PDA

View Full Version : Fifteen years and billions of dollars ...



Syed
10-03-2015, 10:53 AM
... were Taliban in hibernation only ?

slug
10-03-2015, 11:28 AM
Yup.....

very complex situation

skuthorp
10-03-2015, 03:13 PM
You can't kill an idea, even with 'fifteen years and millions of dollars'.

LeeG
10-03-2015, 03:52 PM
... were Taliban in hibernation only ?

I think they live there

PeterSibley
10-03-2015, 04:05 PM
I think they live there

+1
We don't.
Whether an Afghan National Army is possible in the long term is an idea yet to be proven.

seanz
10-03-2015, 05:29 PM
Is it possible that we should be finding out how The Taliban have managed to do this?

PeterSibley
10-03-2015, 05:40 PM
Is it possible that we should be finding out how The Taliban have managed to do this?

Patience.

Not something we have.

My original suggestion was an occupation for 80 years or don't start, the same for Iraq.

Don't start.

skuthorp
10-03-2015, 05:56 PM
Your good idea, and the Taliban communities are likely somewhat different. I'm not saying that I think that particular idea is good, just as I don't think some of yours are good either. But as someone else said 'they live there'.

skuthorp
10-03-2015, 06:03 PM
One could say that about the gun obsessed community in the US.

skuthorp
10-03-2015, 06:09 PM
Proper Atheists don't preach, there's nothing to believe, or not as the case may be.

Cracker of a day here and I'm off outside into the sun, bye.

Paul Pless
10-03-2015, 06:35 PM
Obama sucks

LeeG
10-03-2015, 06:46 PM
Where they live has nothing to do with how they're allowed to behave.

Hahahahahahah!

LeeG
10-03-2015, 06:47 PM
Obama sucks

He can't even plug a deepwater oil leak

Syed
10-03-2015, 10:37 PM
Where they live has nothing to do with how they're allowed to behave.
Applies to both sides.

ShagRock
10-03-2015, 10:49 PM
Proper Atheists don't preach

I've never heard much from them besides preaching.

LeeG
10-03-2015, 11:26 PM
Well, Syed. You get to pick which side you prefer.

Who allows you to behave?

BrianW
10-03-2015, 11:37 PM
In the end, the Afghan people will get whatever government they allow to rule them.

PeterSibley
10-03-2015, 11:43 PM
That's another one of those broad generalisations you so dislike Brian.

Gerarddm
10-04-2015, 12:46 AM
Endemic corruption is killing the existing Afghan gov't.

Thanks, Karzai.

ShagRock
10-04-2015, 12:55 AM
Well Syed, what I notice is that when you ask a question of such importance to the country in question, we see on the Bilge a lot of one-liner responses. Almost as if the people there have little significance in the great game of American dominance. Even a minor quibble in the grand old riff-raff of American politicians raises a big stink, hours of useless TV analysis, and pages of venom.

ShagRock
10-04-2015, 01:26 AM
Don't ask the question in Hindu paper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFwB5ayV0vQ

PhaseLockedLoop
10-04-2015, 08:48 AM
I forget why we're fighting the Taliban. Can someone remind me?

LeeG
10-04-2015, 11:25 AM
I forget why we're fighting the Taliban. Can someone remind me?

Al Qaeda was too small a target for the MIC

BrianW
10-04-2015, 03:06 PM
I forget why we're fighting the Taliban. Can someone remind me?

It was a "war of necessity."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125054391631638123

BrianW
10-04-2015, 03:08 PM
A better question is... "why can't the Iraqi's and Afghan's maintain a democratic government?"

LeeG
10-04-2015, 03:12 PM
A better question is... "why can't the Iraqi's and Afghan's maintain a democratic government?"

when did they have one?

slug
10-04-2015, 03:14 PM
A better question is... "why can't the Iraqi's and Afghan's maintain a democratic government?"


I think they can. The problem is that to overcome thier internal challenges and modernize they need outside support for decades. Change comes very slow.

both Afghanistan and Iraq have made huge progress. They need support.

