Democrat "Think Tank": US 'should stay' in Afghanistan past 2014

[mrjarrell]

The two parties would love nothing more than to keep us in a perpetual state of warfare. The only ones benefiting from this are the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. The military and their families aren't benefiting. And it's a certainty that the tax payers in this country are seeing no benefit. Ten years apparently aren't enough to get the job done. So, let's sink a couple of trillion more and a few more thousand valuable lives into the mess. Add in their trillion dollar Air Force jets and things are good to go in Pentagon Candy Land.

US 'should stay' in Afghanistan past 2014

 

[spec4]

This will no doubt come up in debates by the GOP candidates. IMO we should leave now, how can we justify staying there?

 

[TRWXXA]

"It's a quagmire!! It's a quagmire!!"

No, not that kind.

 

[firehawk1]

"It's a quagmire!! It's a quagmire!!"

No, not that kind.

Igity igity... gigity gigity goo!

It's time to bring them home..... but inform them IF we detect ANY terroist training facilities being set up or used we WILL destroy them WITHOUT warning.

Our military is not meant for "nation building", let them keep their country a s**thole if that's what they want. We've spent way too much money AND more importantly the lives of our soldiers there.

FWIW, I believe we are there for a totally different reason now. Vast deposits of important minerals have been discovered there from what I've read. I read the Afgan people are sitting on a "goldmine".

 

[Garb]

This will no doubt come up in debates by the GOP candidates. IMO we should leave now, how can we justify staying there?

We could justify staying there with many different excuses. Most of those excuses are ones that the American people won't accept, so they have to make up crap like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" oh, and the latest one, "Osama's son is going to be the next big terror threat."

 

[spec4]

We could justify staying there with many different excuses. Most of those excuses are ones that the American people won't accept, so they have to make up crap like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" oh, and the latest one, "Osama's son is going to be the next big terror threat."

That being said, by 2012 how many Americans will support our presence there? We can keep an eye on them with satellites , any nonsense and in come the predators or tomahawks or whatever works.

 

[GARANDGUY]

If they would untie our hands and let us do our job the way it was meant to be done then it wouldnt take until 2014!

 

[mrjarrell]

If they would untie our hands and let us do our job the way it was meant to be done then it wouldnt take until 2014!

The Soviets hands were untied. The British hands were untied. Alexander the Great's hands were untied. Afghanistan is still there and all of those others aren't. History says your take on the matter is dead wrong. Ten years of US occupation and continued resistance says you're dead wrong. Unless you're willing to commit genocide and kill every last living thing in Afghanistan there is no other choice than to leave and let them sort out their own issues.

 

[Garb]

That being said, by 2012 how many Americans will support our presence there? We can keep an eye on them with satellites , any nonsense and in come the predators or tomahawks or whatever works.

A lot unfortunately. Too many have been led to believe that war leads to economic prosperity (I actually remember my high school text book saying this), and that the world is such a dangerous place that we need to go to war with third world countries. I hope enough will see that we can bring our troops home and still keep this nation safe. Honestly, I'm more worried about the intrusions of our own government than I am about Al Queda or any foreign country.

 

[Pocketman]

... FWIW, I believe we are there for a totally different reason now. Vast deposits of important minerals have been discovered there from what I've read. I read the Afgan people are sitting on a "goldmine".

Iraq is sitting on a large oil deposit and what's that gained for us?

Speaking of gasoline prices, it costs us $400 a gallon to ship it into some areas of Afghanistan.

 

[starcrack]

I'm surprised nobody brought up deterrence.

We're not in there for the resources. Maybe Iraq, but definitely not Afghanistan.

Democracy in the Middle East is a joke (anyone remember the Iran Elections? Thought not. Even Iranians don't remember it. Iranian masses might pretend they want freedom and human rights... but they really, really don't). In fact, no one cares about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the Middle East. Not us, not them, and certainly not the world leaders. It's just that easier to dress it up that way. For us, for them, and the politicians. The media tells you what you want to hear. But really, it's a non-issue. Arab Spring my ass. Egypt is right now a de facto dictatorship, and Libyan "rebels" are selling their homeland piece-by-piece already.

Anyway, I digress: the reason we're there is because it's a good place to exert some military influence. As the most powerful--and thus most hated--country in the world, it doesn't hurt to set up some forward bases in the thick of Islam country. You know, for deterrence.

That is the true prize of Afghan occupation, no matter what the politicians say. The reality is that it's hard to put a price on deterrence.

Whether or not the fears of it turning back into breeding grounds of next generation terrorists will come true is up for debate (911 times a hundred!)... but the return of the Taliban or a similar popular (yes, popular) religious totalitarian government is a certainty. You think Afghan masses are nearly as disciplined as 19th century France (devolved into dictatorship under Napoleon)? 20th century Russia, China, Spain, or Japan (all devolved into totalitarian states)? No, they are far feebler, far more ignorant, and far less willing to entertain secular, realistic worldview.

