# VastLWC Presents: Let's have a productive discussion: Afghanistan



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

*So, if you folks were president, how would you approach the Afghanistan problem?*

Please be detailed, and explain why you think your plan would be effective.

And remember, this thread is about productive suggestions, not criticizing existing plans.


----------



## xsited1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Bring our troops home now.  Continuing to intervene in their affairs is unlikely to produce positive results.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2009)

I still haven't seen an effective exit strategy. If they can't show how to effectively stabilize Afghanistan in a reasonable timeframe, it is time to pull out


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

OK, pull out completely, that's a suggestion.

Anyone else?


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Make a decision to either influence the country or cut and run. Can't do both. 

Like Iraq, there must be pacification coupled with helping to develop the skills needed for building schools, infrastructure, and bringing the populace into at least the late 19th C. Help build the base of knowledge of fair expectations of responsive government and the benefits of capitalism, (sorry for that filthy word). In many ways people there 'get it.' an acre of poppies brings how much $$$? An acre of wheat? Got to find the ways and benefits around that. 

If instead we cut and run, be prepared for very bad blowback, as all our allies have made clear, along with our own generals. Obama said he won't do this, fine and good. So got to pick the other choice, which means more troops and more smart folks.


----------



## goldcatt (Oct 6, 2009)

The problem is Afghanistan hasn't really been a nation since, well, forever. How do we go about nation building from scratch?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 6, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> The problem is Afghanistan hasn't really been a nation since, well, forever. How do we go about nation building from scratch?


Agreed.  Nation building is not practical and I haven't seen any desire for that from anyone.

I have seen a request for additional troops to prevent the momentum of the growing insurgency.  After reading the assessment, it seems reasonable that these troops will do that initially and allow for more efforts to train locals to actually police themselves.

Or, we don't provide the troops and just get the hell out immediately.  Apparently, that would eventually allow for radical factions to become well entrenched.

Give those who are on the ground what they need or don't and get out, now.  Don't waste their time and lives with pussyfooting, though.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

So those are the only two choices?

A full Marshall plan, or a full pullout?

Perhaps there are some other strategies that might work?


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> So those are the only two choices?
> 
> A full Marshall plan, or a full pullout?
> 
> Perhaps there are some other strategies that might work?



Suggest, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2009)

We lost the opportunity for other choices when the U.S. pulled resources from Afghanistan to support the Iraq invasion.  I would amplify si modo's comment and suggest that the bad guys are very entrenched, certainly outside of the capitol.  We could not save China or Vietnam because we would or could not put in the resources necessary to do so.  I do not think American people are ready for a massive effort eight years after the first fighting began on the ground there.  So: come home and prepare for a massive criticism from our allies.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> So those are the only two choices?
> 
> A full Marshall plan, or a full pullout?
> 
> Perhaps there are some other strategies that might work?


I didn't suggest "full Marshall plan".  I suggest giving McChrystal what he wants - more troops, more resources.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > So those are the only two choices?
> ...



Actually I wrote that before I read your post.

My bad.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Well, how about this...

Gather a massive force in the region, gather all the intelligence you can, and then make one massive sweep of the region, to grab up all the Taliban and Al Qaeda, *including northern Pakistan*.  Then get the hell out.

I'm serious here.  Frankly I think Pakistan has always been the largest problem in the region.  I mean, they're the ones harboring the actual terrorists, the Taliban regrouped in Pakistan and then moved back into Afghanistan, and Pakistan is responsible for spreading Nuclear technology all across the region.

In other words, Pakistan is everything we said we were going to combat at the beginning of the War on Terror.  Pakistan is what Iraq was supposed to be.

So if Pakistan doesn't want to cooperate with our offensive, tell them we'll ally ourselves with India and blow their country back to the stone age (a la Dick Cheney).

Once the massive sweep has been conducted, get the hell out.  Then make it clear that if any major terroist attack occurs, we will find whatever country harbored the people responsible, and turn the capital of said country into a sheet of glass.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

And you all thought liberals were pacifists.

LOL.


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And you all thought liberals were pacifists.
> 
> LOL.



