Afghan Pullout

[grip]

You can fight terrorists but not terrorism because the more you prosecute terrorists, the more you fuel terrorism. It's like chasing the wind fighting the idealism of an indigenous people.

After the US pursued and defeated AQ into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we should've left. That would've been an appropriate offensive response. But instead, the gung-ho leaders decided to persecute anyone left and hold occupied territories. And that's a big mistake without committing the resources to change and hold a country indefinitely. Our military alone was never equipped for such Nation Building missions.

Overall, it was a senseless war with trillions spent, 7000 dead, countless maimed with 2 generations of broken warriors. Hindsight is 20/20, though this was not that difficult to see.

Afghan vet: 'What have we ended up with at the end of it?'

Images of the World Trade Center towers collapsing in New York were still fresh in the minds of the first American troops arriving in Afghanistan, as the U.S. launched an invasion targeting the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida leaders who plotted the attacks of Sept.

apnews.com

 

[Rexedgar]

I find it hard to understand why it took over nine years to track down OBL.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I think maybe... Just maybe, America may actually learn from this one.

It's not often talked about, but non-interventionism or at least minimal intervention is actually one of the prime bipartisan issues that almost everyone, left or right agrees with these days and it makes policy makers extremely nervous about going too far on both sides of the aisle.

But as time passes, you never know, it was the fervor of 9/11 that lead to this disaster and if a similar incident were to occur, sense may just go out the window once again.

 

[Rexedgar]

I think maybe... Just maybe, America may actually learn from this one.

It's not often talked about, but non-interventionism or at least minimal intervention is actually one of the prime bipartisan issues that almost everyone, left or right agrees with these days and it makes policy makers extremely nervous about going too far on both sides of the aisle.

But as time passes, you never know, it was the fervor of 9/11 that lead to this disaster and if a similar incident were to occur, sense may just go out the window once again.

Don’t count on it. Two major “wars” in my lifetime with many, some ongoing skirmishes as we speak.

 

[Fishking]

I think maybe... Just maybe, America may actually learn from this one.

It's not often talked about, but non-interventionism or at least minimal intervention is actually one of the prime bipartisan issues that almost everyone, left or right agrees with these days and it makes policy makers extremely nervous about going too far on both sides of the aisle.

But as time passes, you never know, it was the fervor of 9/11 that lead to this disaster and if a similar incident were to occur, sense may just go out the window once again.

But the elites on both sides seem to be filled with warhawks, unfortunately.

 

[Fishking]

You can fight terrorists but not terrorism because the more you prosecute terrorists, the more you fuel terrorism. It's like chasing the wind fighting the idealism of an indigenous people.

After the US pursued and defeated AQ into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we should've left. That would've been an appropriate offensive response. But instead, the gung-ho leaders decided to persecute anyone left and hold occupied territories. And that's a big mistake without committing the resources to change and hold a country indefinitely. Our military alone was never equipped for such Nation Building missions.

Overall, it was a senseless war with trillions spent, 7000 dead, countless maimed with 2 generations of broken warriors. Hindsight is 20/20, though this was not that difficult to see.

Afghan vet: 'What have we ended up with at the end of it?'

Images of the World Trade Center towers collapsing in New York were still fresh in the minds of the first American troops arriving in Afghanistan, as the U.S. launched an invasion targeting the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida leaders who plotted the attacks of Sept.

apnews.com

This is what happens when people who are ignorant make policy decisions.

If we are to take everything at face value, that we wanted to build a stable and fairly just government in Afghanistan, then they were never going to get that. It's a completely different culture that cannot have western values imposed on it. It's just not going to happen.

 

[Jetboogieman]

But the elites on both sides seem to be filled with warhawks, unfortunately.

Look, the flipside of the coin is that... In my view some intervention is necessary in the current world condition if one plays the game that is currently being played.

If you want to completely withdraw from the world stage and I don't necessarily blame many for that sentiment, understand that it comes with consequences, in some cases severe consequences especially with the way current global supply chains are set up and the lack of influence that your global reach and certain interventions provide, does actually affect the individual American on some level, whether that's the price of certain goods and services or lack thereof.

