvanize support for the guerillas. And they try to trick them into "going big" and spending lots of money.

Your plan seems to be to create as many terrorists as humanly possible?

How did that play out for the Carthaginians?

[Guest Derek L]

Your a sick minded individual for writing this!

Your promoting violence against innocent people by writing this!

You should be banned from this site!

WWWTT

What, you wish for a civil and pleasant conversation when discussing warfare? I’m sorry to burst your protective bubble, but warfare is violent and innocent people do die.

[Guest Derek L]

I tend to agree.

IMHO, your No. 3 is a negative.

As to your No. 2, I reckon that we will face more such conflicts in the future. I am happy to know that the US military understands how to use predator drones. NATO military has a better understanding of IEDs.

No. 3? This was no fruitless effort. The political capital, in fact, was small. A generation or two ago, we in the West had bigger balls. We may need them in the future.

-----

It is not politically correct to call this a "crusade" but in fact that is what this new war is. We in the West now confront the ignorance, superstition and backwardness of those around us.

Faced with Medieval people who manage to fly our planes into our buildings to kill us, we should be direct. For the others, we should show clearly that we are the faster horse.

Galileo, Peter the First, Michelangelo and Frederick the Great would understand our problem. So would Einstein and Newton. It's not new.

I agree with your sentiment, in that what is old is new again………the redux of Crusading and Gun boat diplomacy is upon us……Goodbye nation building.

[August1991]

There’s nothing dignified or humane about war……

I disagree fundamentally.

Derek, would you live in a city without a police force? Without a police force, you would live in a world ruled by the mob and the Hell's Angels or a libertarian hell-hole such as Somalia. When a soldier uses force, you call it "war" - but is that any different from a policeman?

---

We have war because we must have miltary/police and because, ultimately, police/military/wars/arrests are the basis of a civilized state.

I favour voluntary transactions but sometimes, paying taxes makes us all better off. Sometimes, we need coercion.

Moreover, there are some ignorant cheaters among us. We must teach them a lesson.

Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991

[Guest Derek L]

I disagree fundamentally.

Derek, would you live in a city without a police force? Without the police (and force or war), you would live in a world ruled by the mob and the Hell's Angels or a libertarian hell-hole such as Somalia.

---

We have war because we must have miltary/police and because, ultimately, police are the basis of a civilized state.

I favour voluntary transactions but sometimes, paying taxes makes us all better off.

As I disagree, I’m not under false hope/belief that violence in and of itself is not part of our genetic make-up….It most certainly is……..What is failing us as a culture, be it policing/warfare/justice etc, is the viewpoint that violence can be delivered upon a person well at the same time allowing said person dignity and humane treatment.

Go for the throat.

[waldo]

Those that responded with disgust from my previous, honest and factual, suggestions have demonstrated the exact response that we should wish to illicit from those that do kill our parents, wives and children……In that in doing so, they will invite an even worse plight on their own kind.

honest and factual suggestions? Keep digging that hole you're in...

[AusKanada]

A war in the style of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq cannot be won through conventional tactics. The problem inherent in all those conflicts was that the Western powers assumed those peoples wanted Western-style values and government, which they didn't and don't. I think that it will take a century or more for secular democracy to even begin to solidify in the latter two.

Winning "the hearts and minds" doesn't work in these conflicts, as the local populace are fanatically opposed to the "invaders." Regardless if the West is actually combating a greater threat than they could ever be thanks to human rights legislation, military protocols, democratic oversight, etc, the populace are believing that they are in some sort of grand nationalist struggle against imperialists or they are fighting for Islam against crusaders.

In a lot of ways, Afghanistan was worth it. The Taliban are relegated to the mountainous part of western Pakistan along the border and an at least "moderate" by Middle Eastern standards regime is there trying to bring some sort of stability.

I think the most sickening part of being part of the West is you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If there's Islamist militias killing Christian blacks in Somalia and the U.S. goes in it's "21st century imperialism," if they don't it's Western isolationism and a lack of commitment to human rights. They cannot win. I am not advocating unrestricted invasions, nothing of the sort, but I think anyone on the Left (such as myself) must recognize that interventionism must happen in particular cases, lest we be total hypocrites. Hard to call ourselves progressive humanists, if we let dictators and religious fanatics terrorize their people because of "religious or cultural differences."

[WWWTT]

What, you wish for a civil and pleasant conversation when discussing warfare? I’m sorry to burst your protective bubble, but warfare is violent and innocent people do die.

Your a sick minded twisted person for making those comments!

Don't bother replying to me anymore!

WWWTT

[greyman]

Derek, would you live in a city without a police force? Without a police force, you would live in a world ruled by the mob and the Hell's Angels or a libertarian hell-hole such as Somalia. When a soldier uses force, you call it "war" - but is that any different from a policeman?

We already live by mob rule, it's called democracy.

The police exist for one reason, and one reason only...to protect wealth.

In your idea of a so-called libertarian hell-hole, the police work at the bidding of the wealthy...hmmm...

Just because you don't see bloody bodies outside your front door everyday does not mean violence of another kind is not being perpetrated against you. Economic violence is pervasive, and every bit as real.

[Guest Derek L]

honest and factual suggestions? Keep digging that hole you're in...

What hole? Is their a stark difference between what I said, and what the Romans or US Army Cavalry did?

[CANADIEN]

That sounds like a manufactured response………As I said, the way in which both Iraq and Afghanistan (And the Soviets crack at it) and even Vietnam were fought was incorrect…..You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Test their resolve and see if they will allow the ones they love to be the actual martyrs

Congratulations. You have just provided concrete evidence that you are no better than Al-Queda and the Taliban. Ignored.

[Michael Hardner]

That sounds like a manufactured response………As I said, the way in which both Iraq and Afghanistan (And the Soviets crack at it) and even Vietnam were fought was incorrect…..You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Test their resolve and see if they will allow the ones they love to be the actual martyrs

This would work well if done by a country whose people prided themselves on their brutality, or maybe where they had no say in the affairs of their military, or no knowledge of what they did.

The U.S. could have won in Viet Nam by nuking and carpeting bombing the north too.

[Guest Derek L]

Congratulations. You have just provided concrete evidence that you are no better than Al-Queda and the Taliban. Ignored.

Congratulations, you’ve understood my point…somewhat……What I suggested, is that if we are to engage an opponent such as that, we shouldn’t restrict ourselves in our response. In other words, we become worse then they, if our true objective is to subdue them.

[Guest Derek L]

This would work well if done by a country whose people prided themselves on their brutality, or maybe where they had no say in the affairs of their military, or no knowledge of what they did.

The U.S. could have won in Viet Nam by nuking and carpeting bombing the north too.

My point exactly, hence my reasoning why Afghanistan is nearly a complete wasted effort………If we’re not prepared to win a war, why involve ourselves in them?

[Guest American Woman]

Congratulations. You have just provided concrete evidence that you are no better than Al-Queda and the Taliban. Ignored.

He also provided concrete evidence that we are better than they are, which is often refuted by too many. In fact, it's been said that "the American military is an utter disgrace to humanity." Fact is, we won't do all that could be done to win this war - not by a long shot.