No, not pacifist, but not the brightest lights. You would breech the sovereignty of an ally, without any guarantee of success? What would all other allies think after that? What would the American people think after that? Geez, I thought Jimmy Carter was a fool.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Annie said:


> No, not pacifist, but not the brightest lights. You would breech the sovereignty of an ally, without any guarantee of success? What would all other allies think after that? What would the American people think after that? Geez, I thought Jimmy Carter was a fool.



*How the hell is Pakistan an "ally"?*

So far they've provided our enemies with Nuclear Secrets and provided a safe harbor to the actual perpetrators of 9/11.

I'm really unsure as to how they qualify as "Allies" at all except for the fact that we keep giving them money to basically do nothing.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

In fact, our actual enemies in Afghanistan, the Taliban, are the product of Pakistan, and their reconstitution can at least partially be laid at the feet of Pakistani intelligence.


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > No, not pacifist, but not the brightest lights. You would breech the sovereignty of an ally, without any guarantee of success? What would all other allies think after that? What would the American people think after that? Geez, I thought Jimmy Carter was a fool.
> ...



They're an ally as is Saudi Arabia. Not who I'd pick on my side for a fight, but letting us use them for the fights that must be fought now. You wouldn't make it in the State Department, I wouldn't want to. Dirty stuff.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 6, 2009)

Annie said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And you all thought liberals were pacifists.
> ...



Good points.
All al Qaeda would have to do is make for the hills until the sweep was over, wait for the Army to depart the scene and they're back in business.
It's largely a no win situation.  The best idea I can come up with (and I'm not wedded to it) is to pursue a quasi guerrila campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban, keeping them off balance.
I know trying to build stability isn't going to happen.  The British tried it in the 19th century and had their asses handed to them.  The Russians in the 20th century and the same thing happened.  We're 3k miles away and we sure aren't going to do it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Annie said:


> They're an ally as is Saudi Arabia. Not who I'd pick on my side for a fight, but letting us use them for the fights that must be fought now. You wouldn't make it in the State Department, I wouldn't want to. Dirty stuff.



Like what "fights"?

Saudi Arabia has helped us militarily in the region, and allowed us to have bases on their territory.

What has Pakistan done for us in return for the Billions of dollars we have given them?


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > They're an ally as is Saudi Arabia. Not who I'd pick on my side for a fight, but letting us use them for the fights that must be fought now. You wouldn't make it in the State Department, I wouldn't want to. Dirty stuff.
> ...



If at this point in time, regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al qaeda, you don't know, I can't educate you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Good points.
> All al Qaeda would have to do is make for the hills until the sweep was over, wait for the Army to depart the scene and they're back in business.



If you make the country they operate out of culpable for their crimes, then that country will not give them safe haven.  That was the orginal point of the War on Terror.

Pakistan is quite fine with letting AlQaeda and the Taliban thrive in their country, because they know we're not going to take action against them.



> It's largely a no win situation.  The best idea I can come up with (and I'm not wedded to it) is to pursue a quasi guerrila campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban, keeping them off balance.
> I know trying to build stability isn't going to happen.  The British tried it in the 19th century and had their asses handed to them.  The Russians in the 20th century and the same thing happened.  We're 3k miles away and we sure aren't going to do it.



Guerrilla warfare?  That's a thought.  Would we use our own troops or hire a third party mercenary force in order to evade culpability?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Annie said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...




A pure evasion.  Give me an example of a major victory Pakistan has scored for us in the war on Terror that counterbalances all the harm they have caused.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

And, Annie, do you even have a suggestion on what might be done?  Or do your comments simply consist of criticism of other people's strategies?


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Currently it's more than troubling. Pervez Musharraf may well have fit the bill of 'our bastard', but he's gone now. How's that working out? At the same time, under Obama, they've squawked, but have continued to allow the drone attacks to be carried out.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

Annie said:


> Currently it's more than troubling. Pervez Musharraf may well have fit the bill of 'our bastard', but he's gone now. How's that working out? At the same time, under Obama, they've squawked, but have continued to allow the drone attacks to be carried out.



So basically they're our "ally" because they're magnanimously allowing us to make unmanned strikes, only, on international criminals that they are harboring?  International criminals that have attacked American soil?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

And meanwhile they're helping our enemies make Nukes, and their intelligence forces are helping the Taliban attack us in Afghanistan.