Virgin Gal
10-04-2015, 03:14 PM
A better question is... "why can't the Iraqi's and Afghan's maintain a democratic government?"

Because they weren't intended to be "Democracies". They were intended to be satellite "Stations" where the rest of the western world could get their resources. They are arbitrary lines drawn across and through tribal territories, by English and German engineers who had no idea what they were doing.

BrianW
10-04-2015, 05:55 PM
Because they weren't intended to be "Democracies". They were intended to be satellite "Stations" where the rest of the western world could get their resources. They are arbitrary lines drawn across and through tribal territories, by English and German engineers who had no idea what they were doing.

You sound different Virgin Gal. :D

BrianW
10-04-2015, 06:00 PM
when did they have one?

Back in the 1960's for the Afghan's...

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afghanistan-1960s-photos/5846/

Haven't looked into the Iraq situation.

Chris Smith porter maine
10-04-2015, 06:19 PM
Back in the 1960's for the Afghan's...

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afghanistan-1960s-photos/5846/

Haven't looked into the Iraq situation.

Afghanistan had a king till 1973, when another member of his family over overthrew him and declared himself president yea that's a democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah
http://www.afghangovernment.com/briefhistory.htm.

CWSmith
10-04-2015, 07:03 PM
When the beheadings resume this country will be reminded what it means to lose a war. We pretend we don't. We ignore the reality of Vietnam. When the beheadings resume, everyone will ask "Why did we go through all that?"

BrianW
10-04-2015, 09:39 PM
Afghanistan had a king till 1973, when another member of his family over overthrew him and declared himself president yea that's a democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah
http://www.afghangovernment.com/briefhistory.htm.

That's what I get for being in a hurry.

They sure acted like a democracy at the street level. This blurb from your first link is along the lines of what I was thinking...


Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own in 1963[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah#cite_note-Chesterman-8) and despite the factionalism and political infighting a new constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Constitution_of_Afghanistan) was introduced in 1964 which turned Afghanistan into a modern democratic state by introducing free elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Difficulties_with_elections), a parliament, civil rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights), women's rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) and universal suffrage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah#cite_note-10.2F01-12)

BrianW
10-04-2015, 09:41 PM
When the beheadings resume this country will be reminded what it means to lose a war. We pretend we don't. We ignore the reality of Vietnam. When the beheadings resume, everyone will ask "Why did we go through all that?"

The last war we won ended with the US dropping two nuclear bombs.

CWSmith
10-04-2015, 09:45 PM
The last war we won ended with the US dropping two nuclear bombs.

Arguably. Still, the myth continues. There is no doubt that we will again see beheadings, including women accused (but by no means found guilty by our standards) of adultery.

Steve McMahon
10-04-2015, 09:49 PM
The last war we won ended with the US dropping two nuclear bombs.

You are correct. All of the ones since then have been unplanned learning experiences.

BrianW
10-05-2015, 01:05 AM
Arguably. Still, the myth continues. There is no doubt that we will again see beheadings, including women accused (but by no means found guilty by our standards) of adultery.

Yep.

Syed
10-05-2015, 11:03 AM
I don't know if many people here followed the recent Kunduz episode.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/world/asia/kunduz-afghanistan-taliban.html?_r=0

slug
10-05-2015, 11:55 AM
I don't know if many people here followed the recent Kunduz episode.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/world/asia/kunduz-afghanistan-taliban.html?_r=0


Tragic situation.. I expect many more.

the BBC world service has had much coverage of the incedent.

CK 17
10-05-2015, 12:09 PM
A better question is... "why can't the Iraqi's and Afghan's maintain a democratic government?"
That's easy. They don't want one bad enough yet. Maybe some day.. It's that simple.

Osborne Russell
10-05-2015, 01:30 PM
That's easy. They don't want one bad enough yet. Maybe some day.. It's that simple.

No it isn't. "The Iraqis" and "the Afghans" are fictions invented by the west to play roles in the west's rationalization of its pursuit of its interests.

There was no "American people" at the time of the American revolution; and sixty years later, when Robert E. Lee spoke of "my country", he meant Virginia.

