• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should have been done in Afghanistan

NatMorton said:
You're the one making an assertion it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you expect to control Afghanistan, a country 252,071 square miles in size, from just 100 square miles of land.

How many troops are going to be stationed there? What units? What equipment? How will they be supplied? What will they actually do?

Your "mission" is so vaguely defined and meaningless they don't offer anything of value to a combatant commander. How are you supposed to track Taliban movements in a country more than a 2,000x the size of your base? If you can't track them, how are you supposed to destroy them?

The last two points just demonstrate you don't understand much about Afghanistan or warfare.
 
NatMorton said:
You're the one making an assertion it wouldn't work.

If you'd like an example of a containment strategy that's been largely successful, there's Cuba. Gitmo matters, and Cuba has been, by and large, mostly harmless as far as American lives go for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
We are not "containing" anything with regard to Cuba and we are certainly not doing whatever we are doing from Gitmo. Cuba still exports its brand of Communism throughout South and Central America and there appears little we can or are willing to do about it.

Cuba is another irrelevant example to the question of Afghanistan.

I have already indicated though I think in the other Afghanistan thread that I would be willing to swallow a certain footprint in Afghanistan mainly because it would encourage our allies to stay and we could share the burden....but I would not be willing to sustain it indefinitely. There are simply better ways to deal with Afghanistan than shuttling troopers in and out for years.

The most recent estimates are that maybe, MAYBE you could begin to bring the Taliban and Afghanistan into the 21st century in 50 years.......50 years!
 
NatMorton said:
Um, the wrong playbook for a given objective does not invalidate that playbook for all objectives. If you're down by a touchdown and on the 50 yard line with five seconds left a three yard run up the middle is the wrong play. If you're in the lead with a minute left, your opponents are out of time outs, and it's third-and-one, the very same run up the middle is the right call.

Back to the point. The objectives should have been:
  1. Eradicate AQ in Afghanistan.
  2. Ensure no groups like AQ form in Afghanistan again (or if they do form, don't exist for very long).
A sustained military presence in the region could accomplish both those goals.

Everything else was mission creep and what ultimately doomed this endeavor to failure.
Click to expand...
It hasn't worked in Afghanistan for any nation in history, including the soviets
 
....miserable republicrat warmongers/imperialists/world champion terrorists can't get it through their thicks skulls that their stinking actions encourage violence/terrorism directed at 'us'...((((((UGH))))))
 
NatMorton said:
I'm not saying it makes no difference to be surrounded by hostiles than not. I'm saying if you need to launch periodic military action in a region, it's better to have an established presence in that region than not. If, hypothetically, a similar presence in a nearby friendly country could be created, that would, of course, be better.

The larger point holds. Nation building as an objective was clearly a mistake. What we needed (and may still need) is a well fortified, forward military position to beat down threats.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that for every decision there are benefits and consequences and those have to be weighed against each other. You are only looking at the benefits and not considering the consequences and that is never the right thing to do when considering a decision. One bad decision can be more costly than 5 right decisions. Consequences are always more harmful than benefits are helpful.
 
braindrain said:
It’s this type of partisan bs that is screwing up civility in America.
Thank you for being part of the problem and proving that with your pathetic little rant.
Click to expand...

Except that it’s true. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh threw civility overboard in the mid-90s and Repubs since then have decided that DIVIDING the American people was the way for them to maintain the most power.
 
NatMorton said:
An assertion without proof.
Click to expand...

The Bushies conflated the words “9/11 Saddam WMD” to the point that at one time around 50% of Americans, mostly Repubs, actually believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even though he didn’t. Yes, that was the particular BIG LIE that Bush and Cheney repeatedly implied in order to rush into war into Iran.
 
RealityNow said:
It's not America's Responsibility, Nor was it America's responsibility to blow up so much of the nation as if blew up. We did not learn from the Soviet Actions in Afghanistan, They tried the exact same things...
Bullets and Bombs can't change the ideology of Religious Zealotry. ONLY "Educations Can Do That".. Its why the Taliban does not want its women educated, because when women are educated along side men as equal person, "Nations Change and Nations Advance"... because the Mother is the first teacher of the child.

Every Nation that has ever advanced, saw those advances come into being through and by the education and respect of its women and allowing its women the right and freedoms to be person as individual, along side the education and personhood as individuals equally with its men.