----------



## Annie (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And meanwhile they're helping our enemies make Nukes, and their intelligence forces are helping the Taliban attack us in Afghanistan.



Actually, I'd focus more on NK just saying.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 6, 2009)

VAST i've typed up 3 responses and deleted them all.  

My honest view actually scares me so i'm going with bring the troops home, it sounds way less evil than my other 3 posts.


Something along the lines of follow the taliban/al-quaeda outside of afghanistan and kill them, use MOAB bombs if we suspect them hiding in a villiage.

War is war and to fight it right you have to kill a lot of innocent people, which just sounds too evil.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> VAST i've typed up 3 responses and deleted them all.
> 
> My honest view actually scares me so i'm going with bring the troops home, it sounds way less evil than my other 3 posts.
> 
> ...



I'm with you.  I have no qualms about getting bat-shit-crazy when it comes to taking out Al Qaeda.

I was there for 9/11.  I worked in lower Manhattan.  I had a friends die in the South Tower, and my girlfriend at the time worked across the street.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 6, 2009)

And honestly, I think that if we could get the WoT focused on Al Qaeda again, and stopped with all this bullshit, I think I'm going to see if I can Re-up.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Good points.
> ...



What country?  The Northwest Territory in Pakistan is about as unmanageable a place as exists.  That's why OBL has been able to hide out there for years.
You paint "Pakistan" like the whole country agrees.  There are many different factions there. Musharraf helped funnel funds to the Northern Alliance.  The ISS otoh generally has favored the Taliban.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 7, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> What country?  The Northwest Territory in Pakistan is about as unmanageable a place as exists.  That's why OBL has been able to hide out there for years.
> You paint "Pakistan" like the whole country agrees.  There are many different factions there. Musharraf helped funnel funds to the Northern Alliance.  The ISS otoh generally has favored the Taliban.



So the leader of Pakistan pays lip-service to our supposed alliance, takes our money, sending a bit of it to our actual allies, and then the rest of the country harbors, trains, and funds our enemies?

Doesn't sound like an "ally" to me.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > What country?  The Northwest Territory in Pakistan is about as unmanageable a place as exists.  That's why OBL has been able to hide out there for years.
> ...



The behavior of pakastan, many times, has left me with that same feeling Vast.

It could be that I dont understand their political and cultural situation in Pakistan, but it appears as if they are harboring taliban and al-quaeda by not letting us chase them over the border.  (I know sometimes we have done it anyway)


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > What country?  The Northwest Territory in Pakistan is about as unmanageable a place as exists.  That's why OBL has been able to hide out there for years.
> ...



You got a better choice?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 12, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> You got a better choice?



We have plenty of allies in the region.  

We certainly don't need one that we have to keep paying billions of dollars to to keep their support, and who stabs us in the back at every turn.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 12, 2009)

Like Kazakhstan?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 13, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You got a better choice?
> ...



Like isreael and Iraq?   I dont know who else(referring to the governments not the people) even remotely likes us over there.


----------



## Polk (Oct 13, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > So those are the only two choices?
> ...



The question is if we do that, what's the end game?


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 13, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Like isreael and Iraq?   I dont know who else(referring to the governments not the people) even remotely likes us over there.



Like Russia, India, Egypt, the entire Saudi Arabian peninsula, Turkey, Isreal and _supposedly_ Iraq.

India right next to Pakistan.  Russia's not far to the north.  The Saudi Arabian Peninsula and Turkey are close by.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 13, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Like isreael and Iraq?   I dont know who else(referring to the governments not the people) even remotely likes us over there.
> ...



IMO Russia, egypt, and the saudi peninsula dont like us (governmentally speaking).   Turkey and india might be helpful though i hadn't thought about them.   And israel will be helpful if it is helpful to them.


----------



## Vast LWC (Oct 13, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> IMO Russia, egypt, and the saudi peninsula dont like us (governmentally speaking).   Turkey and india might be helpful though i hadn't thought about them.   And israel will be helpful if it is helpful to them.



Be that as it may, ALL of those countries have been better allies to us than Pakistan.

As far as the Saudi peninsula goes, those countries have all allowed us to base our troops within their borders.  That would be a pretty good ally...


----------