There is barely a consensus on natural, i.e. super-tribal, super-religious human rights in America today, the nation which at its founding proclaimed itself the bastion of those rights for all time. What would popular demand for democracy in "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" be based on?

BrianW
10-05-2015, 02:33 PM
I don't know if many people here followed the recent Kunduz episode.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/world/asia/kunduz-afghanistan-taliban.html?_r=0

It's received wide covered on Al Jazeera America network.

peb
10-05-2015, 04:10 PM
We drove them from power, after they provided direct support, facilities, and shelter to those who attacked us on 911. It was a victory. Did we wipe them all out? No. Are they threatening again to take over the country after 13-14 years? Yes. But they have not done so yet. We should work to prevent that. But still, we accomplished in Afghanistan something good. It will be better if it lasts. But we should not regard the afghan war as a failure.

peb
10-05-2015, 04:17 PM
Imagine if we would have left Afghanistan alone, the Taliban in power all these years and Al Queda bases remaining throughout the country. That's what many on the left today proudly espouse as their desire when they talk of how horrible it was that we went into Afghanistan.

LeeG
10-05-2015, 04:30 PM
We drove them from power, after they provided direct support, facilities, and shelter to those who attacked us on 911. It was a victory. Did we wipe them all out? No. Are they threatening again to take over the country after 13-14 years? Yes. But they have not done so yet. We should work to prevent that. But still, we accomplished in Afghanistan something good. It will be better if it lasts. But we should not regard the afghan war as a failure.

The Guilt by Association aspect to the Bush Wolfowitz Doctrine was a dumbassed policy to lower the threshold for conventional warfare. Ferreting out terrorists in Germany, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwaitt, Florida, etc isn't done through conventional warfare. Al Qaeda didn't require the Taliban to attack the U.S. anymore than it required Yemen or Malaysia to attack the USS Cole. The Taliban had no more role in the 9/11 attack than Saddam did.
No Taliban there. Why in the world would you take on "regime change" in Afghanistan when the guilty party for 9/11 was KSM, Osama and related Al Qaeda? Two completely different goals. Turning Afghanistan into Disneyland wouldn't do anything to Al Qaeda.

Wiki:

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.

CK 17
10-05-2015, 05:23 PM
No it isn't. "The Iraqis" and "the Afghans" are fictions invented by the west to play roles in the west's rationalization of its pursuit of its interests.

There was no "American people" at the time of the American revolution; and sixty years later, when Robert E. Lee spoke of "my country", he meant Virginia.

There is barely a consensus on natural, i.e. super-tribal, super-religious human rights in America today, the nation which at its founding proclaimed itself the bastion of those rights for all time. What would popular demand for democracy in "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" be based on?
I think we're saying the same thing. They have to decide without any influence from us. They can have whatever they want. We should butt out.

CK 17
10-05-2015, 05:30 PM
Imagine if we would have left Afghanistan alone, the Taliban in power all these years and Al Queda bases remaining throughout the country. That's what many on the left today proudly espouse as their desire when they talk of how horrible it was that we went into Afghanistan.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal that wasn't in support of retaliation for 9/11. It was attacking the wrong country as either a gross mistake or a deliberate deception that most of us find wrong. Once we kicked al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, it should have been mission accomplished.

skuthorp
10-05-2015, 06:57 PM
"But we should not regard the afghan war as a failure."
Heavens no peb, there's been too many of them already since say Korea? Don't want to add another to the list.

peb
10-05-2015, 08:07 PM
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal that wasn't in support of retaliation for 9/11. It was attacking the wrong country as either a gross mistake or a deliberate deception that most of us find wrong. Once we kicked al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, it should have been mission accomplished.



So we should have kicked al qaeda out of Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban? You guys do realize that some of the taliban's army groups were entirely made up of al qaeda forces. Other parts of the government were also fully integrated with al Qaeda.

What lee and you propose would have been impossible. Defeating al qaeda in Afghanistan took much longer than overthrowing the Taliban. down Ng that, while afghan government forces were always nipping at your heels, really?