______________________

since we are talking about "solutions"... let's go even further to pose some other types of solutions other than 'war tactics with man made weapons"

"Let's do a paradigm shift and put another options on the table:
  • To fix some of the problems in and around the world "First" "make rape a global mandatory life sentence or even punishable by death"!!! Then;
  • Educate Men and Women on the Civics of Society and the Civility of Respect for Humanity
  • Then: Women can close their legs, and not be violated, and keep them closed until men become more respectful of other mankind as person and individual, and both man and woman has been educated in Civics and Civility of Respect for Humanity, and she only open them to men who have devoted themselves to the principles of respect of person as individual, and the right of every person to be a respectful individual of other persons.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you think you're arguing against, but it's certainly not my OP.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Please explain how you expect to control Afghanistan, a country 252,071 square miles in size, from just 100 square miles of land.

How many troops are going to be stationed there? What units? What equipment? How will they be supplied? What will they actually do?

Your "mission" is so vaguely defined and meaningless they don't offer anything of value to a combatant commander. How are you supposed to track Taliban movements in a country more than a 2,000x the size of your base? If you can't track them, how are you supposed to destroy them?

The last two points just demonstrate you don't understand much about Afghanistan or warfare.
Click to expand...
You're confused. I have never said nor implied I expected us to "control Afghanistan."
 
jnug said:
We are not "containing" anything with regard to Cuba and we are certainly not doing whatever we are doing from Gitmo. Cuba still exports its brand of Communism throughout South and Central America and there appears little we can or are willing to do about it.

Cuba is another irrelevant example to the question of Afghanistan.

I have already indicated though I think in the other Afghanistan thread that I would be willing to swallow a certain footprint in Afghanistan mainly because it would encourage our allies to stay and we could share the burden....but I would not be willing to sustain it indefinitely. There are simply better ways to deal with Afghanistan than shuttling troopers in and out for years.

The most recent estimates are that maybe, MAYBE you could begin to bring the Taliban and Afghanistan into the 21st century in 50 years.......50 years!
Click to expand...
Yes, we have contained their ability to present a threat to Americans. I would not seek to contain Afghanistan's threat to other countries. Those other countries can fend for themselves.

Your last point is simply a slow-mo version of the mistake we've been making for the last 20 years. No, let the Taliban discover their own Age of Enlightenment. We're simply be in the neighborhood to punch them in the nose the moment their actions present a threat to American lives.
 
armycowboy said:
Retired Army Master Sergeant. Over 20 years of service and over 3 1/2 years deployed in combat zones in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your service.

Perhaps you can tell me why it's a bad idea to form a base of operations near where you expect to be engaged in military operations?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Please explain how you expect to control Afghanistan, a country 252,071 square miles in size, from just 100 square miles of land.

How many troops are going to be stationed there? What units? What equipment? How will they be supplied? What will they actually do?

Your "mission" is so vaguely defined and meaningless they don't offer anything of value to a combatant commander. How are you supposed to track Taliban movements in a country more than a 2,000x the size of your base? If you can't track them, how are you supposed to destroy them?

The last two points just demonstrate you don't understand much about Afghanistan or warfare.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. It's obvious the OP has no military experience and that his "solution" is ridiculous and had no chance of working.
 
NatMorton said:
You're confused. I have never said nor implied I expected us to "control Afghanistan."
Click to expand...

You're not doing anything in your suggestion besides making a big target.
 
NatMorton said:
Thank you for your service.

Perhaps you can tell me why it's a bad idea to form a base of operations near where you expect to be engaged in military operations?
Click to expand...
As history has shown us, long term engagements in places like Afghanistan are losing endeavors.
 
watsup said:
The Bushies conflated the words “9/11 Saddam WMD” to the point that at one time around 50% of Americans, mostly Repubs, actually believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even though he didn’t. Yes, that was the particular BIG LIE that Bush and Cheney repeatedly implied in order to rush into war into Iran.
Click to expand...
Well, in order to prove that true you'd need to demonstrate that the country's leaders didn't independently come to the conclusion Iraq was in possession of WMD and that the Bush administration knew the assertion to be false while making the claim. Can you do either?
 
armycowboy said:
You hit the nail on the head. It's obvious the OP has no military experience and that his "solution" is ridiculous and had no chance of working.
Click to expand...
What's obvious is that you do not understand the objective outlined in the OP. It's not to "control Afghanistan."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom