U.S.' failure in Afghanistan

[carepov]

1) I dont blame the leadership of failed states, I blame the people of those states it all comes down to the people and what they are willing to let down.

2) There is no perfect war, by definition war is always a failure no matter how noble or righteous the cause is but ultimately the end result should speak for itself, regardless of the cost world war 2 was a success even though the allies under estimated the enemy, invested inadequate resources in to the war effort, both material and intellectual and were on the verge of defeat up to the point when the US and the USSR were dragged in to the war and even after that there were significant mistakes and waste of resources on the Allied side which prolonged the war and caused more pain and suffering for both the Allies and the Axis...

1) Most often, the people living in failed states are powerless, it's vey difficult to put much blame on them.

2) Yes, I agree - war is always a failure but some wars are successful. For WWII, perhaps a better way of looking at it is to judge specific operations or battles.

[Signals.Cpl]

2) Yes, I agree - war is always a failure but some wars are successful. For WWII, perhaps a better way of looking at it is to judge specific operations or battles.

Not quite, if we look at Afghanistan as a failure we should put the same conditions on World War 2 thus it means the end result was not worth the cost because the original estimate of the Allies was ridiculously off... Saying the end result in Afghanistan is not justified because the cost in lives and finances was underestimated could be applied to any other conflict, a war that should have lasted a few months to a year lasted 6 years and took more than 60 million lives along with a trillion dollars in 1945 currency whereas it could have cost much less, could have seen less loss of life and ended the war years early. By that calculation the war was a failure without consideration what the end result was.

[carepov]

Not quite, if we look at Afghanistan as a failure we should put the same conditions on World War 2 thus it means the end result was not worth the cost because the original estimate of the Allies was ridiculously off... Saying the end result in Afghanistan is not justified because the cost in lives and finances was underestimated could be applied to any other conflict, a war that should have lasted a few months to a year lasted 6 years and took more than 60 million lives along with a trillion dollars in 1945 currency whereas it could have cost much less, could have seen less loss of life and ended the war years early. By that calculation the war was a failure without consideration what the end result was.

What you are not considering is: What are the costs of not going to war?

-Needless to say, in WWII, the costs are immeasurable...

-In Afghanistan, the costs of not going to war are nothing in comparison. One more or one less failed state in the world. A few more or a few less terrorists…

Again, my opinion is that was that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and that once the war started we needed to keep fighting until security was restored. Let's say we can go back to 2001 and select one of the following:

a) Do things over more or less the same way as they actually happened

b.) Invade Afghanistan and focus Western resources on quickly restoring security and helping to rebuild (do not invade Iraq)

c) Do not invade Afghanistan

If I understand you correctly, both of us would choose Option b.). If b.) was not available, and I could choose only between a) and c), I would choose c).

Edited July 15, 2013 by carepov

[Hudson Jones]

By that calculation the war was a failure without consideration what the end result was.

So far, the end result has been that U.S. will be negotiating with the Taliban, instead of the first objective, which was to get rid of Taliban.

The lives lost, the billions spent aside, this mission has been a failure based on the above.

[Guest American Woman]

The lives lost, the billions spent aside, this mission has been a failure based on the above.

That's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at it and I'm thankful that the U.S. is above such judgement.

[Hudson Jones]

If the point of the mission was to get rid of the Taliban, the mission was a failure, since the U.S. is now forced to negotiate with the Taliban. Something they refused to do at the beginning and something they are now forced to do.

[Guest American Woman]

If the point of the mission was to get rid of the Taliban, the mission was a failure, since the U.S. is now forced to negotiate with the Taliban. Something they refused to do at the beginning and something they are now forced to do.

That's one marrow minded opinion - no more, no less.

[Guest American Woman]

If the point of the mission was to get rid of the Taliban, the mission was a failure, since the U.S. is now forced to negotiate with the Taliban. Something they refused to do at the beginning and something they are now forced to do.

Where would you get the idea that the point of the mission was to get rid of the Taliban? The point of the mission was to get bin Laden and to weaken al Qaeda and to overthrow the Taliban. Sort of how the Nazis in Germany were overthrown by WWII, but the world wasn't rid of Nazis.There are still Nazis around to this day. In that regard, "getting rid of the Taliban" was never an objective, as it would be an impossible-to-achieve objective, but the Taliban was overthrown. The U.S. did get bin Laden. All but two of al-Qaeda's top commanders have been killed or captured. Girls are going to school. Afghans are voting. Sounds like success to me.

Edited July 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

Maybe it's time to start taking about Afghanistan's failure in Afghanistan. Why after decades and decades, with billions and billions of recent outside investment are they still essentially a prehistoric society? How long will it take for them to step out of the dark ages and into something somewhat civilized?

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe it's time to start taking about Afghanistan's failure in Afghanistan.

This is the bottom line. If Afghanistan fails after the last of the troops leave, I don't see how that would be the U.S.'s failure.

[Black Dog]

Take up the White Man's burden--

The savage wars of peace--

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to nought

[bleeding heart]

I think Black Dog nails it.

I note we are eager to take credit for any good that happens, on the other hand. Having it both ways is awesome.

[Guest American Woman]

I think Black Dog nails it.