PeterSibley
10-05-2015, 11:25 PM
So we should have kicked al qaeda out of Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban? You guys do realize that some of the taliban's army groups were entirely made up of al qaeda forces. Other parts of the government were also fully integrated with al Qaeda.

What lee and you propose would have been impossible. Defeating al qaeda in Afghanistan took much longer than overthrowing the Taliban. down Ng that, while afghan government forces were always nipping at your heels, really?

In a word, yes.

We weren't going to stay long enough* or think enough to make a long term cultural change ... so don't start .

All we have done is waste lives and treasure.

* Long enough starts at 4 generations.

LeeG
10-05-2015, 11:56 PM
So we should have kicked al qaeda out of Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban? You guys do realize that some of the taliban's army groups were entirely made up of al qaeda forces. Other parts of the government were also fully integrated with al Qaeda.

What lee and you propose would have been impossible. Defeating al qaeda in Afghanistan took much longer than overthrowing the Taliban. down Ng that, while afghan government forces were always nipping at your heels, really?

Al Qaeda isn't country dependent. You don't appear to be willing to accept that Al Qaeda is distinct from the Taliban. The Taliban had no role in 9/11. Insisting that the association of Al Qaeda with the Taliban makes them equivalent is nonsense. Pakistan ISI had associations with jihadists, given OBL last residence was in Pakistan maybe we should have charged off into Pakistan against 185 million people ....well cuz he was there.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2015, 01:41 PM
So we should have kicked al qaeda out of Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban? You guys do realize that some of the taliban's army groups were entirely made up of al qaeda forces. Other parts of the government were also fully integrated with al Qaeda.

What lee and you propose would have been impossible. Defeating al qaeda in Afghanistan took much longer than overthrowing the Taliban. down Ng that, while afghan government forces were always nipping at your heels, really?

No matter how strong the other justifications for invasion, it's only half the story at best. Usually more. What will you erect amidst the ruins is the question. Very likely it will cost much more than the war.

If you haven't figured this out and committed to nation-rebuilding prior to invading, you have no business invading.

peb
10-06-2015, 03:12 PM
Al Qaeda isn't country dependent. You don't appear to be willing to accept that Al Qaeda is distinct from the Taliban. The Taliban had no role in 9/11. Insisting that the association of Al Qaeda with the Taliban makes them equivalent is nonsense. Pakistan ISI had associations with jihadists, given OBL last residence was in Pakistan maybe we should have charged off into Pakistan against 185 million people ....well cuz he was there.



Al qaeda was country dependent from around 1995 , iirc, until 2001. All their operations, of any significance, were in Afghanistan. Tell me again how we should have responded to 9/11 without taking on the Taliban.

peb
10-06-2015, 03:13 PM
No matter how strong the other justifications for invasion, it's only half the story at best. Usually more. What will you erect amidst the ruins is the question. Very likely it will cost much more than the war.





If you haven't figured this out and committed to nation-rebuilding prior to invading, you have no business invading.



And that has been true. we have been committed to nation building, that's why we are still there. Buts its not easy. Still, what we did in Afghanistan had to be done.

Norman Bernstein
10-06-2015, 03:17 PM
And that has been true. we have been committed to nation building, that's why we are still there. Buts its not easy. Still, what we did in Afghanistan had to be done.

'Had to be done'? Yeah, you're right. If you've got gangrene in your leg, you have to get your leg cut off. It has to be done.....

....but you are aware, of course, that when it's all over... you have no leg.

I'm not suggesting that there were alternative options.... just that there wasn't any upside.

peb
10-06-2015, 03:26 PM
'Had to be done'? Yeah, you're right. If you've got gangrene in your leg, you have to get your leg cut off. It has to be done.....

....but you are aware, of course, that when it's all over... you have no leg.

I'm not suggesting that there were alternative options.... just that there wasn't any upside.



Huge upside. The Taliban has been out of power for almost 14 years and Al Qaeda global terrorist capabilities were drastically reduced and remain that way.