It's just a thought, I understand the sentiment but there is a global chess game being played and if America does not participate... There are consequences and so you do need these people around.

 

[Mr Person]

When you've got an all-volunteer army, you end up with a rather "inbred" (if you will) military class and citizen class. The latter is and feels removed from the former. The end result is that the politicians picking the wars get away with a lot they wouldn't were there to be something like, say, required national service.

I suspect we'd be more careful about where to go, a set of at least semi-consistent principles guiding that decision, and maybe a conflict that ends with something that feels like a victory.



I'm not sure what the answer is in Afghanistan. I don't think we could simply have done nothing. I don't think it would have been the easy in-and-out OP proposes. Kill some Al Queda then leave right away, and Al Queda simply recruits more. The whole point was knocking out the government that let them do it (while ignoring Pakistan - see above about consistent principles). Except we did not and probably could not do that. Still, we didn't really try. The expenditure of resources would be staggering compared to the already...erm...staggering expenditure of resources.

Instead we ended up going into Iraq based on false 'intelligence' about WMDs, plus some violations of airspace that would never have been enough to sell the war to the public on their own. Maybe we'd have been a little more careful about that 'intelligence' if every voter had already done a bit of national service themselves and knew it could have been them, or could be their children one day.

 

[Fishking]

Look, the flipside of the coin is that... In my view some intervention is necessary in the current world condition if one plays the game that is currently being played.

If you want to completely withdraw from the world stage and I don't necessarily blame many for that sentiment, understand that it comes with consequences, in some cases severe consequences especially with the way current global supply chains are set up and the lack of influence that your global reach and certain interventions provide, does actually affect the individual American on some level, whether that's the price of certain goods and services or lack thereof.

It's just a thought, I understand the sentiment but there is a global chess game being played and if America does not participate... There are consequences and so you do need these people around.

Right...I don't think we can fully remove ourselves from the global stage, but I think we need to limit it, and nation building is in one of those areas we need to limit. Afghanistan is such small potatoes on a global scale, where we need to be focusing on more strategic threats, like China (not advocating for war with China but we do need to do something there).

 

[Rexedgar]

When you've got an all-volunteer army, you end up with a rather "inbred" (if you will) military class and citizen class. The latter is and feels removed from the former. The end result is that the politicians picking the wars get away with a lot they wouldn't were there to be something like, say, required national service.

I suspect we'd be more careful about where to go, a set of at least semi-consistent principles guiding that decision, and maybe a conflict that ends with something that feels like a victory.



I'm not sure what the answer is in Afghanistan. I don't think we could simply have done nothing. I don't think it would have been the easy in-and-out OP proposes. Kill some Al Queda then leave right away, and Al Queda simply recruits more. The whole point was knocking out the government that let them do it (while ignoring Pakistan - see above about consistent principles). Except we did not and probably could not do that. Still, we didn't really try. The expenditure of resources would be staggering compared to the already...erm...staggering expenditure of resources.

Instead we ended up going into Iraq based on false 'intelligence' about WMDs, plus some violations of airspace that would never have been enough to sell the war to the public on their own. Maybe we'd have been a little more careful about that 'intelligence' if every voter had already done a bit of national service themselves and knew it could have been them, or could be their children one day.

The less people with “skin in the game” makes troop deployments more of a “can’t see it from my house” mentality, imo.

 

[Jetboogieman]

like China (not advocating for war with China but we do need to do something there).

Well the problem there of course is quite tricky, obviously war isn't possible (MAD).

But the United States failing to pass the TPP was a rather massive blow in building an Asian coalition against China and may set you back quite a bit.

Because One of Americas most important strategic goals since the end of the cold war has been to make sure no one power has regional hegemony and that is now failing as, as much as nations want to stand up to China, their economic influence makes that extremely difficult and Australia has felt the wrath of that effort more than anyone.

