US Pulling out of Afghanistan sooner?

[seanastin]

I dont think so !!

 

[lukep]

I appreciate that. So who gets to be the guy who tells the people that the money for the public healthcare system got used killing some guy who may or may not be dangerous?

Why tell anyone that at all when you can easily print it anew? :disgust:

 

[ComradeGulper]

The exact same thing that will happen if we left on schedule -- massive civil war followed by an indefinite period of complete anarchy.

Exactly what happened in Vietnam, and what would have happened in Korea in 1953 and Germany in 1945 if we hadn't left a considerable number of troops in both areas.

We have no end-game that avoids a show-down between what's left of the Taliban and the rest of the country. Ultimately, we'll wind up doing what we should have done in the first place; keeping forces nearby and using drones and SOCOM to take out high value targets and disrupt their ability to export terrorism.

It worked in Libya, and would work at least as well in Afghanistan. Not perfect by any means, but the best available strategy.

Both of the current wars are no-hopers. What is all the more galling is that we'd already won in Iraq, simply by keeping Saddam on a tight leash, contained within his own boundaries.

The war in Afghanistan was hopeless from the start. You can't bring civilization to people who have no experience of it, and no liking for what they've observed of it elsewhere.

 

[dewaz]

better outta sooner. what you get from poor country like that

 

[Moxie]

You can't bring civilization to people who have no experience of it, and no liking for what they've observed of it elsewhere.

A place like Afghanistan can't totally change overnight, but the reason many people there don't have electricity for example, is because they have no way to get it, not because they don't want it.

Afghanistan :

 

[ComradeGulper]

A place like Afghanistan can't totally change overnight, but the reason many people there don't have electricity for example, is because they have no way to get it, not because they don't want it.

It isn't Achmed on the street who is the sworn enemy of the West. It's his leaders who are violently resistant to change, because it pulls the rug from under their centuries old monopoly of power and influence. As in America, Achmed on the street doesn't effect any meaningful change until he takes to the street in numbers large enough to make his leaders agree that a few reforms might be in order. Until that happens, nothing will threaten the mullahs' position in Afghan and elsewhere, and conditions will continue to spiral downward accordingly.