I don't understand you libs with regards the Afghan war. Alqaeda could have been left in place all tho time, working closely in conjunction with a tyrannical fundamentalist government. that would have worked out well.

Norman Bernstein
10-06-2015, 03:29 PM
Huge upside. The Taliban has been out of power for almost 14 years and Al Qaeda global terrorist capabilities were drastically reduced and remain that way.

Perhaps, making way for ISIS, who is far worse than Al Queda.


I don't understand you libs with regards the Afghan war. Alqaeda could have been left in place all tho time, working closely in conjunction with a tyrannical fundamentalist government. that would have worked out well.

I think I pointed out that it was indeed necessary.... I'm simply pointing out that the end result is hardly something to cheer about.

peb
10-06-2015, 04:35 PM
Perhaps, making way for ISIS, who is far worse than Al Queda.



I think I pointed out that it was indeed necessary.... I'm simply pointing out that the end result is hardly something to cheer about.



Al Qaeda was, on a regular basis, conducting large international terrorism operations throughout the 90s. That is pretty much a thing of the past. A result that could not have been achieved without the Afghan War. Worth cheering about IMO.

peb
10-06-2015, 04:38 PM
ISIS came out of Iraq, not Afghanistan. I do not believe wiping out the Taliban 13 years ago paved the way for ISIS. But lots of revisionist history on this thread, so I am sure its a claim that will be supported by someone

PeterSibley
10-06-2015, 04:43 PM
Al qaeda was country dependent from around 1995 , iirc, until 2001. All their operations, of any significance, were in Afghanistan. Tell me again how we should have responded to 9/11 without taking on the Taliban.

Yes, like that. Take on AQ and leave the Taliban. What possible point was there in going to war in Afghanistan? Mining concessions ? Probably, resource theft is the usual motivation for an invasion.

LeeG
10-06-2015, 04:45 PM
Al qaeda was country dependent from around 1995 , iirc, until 2001. All their operations, of any significance, were in Afghanistan. Tell me again how we should have responded to 9/11 without taking on the Taliban.

We didn't take out the Taliban or Al Qaeda, they still exist. The people responsible for 9/11 were in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Germany and other places. Those geographical places and the gov'ts therein had no role in 9/11. You have Al Qaeda and the Taliban totally connected for no reason. Regime changing the Taliban and totally distorting its economy isn't counterterrorism. We were hit by terrorists, not Afghanistan.
You have obviously swallowed the guilt by association aspect of the Bush Wolfowitz doctrine without acknowledging the quagmire that followed it. 40,000 Taliban in one country is not the same thing as a transnational organization with adherents throughout the world touched by fundamentalist militants.

LeeG
10-06-2015, 04:46 PM
And that has been true. we have been committed to nation building, that's why we are still there. Buts its not easy. Still, what we did in Afghanistan had to be done.

Where was KSM and OBL captured?

peb
10-06-2015, 04:48 PM
Yes, like that. Take on AQ and leave the Taliban. What possible point was there in going to war in Afghanistan? Mining concessions ? Probably, resource theft is the usual motivation for an invasion.



How? Entire units of the talking ban army were manned by Al Qaeda members. So we fight on the ground in Afghanistan, and and ask the Taliban to just leave us alone while we take on Al Qaefa? Please don't mind us?

LeeG
10-06-2015, 04:49 PM
ISIS came out of Iraq, not Afghanistan. I do not believe wiping out the Taliban 13 years ago paved the way for ISIS. But lots of revisionist history on this thread, so I am sure its a claim that will be supported by someone

Invasion of Iraq paved the way for a whole salad bowl of jihadism with ISIS/Daesh leading the charge. We moved the Taliban out of Kabul and other parts, they didn't disappear.

peb
10-06-2015, 04:51 PM
Where was KSM and OBL captured?



Yes, after destroying al qaedas main basis in Afghanistan, they fled to the mountains on the border of the two countries, spilling over into Pakistan. After that, they hid wherever they could. completely beside the point



Where were those two in 2001?