But I actually think there is a bright spot with China in the sense that, it has gone far too authoritarian, actually followed a guy who lived there for 10 years, got married there and "bought" property there and him talking about how the country changed since Xi Jinping took over and how, as the party and policies have become more hardlined toward the populace, China without the sort of grey area freedoms they had before, will stagnate and corruption will undermine most of the gains they have worked towards.

Not so bright for the populace mind you.

 

[armycowboy]

When you've got an all-volunteer army, you end up with a rather "inbred" (if you will) military class and citizen class. The latter is and feels removed from the former. The end result is that the politicians picking the wars get away with a lot they wouldn't were there to be something like, say, required national service.

I suspect we'd be more careful about where to go, a set of at least semi-consistent principles guiding that decision, and maybe a conflict that ends with something that feels like a victory.



I'm not sure what the answer is in Afghanistan. I don't think we could simply have done nothing. I don't think it would have been the easy in-and-out OP proposes. Kill some Al Queda then leave right away, and Al Queda simply recruits more. The whole point was knocking out the government that let them do it (while ignoring Pakistan - see above about consistent principles). Except we did not and probably could not do that. Still, we didn't really try. The expenditure of resources would be staggering compared to the already...erm...staggering expenditure of resources.

Instead we ended up going into Iraq based on false 'intelligence' about WMDs, plus some violations of airspace that would never have been enough to sell the war to the public on their own. Maybe we'd have been a little more careful about that 'intelligence' if every voter had already done a bit of national service themselves and knew it could have been them, or could be their children one day.

This is very true. On another forum, I was called un-American and unpatriotic for questioning our involvement in Iraq. Ironically, I was posting from Iraq.

 

[Fishking]

Well the problem there of course is quite tricky, obviously war isn't possible (MAD).

But the United States failing to pass the TPP was a rather massive blow in building an Asian coalition against China and may set you back quite a bit.

I was against the TPP because, imo, it was prone to be compromised by China, either via economic control, military control, or espionage. I mean, China has compromised much of the industries in the U.S. so I'd not even begin to imagine their influence in smaller countries in that region. I would try a deal that included maybe India and Japan, for countries from that region, but not sure any other one could work.

Because One of Americas most important strategic goals since the end of the cold war has been to make sure no one power has regional hegemony and that is now failing as, as much as nations want to stand up to China, their economic influence makes that extremely difficult and Australia has felt the wrath of that effort more than anyone.

We definitely need to work more with Australia in their efforts to fight against China.

But I actually think there is a bright spot with China in the sense that, it has gone far too authoritarian, actually followed a guy who lived there for 10 years, got married there and "bought" property there and him talking about how the country changed since Xi Jinping took over and how, as the party and policies have become more hardlined toward the populace, China without the sort of grey area freedoms they had before, will stagnate and corruption will undermine most of the gains they have worked towards.

Not so bright for the populace mind you.

I'm not sure I agree with your here. China seems to have grown their global influence over recent years. Only time will tell, though.

 

[RetiredUSN]

You can fight terrorists but not terrorism because the more you prosecute terrorists, the more you fuel terrorism. It's like chasing the wind fighting the idealism of an indigenous people.

After the US pursued and defeated AQ into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we should've left. That would've been an appropriate offensive response. But instead, the gung-ho leaders decided to persecute anyone left and hold occupied territories. And that's a big mistake without committing the resources to change and hold a country indefinitely. Our military alone was never equipped for such Nation Building missions.

Overall, it was a senseless war with trillions spent, 7000 dead, countless maimed with 2 generations of broken warriors. Hindsight is 20/20, though this was not that difficult to see.

Afghan vet: 'What have we ended up with at the end of it?'

Images of the World Trade Center towers collapsing in New York were still fresh in the minds of the first American troops arriving in Afghanistan, as the U.S. launched an invasion targeting the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida leaders who plotted the attacks of Sept.

apnews.com

I knew that Iran and Afghanistan would turn into a long drawn out "whack-a-mole"

I'm so glad/proud that I used every dirty tactic in convincing my son not to join the military after 9-11.

It was the single best thing that I ever did for him.