Noninterventionism is ultimately short sighted in the highly interconnected world of today, in my opinion. There are elements out there who will self-destruct unless chaperoned correctly, and when they do self-destruct they're likely to bring others down with them, as shown by recent events.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

The Soviets hands were untied. The British hands were untied. Alexander the Great's hands were untied. Afghanistan is still there and all of those others aren't. History says your take on the matter is dead wrong. Ten years of US occupation and continued resistance says you're dead wrong. Unless you're willing to commit genocide and kill every last living thing in Afghanistan there is no other choice than to leave and let them sort out their own issues.

People tend to forget that the Mongols & Maurya Empire both ruled Afghanistan for hundreds of years, to just list two.

And i recall that the Soviets had an economic meltdown, the British released control of India (and thus the *stans), and Alexander was stopped by India and died in Babylon, all of which have very little to do with Afghanistan.


The type of war being fought in Afghanistan can be either done right, fast or cheap; you get to pick only one.

 

[Garb]

As the most powerful--and thus most hated--country in the world, it doesn't hurt to set up some forward bases in the thick of Islam country. You know, for deterrence.

I think your analysis is dead wrong. They don't hate us because we're the best, they hate us because we constantly stick our noses in their business.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

This is a rather vague summary, but if you skip down to the 1940's and 50's, you can definitely see that we were getting involved in things we shouldn't have been.

 

[rugertoter]

We should have never went, in 2003, in the first place. Who gives a crap about what those clowns are doing "over there". If they bring it here, then we find them and pile on, but short of that? No.

 

[RockofStrength]

I still want to know why we are "stabilizing" these places. Yes, the loss of human life to genocide, hatred and ignorance is terrible but last I checked our intervention merely strengthens those traits and redirects the attention to our nation. Pave it under for a runway, capture it and make it apart of our national resources or leave. We do not owe them a stable nation: that is their own job.

 

[starcrack]

I think your analysis is dead wrong. They don't hate us because we're the best, they hate us because we constantly stick our noses in their business.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

This is a rather vague summary, but if you skip down to the 1940's and 50's, you can definitely see that we were getting involved in things we shouldn't have been.

Indeed, that may well be the case. That isn't important to my argument, though. Facts as they stand is that they do hate us, they blame their problems on us (some of it is legitimate, I will concede), and withdrawal of American occupation may lead to greater problems for us down the road. That's my point.

At the same time, though, I can't imagine there isn't some emotional backlash against nonmilitary policies against the West through the IMF and whatnot. And I don't know, man. I think that in this world, someone in a position of strength is prone to abusing that position even without deliberate ill will.

 

[starcrack]

I still want to know why we are "stabilizing" these places. Yes, the loss of human life to genocide, hatred and ignorance is terrible but last I checked our intervention merely strengthens those traits and redirects the attention to our nation. Pave it under for a runway, capture it and make it apart of our national resources or leave. We do not owe them a stable nation: that is their own job.

I think that we're in there pursuing our own interests as much as their own. USA worked officially and unofficially (read: illegally, covertly) against the popular Iranian revolution because a theocratic regime there threatens our access to strategic resources. And just as expected, Iran has become a huge headache for us. Islamist sentiments in Afghanistan are even more radical, as demonstrated by the Taliban.

I will admit that I don't really feel strongly (of course) that the war is worth its price tag. But we're not over there to do somebody else a favor, that's for damn sure.

 

[firehawk1]

Iraq is sitting on a large oil deposit and what's that gained for us?

Speaking of gasoline prices, it costs us $400 a gallon to ship it into some areas of Afghanistan.

As far as Iraq, kind of blows the theory out of the water we only went there for oil didn't it.

As far as Afgan "war", Can't say for sure why we are there, I thought we went there to get Osama. Supposedly mission completed. I still wonder about the natural resources that are there. From what I've read, China sits on the biggest reserves of some important resources. Might be nice to have a 'friend" that has them too?

As I said, and another poster brought up, bring them home! We are more than capable of watching what's going on, and dealing with it quickly if needed.

 

[GARANDGUY]

The Soviets hands were untied. The British hands were untied. Alexander the Great's hands were untied. Afghanistan is still there and all of those others aren't. History says your take on the matter is dead wrong. Ten years of US occupation and continued resistance says you're dead wrong. Unless you're willing to commit genocide and kill every last living thing in Afghanistan there is no other choice than to leave and let them sort out their own issues.

See below post.
I stand by my original post.

People tend to forget that the Mongols & Maurya Empire bothruled Afghanistan for hundreds of years, to just list two.

And i recall that the Soviets had an economic meltdown, the British released control of India (and thus the *stans), and Alexander was stopped by India and died in Babylon, all of which have very little to do with Afghanistan.


The type of war being fought in Afghanistan can be either done right, fast or cheap; you get to pick only one.

True and absolutely right! Outstanding job Marine! Rep for you .

 

[Leadeye]

Big indian money will keep the US acting as a policeman in the area costing dollars and lives. Paying lobbiests in dc to keep us there is really cheap compared to the alternative for them.