PeterSibley
10-06-2015, 05:12 PM
How? Entire units of the talking ban army were manned by Al Qaeda members. So we fight on the ground in Afghanistan, and and ask the Taliban to just leave us alone while we take on Al Qaefa? Please don't mind us?

Let's just say your suggestion was tried and turned into another pit into which to throw lives and treasure. A successful long term invasion is quite hard to organise if the locals object.

peb
10-06-2015, 05:20 PM
Let's just say your suggestion was tried and turned into another pit into which to throw lives and treasure. A successful long term invasion is quite hard to organise if the locals object.



My suggestion? I was making fun of what you were proposing.

PeterSibley
10-06-2015, 05:28 PM
Well what you wanted has been a complete failure so carry on dreaming .

LeeG
10-06-2015, 05:33 PM
Yes, after destroying al qaedas main basis in Afghanistan, they fled to the mountains on the border of the two countries, spilling over into Pakistan. After that, they hid wherever they could. completely beside the point



Where were those two in 2001?

Where was he in '90-'96?

The geographical location where planning occurs doesn't define the enemy.

peb
10-06-2015, 05:39 PM
I am waiting for someone to explain how we would have taken on Al Qaeda in 2001 without going into Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban also.





In 2001: Al Qaeda's headquarters was in Afghanistan. The Taliban army and Al Qaeda were integrated. They had 100 bases in Afghanistan at that time.



So please describe how we would have done so?

peb
10-06-2015, 05:40 PM
My suggestion? I was making fun of what you were proposing.



It has not. Again, Al Qaeda's global terrorism.stopped, the Taliban has been out of power for over 13 years. Afghanistan was a big success.

PeterSibley
10-06-2015, 06:06 PM
AQ has shifted bases, they aren't set in stone and have been dramatically successful in destablising the ME and making room for Islamic versus secular rule. They couldn't have done it without the good old USA though ! If the US had treated the 9/11 attacks like a crime and gone after just the criminals instead of using the event to take over a country , sorry , 2 countries, the ME would NOT be in the middle of a mind numbing sh!t storm right now..

As for Afghanistan.... 13 years is your time frame ? Really? I think they think a little longer ............... the US will leave and they will come back.

LeeG
10-06-2015, 06:09 PM
Afghanistan was a big success.


Right

bamamick
10-06-2015, 06:25 PM
It has not. Again, Al Qaeda's global terrorism.stopped, the Taliban has been out of power for over 13 years. Afghanistan was a big success.

If that is how you measure success then you are right, but you know in your heart that every single allied soldier or marine or airman who died there is a tragedy, don't you? That the interpreters, contractors, and general population supporters of the allies are going to suffer terrible persecution now that we have pulled out, right? We can not keep doing this. You either have to commit to being there forever, and I mean forever, or you mete out whatever retribution makes you feel better about things and you get the heck out of there.

I don't know how to fix the problems of the world, but I guess no one else does, either. Doesn't make me feel any better.

Mickey Lake

peb
10-06-2015, 06:58 PM
AQ has shifted bases, they aren't set in stone and have been dramatically successful in destablising the ME and making room for Islamic versus secular rule. They couldn't have done it without the good old USA though ! If the US had treated the 9/11 attacks like a crime and gone after just the criminals instead of using the event to take over a country , sorry , 2 countries, the ME would NOT be in the middle of a mind numbing sh!t storm right now..

As for Afghanistan.... 13 years is your time frame ? Really? I think they think a little longer ............... the US will leave and they will come back.



We could not even have gone after the criminals without going into Afghanistan.



The middle was is a mess because of the middle east, not because we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan.



No 13 years is nit my time frame, it is the amount if time the Taliban and al Qaeda have been outof power in Afghanistan.

PeterSibley
10-06-2015, 07:25 PM
In and out.

Not in and regime change.

The ME is in a mess because the good old USA kicked the door down, destroyed all the power structures and replaced them with chaos. You may not like the truth but it's right there in front of you.

The Taliban, when the US leaves they will be back in, so let's make it 15 years . How many dead , how many trillions , but hey, deficits don't matter do they?

ccmanuals
10-06-2015, 08:12 PM
We could not even have gone after the criminals without going into Afghanistan.