**** Bush & Obama for what they did to those kids.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think maybe... Just maybe, America may actually learn from this one.

It's not often talked about, but non-interventionism or at least minimal intervention is actually one of the prime bipartisan issues that almost everyone, left or right agrees with these days and it makes policy makers extremely nervous about going too far on both sides of the aisle.

But as time passes, you never know, it was the fervor of 9/11 that lead to this disaster and if a similar incident were to occur, sense may just go out the window once again.

Isolationism has been a failed policy for well over a century.

 

[beerftw]

I think the best answer would have been to let the northern alliance take over and keep supporting them as they had the will to fight and keep fighting. Problem was they lost most of what they had before americas invasion, had america invaded then handed it over to the norther alliance it would have been regional fighters dedicated to fighting the taliban and al quaeda.

 

[Bum]

I spent 10 years in Afghanistan; for it to succeed, it needs to cast off the Dinosaurs that control it, and do away with its primitive 13th century tribal mentality.
The future of Afghanistan lies in its youth...not its elderly.

 

[gino]

Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex is so very strong in DC. There is so much money flowing around in the defense budget, and much of it gets eaten up by the swamp. I agree that we should have pulled out of Afghanistan years ago. We saw the soviets make that mistake, and then we made it too? Hard to fight it when there is so much money to be spread around by the military - both dems and repubs are guilty of eating at the military-industrial trough.

 

[Surrealistik]

Well the problem there of course is quite tricky, obviously war isn't possible (MAD).

But the United States failing to pass the TPP was a rather massive blow in building an Asian coalition against China and may set you back quite a bit.

Because One of Americas most important strategic goals since the end of the cold war has been to make sure no one power has regional hegemony and that is now failing as, as much as nations want to stand up to China, their economic influence makes that extremely difficult and Australia has felt the wrath of that effort more than anyone.

But I actually think there is a bright spot with China in the sense that, it has gone far too authoritarian, actually followed a guy who lived there for 10 years, got married there and "bought" property there and him talking about how the country changed since Xi Jinping took over and how, as the party and policies have become more hardlined toward the populace, China without the sort of grey area freedoms they had before, will stagnate and corruption will undermine most of the gains they have worked towards.

Not so bright for the populace mind you.

The TPP was an anti-democratic, opaque (such that national level politicos could barely glimpse the damn thing as corporate CEOs played a key roll in authoring it) and generally untenable mass giveaway of corporate power complete with draconian IP clauses and overbearing investor dispute settlement elements that were every plutocrat's wet dream unfortunately; it should not have passed in the form it had taken up at the time Trump nixed it. The geopolitical sentiments and objectives underwriting it were in my view indisputably good and even necessary, but this can and must be done without unduly and massively empowering multinationals to the point that they can substantively infringe on national sovereignty, including with regards to environmental and healthcare policy (and yes, this is a problem I have with other TAs like NAFTA, though the TPP was far worse).

Having said that, China under Xi's leadership appears to be overplaying and overleveraging its hand; international sentiment regarding China is rightly some of the worst it's ever been, and there is certainly renewed interest among the West and China's neighbours, to collaborate in order to contain Xi and his dangerous ambitions: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...ina-continue-dominate-its-international-image

 

[Rexedgar]

I spent 10 years in Afghanistan; for it to succeed, it needs to cast off the Dinosaurs that control it, and do away with its primitive 13th century tribal mentality.
The future of Afghanistan lies in its youth...not its elderly.

This isn’t limited to Afghanistan, imo.

 

[grip]

I knew that Iran and Afghanistan would turn into a long drawn out "whack-a-mole"

I'm so glad/proud that I used every dirty tactic in convincing my son not to join the military after 9-11.

It was the single best thing that I ever did for him.

**** Bush & Obama for what they did to those kids.

You'd think that Vietnam would've taught the US gov not to get involved in other country's internal conflicts. It's always a quagmire when trying to defeat an enemy that uses its local citizens to blend and hide within, otherwise, we could just obliterate an enemy with sheer force.