Posted on 09/15/2009 4:04:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. military can pull most of its troops from Afghanistan in the next year as "victory" is not a realistic outcome, a report by the Cato Institute says.
Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter in an authoritative report on the conflict in Afghanistan note that "a definitive, conventional 'victory' is not a realistic option."
Washington said its strategy in Afghanistan is focused in part on denying al-Qaida and other militants the opportunity to establish a safe haven in the embattled nation. The authors, however, opine that denying a sanctuary to terrorists does not require a sustained military presence or the pacification of the entire country.
Instead, the Cato report advocates U.S. support for a national security force capable of maintaining order independently.
On intelligence and regional relations, the report calls for the increased use of aerial surveillance and covert operations in an effort to undermine the regional terrorist threat.
"Seek cordial relations with all of Afghanistan's neighbors, particularly Russia and Iran, as each has the means to significantly undermine or facilitate progress in the country," the report adds.
The report further recommends a focus on drug cartels rather than "harassing" local farmers with few alternative options outside of opium.
With little strategic value, the U.S. engagement in Central Asia risks extending to an "an open-ended occupation and nation-building mission" if the majority of combat forces remain in Afghanistan beyond 18 months, the authors conclude.
No victory, just fly paper. Fight them there as opposed to here.
CATO on war is like listening to Pat Buchanan on Germany
Uh... that's because it's not a "definitive, conventional" operation. We're not there to simply conquer the country and take over. If that's all we wanted we could have done that and been gone years ago. Ours is a hunting expedition. We continue hunting because the hunting is good, and we should keep doing it until the quarry is either dead or too afraid to come out for two generations.
Sort of like “victory” in D.C. is not attainable for the police force.
LLS
LOL! True.
Exactly. CATO are Paleo Bunker Rats
CATO on war is like listening to Pat Buchanan on Germany
Good analogy....though Cato is more of a Muslim appeaser and borderline 9/11 truther with some of their comments on the WOT
Why people should fear Liberaltarians
I like CATO just fine on their areas of expertise. Small government. War and Peace is beyond their scope.
There is some merit to the CATO position. Its almost as if Obama is setting up a military failure in Afghanistan. (Hey we’ve got room for one more conspiracy theory don’t we ?)
Obama made such a political point about Afghanistan being a “good war” during his campaign, he may have felt trapped into expanding its scope, but . . .
The “Rumsfeld Strategy” was correct on Afghanistan. Clear the Taliban, help set up a new government, call in the internationals, and call it won.
Now we’ve gone charging off into the hinterlands in some of the most treacherous terrain on earth, looking for something to shoot at. It just seems like an impossible task. I’m guessing that sometime around summer of 2012 we’re going to see a major troop withdrawal and be treated to endless media segments of returning GI’s praising Obamas courage in bringing them home.
I really hope I’m wrong.
Problem with Cato, and why they are weak on War and Peace, is that they are Globalist in outlook. Open borders and open immigration are surefire ways to kill a soverign nation
Aren’t they libertarians?
Good point
In bandit country you will always have to fight bandits. Its not optional. It goes with the territory.
A “conventional victory is not possible”? Of course it is. We had our conventional victory already. Now you do the maintenance on it. We won. Now we have to maintain the victory.
You do that by training and equipping the force that will chase the bandits from now until forever.
Well, yeah, though we're not even there to enforce law or keep the peace. It's more like during hunting season-- do the hunters ever achieve "victory" over the deer? The term just doesn't apply to the situation.
I’m trying to recall the last time UPI quoted the Cato Institute approvingly on economics.
What you are saying that it is more like frontier duty, with rangers trying to keep the keep the hostiles at bay.
That’s pretty much it, I think.
So, how does the US seek "cordial relations" with Iran in this matter?
In fact, are not the Iranians currently undermining US efforts in Iraq?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.