The middle was is a mess because of the middle east, not because we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan.



No 13 years is nit my time frame, it is the amount if time the Taliban and al Qaeda have been outof power in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately the Bush team was not interested in capturing or killing OBL or eliminating Al Qaeda.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/how-bin-laden-escaped-in-2001-the-lessons-of-tora-bora.html

LeeG
10-06-2015, 09:31 PM
Unfortunately the Bush team was not interested in capturing or killing OBL or eliminating Al Qaeda.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/how-bin-laden-escaped-in-2001-the-lessons-of-tora-bora.html

True, they had much bigger adversaries. The unknown unknowns. In the mean time we'll prove w're light years ahead of future superpowers like China. It'll take a quagmire or two, a few trillion but we'll do it, God we're magnificent!

Syed
10-07-2015, 10:29 AM
.... but you know in your heart that every single allied soldier or marine or airman who died there is a tragedy, don't you? ...

Mickey Lake

Women, children and civilian casualties is no less a tragedy, though they mostly belonged to the other side.

LeeG
10-07-2015, 10:53 AM
In and out.

Not in and regime change.

The ME is in a mess because the good old USA kicked the door down, destroyed all the power structures and replaced them with chaos. You may not like the truth but it's right there in front of you.

The Taliban, when the US leaves they will be back in, so let's make it 15 years . How many dead , how many trillions , but hey, deficits don't matter do they?

This whole concept of "regime change" is deeply flawed. It's like we're the omnipotent one turning a knob. "Here, I'll change that channel"

bamamick
10-07-2015, 01:29 PM
Women, children and civilian casualties is no less a tragedy, though they mostly belonged to the other side.

Agreed, Syed. Unfortunately we seldom call those into account when we add up the 'cost' of a military campaign. I wonder what the total cost in lives in the Middle East and their adjacent territories is since the 9/11 attacks?

Mickey Lake

peb
10-07-2015, 04:21 PM
Dear Taliban,

Our country was recently attacked by an organization headquartered in your country, fully integrated with your armed forces, and possessing 100 bases in your territory. We would like to stress that in no way do we intend to effect any change of status in the government if Afghanistan. We do intend to go into your country and conduct major military operations against this organization in order to greatly reduce their terrorism capabilities and bring those individuals involved (some of which are members of your defense forces) to justice. In doing so, due to the nature of your armed forces being integrated with said organization, we will of course be conducting major operations directly against many of your army units.

We simply ask you stand back and let our military operations proceed with no interference by purely Taliban forces. When we are finished, we will get out of your country quickly.



Sincerely,

The United States of America



P.S. We will be joined by 38 allied countries, please give them the same consideration.

peb
10-07-2015, 04:22 PM
I think it might have worked

LeeG
10-07-2015, 04:37 PM
I think it might have worked

What might have worked? Militant Salafism has been spread around by our Wahabbist ally. Al Qaeda is one manifestation. It continues in Yemen, Syria, etc. We disregarded Pakistans sovereignty to get OBL and the same could have occurred in Afghanistan. The Bush Wolfowitz Doctrine was a rationalization for unleashing the MIC, not for initiating counterterrorism strategy. We were attacked by terrorists, not a nation. Your argument that the Taliban gets elevated to the same status as Al Qaeda because of geography and ideological affinity is nuts. We might as well attack Saudi Arabia.

peb
10-07-2015, 05:14 PM
What might have worked? See post 82

PeterSibley
10-07-2015, 05:19 PM
It might have, I think the Taliban may have actually realised that AQ and the USA had something to sort out that was not of their making.

Was the letter sent ? or was the opportunity to do a bit of regime change too much to resist ?

LeeG
10-07-2015, 08:51 PM
What might have worked? See post 82

Your fairytale? We totally blew off Iran's offer for assistance in getting Al Qaeda, we had a war on and no one was going to get in the way. Counterterrorism was corrupted by the neocons, Cheney and Muricans seeking war. Gog and Magog dude!