I note we are eager to take credit for any good that happens, on the other hand. Having it both ways is awesome.

Many are fine with taking criticism where criticism is due, but all too often it's the opposite side of the coin from what you say - ie: there are many who are eager to assign blame for anything negative that happens, while on the other hand, credit where credit is due is never given.

Having it both ways would, indeed, be awesome.

[bleeding heart]

Many are fine with taking criticism where criticism is due, but all too often it's the opposite side of the coin from what you say - ie: there are many who are eager to assign blame for anything negative that happens, while on the other hand, credit where credit is due is never given.

Having it both ways would, indeed, be awesome.

I get this, sure. But criticism of ourselves, as nations and international actors, supercedes our patting ourselves on the back.

So sure, credit where it's due.

But the other side of the coin is that most of us are insufficiently critical. So even if some evenness, some balance, were warranted...we don't have that.

[Shady]

I think Black Dog nails it.

I note we are eager to take credit for any good that happens, on the other hand. Having it both ways is awesome.

Blank Dog doesn't nail it at all. It's not our fault they still throw acid in the face of girls trying to go to school.

[bleeding heart]

Blank Dog doesn't nail it at all. It's not our fault they still throw acid in the face of girls trying to go to school.

No, it certainly isn't. It is our fault when we do the things that are our fault.

So...I think you're talking to a phantom whom you've unaccountably mistaken for myself.

Edited July 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

I get this, sure. But criticism of ourselves, as nations and international actors, supercedes our patting ourselves on the back.

Why is recognition of the good that was done "patting ourselves on the back?" I didn't go to Afghanistan - I'm not patting myself on the back for what was accomplished there. Furthermore, why should criticism "supersede" recognition? Why isn't recognition of the good just as important? One learns from what turns out good just as well as one learns from one's mistakes. Just the fact that you equate recognizing the good as "patting ourselves on the back" is telling, IMO. Humble? Martyr complex? Whatever it is, it comes across as false and pretentious. I think part of the problem with the world today is the focus is always on the negative. Many, many troops are doing wonderful things, one or two commit a horrible act, and that's what we hear about - and that's how "the troops" are portrayed. And you see that as a good thing? I would love to see more focus on the positive in the world - the good that's being done by so many, rather than always the negative.

But the other side of the coin is that most of us are insufficiently critical. So even if some evenness, some balance, were warranted...we don't have that.

When I access the media, this board, whatever, I see a whole lot more criticism/focus on the negative than I do recognition of the positive. That you apparently see otherwise makes me wonder where you are looking ..... Edited July 19, 2013 by American Woman

[ChristopherJ]

Going into Afghanistan was a disaster that will inevitably do far more harm than good. Afghanistan is not even a proper country as we know it, but a group of various tribal people. There was never any way of bringing peace to the country, especially by invading it and assuming some form of democracy would instantly cure all, or any, woes.

Same thing with Iraq.

You can expect civil war in one, if not both those countries, by the end of this decade. It's practically already happening in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the US adds another country to the countless countries it's moronically tried to impose it's will on, and in turn, another country and its people fosters hatred and vengeance against the invaders.

There isn't a more disastrous foreign policy in our modern era.

But I'm glad to see Obama has figured it out by blowing up children in Yemen and Pakistan and helping prolong, possibly even enter, the civil war in Syria.

I guess when the war machine is this big it needs to be fed.

[ChristopherJ]

Blank Dog doesn't nail it at all. It's not our fault they still throw acid in the face of girls trying to go to school.

What has that got to do with the US invading other countries?

The answer is nothing by the way.

[Hudson Jones]

The only winner in these wars are the military industrial complex and construction companies like KBR which count on wars, conflicts and tension between countries to reach their only goal; make money. Oh and the politician who work as lobbyists for the war machine, They make a few bucks as well.

[Guest American Woman]

The 3 million girls now attending school are "winners." Under the Taliban, education for girls was banned. Now 3.2 million girls attend school compared to 50,000 when the Taliban was in power.

[cybercoma]

Having it both ways is awesome.

This is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan. Our troops have had a role in the failure of Afghanistan's reconstruction as well. We sent thousands of troops over there over the years with some very loosely defined goals. You should read the report on Afghanistan that came out years ago. Let me see if I can dig it up and I'll edit this post accordingly then.

Edit: It appears that the link I have has been 404'd. The only documents on the site now are the ones from the Harper Government's committees. Go figure.

Edited July 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[Shady]

The only winner in these wars are the military industrial complex and construction companies like KBR which count on wars, conflicts and tension between countries to reach their only goal; make money. Oh and the politician who work as lobbyists for the war machine, They make a few bucks as well.

The girls now allowed to go to school are winners too.

[Shady]

This is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan. Our troops have had a role in the failure of Afghanistan's reconstruction as well. We sent thousands of troops over there over the years with some very loosely defined goals. You should read the report on Afghanistan that came out years ago. Let me see if I can dig it up and I'll edit this post accordingly then.Edit: It appears that the link I have has been 404'd. The only documents on the site now are the ones from the Harper Government's committees. Go figure.

It's not our job to reconstruct their country.

[cybercoma]

It's not our job to reconstruct their country.

By international conventions it absolutely is our responsibility to help with reconstruction.