Trump setting up Generals as Fall Guy (?)

>
“This is yet another ‘Policemen of the World’ endeavor”

I disagree. Let us not forget, this is where the planning took place for 9/11. It is in America’s national interests for Afghanistan to not go into some semi tribal, weak to non existent lawless state where another Al Qada or ISIS or the next thing can reside and plan on how to strike America.

It’s not a coincidence that these organizations thrive in lawless areas (Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Mindinao, etc..). We don’t have to have a heavy military influence in all of those places, but we have to have plans in place to rectify all of these. Part of the arms deal with Saudi recently I believe has to do with Yemen. We need to encourage our Sunni Allies like Saudi to take control of that situation and restore the Yemeni government back.
>

So, attack the ‘war room’ as it were...but not the treasury? Just how of those hijackers were Afghani??

And, no, there’s no ‘vital National Interest’ to be there and there’s *NO* plan that’ll ‘rectify’ anything in the area (been @ it 1400 yrs, Soviets tried for decades, but the U.S....)

As to the Saud deal: See point #1. Alias like that... (ref: country Bin-Laden was hiding out in...yet another ‘friend’ in the same region).

Let ‘em go to town on each other, no taxpayer $$ nor U.S. blood need be spilled; we can drill our OWN oil/gas. Let those in the region handle their neighbors, we have enough problems w/ the ‘friends’ to the South.

I'm sorry, but it's a little hard to follow your logic in your post because its somewhat scattered, but I'll give it a try.

"been @ it 1400 yrs, Soviets tried for decades, but the U.S....)"

Actually the soviets were there from 1979 - 1989, that's one decade, not decades. What we are trying to do there and the Soviets aims are completely different. The soviets installed a puppet satellite government and maintained a heavy presence to enforce that government. Before they started their withdrawal they had well over 100,000 troops in there, we don't even have 10,000 there right now. If we have to keep 10,000 - 15,000 troops there to ensure that we keep a stabile country where the Taliban can't come in and take it back over, that is worth it IMO. There are legitimate problems we have to resolve though. As I mentioned the unholy alliance between the Pashtuns (which is the Taliban) and IS in Pakistan.

"Just how of those hijackers were Afghani??"

One of your statements that is hard to decipher, but I'll give it a try. First you mention Bin Laden hiding out in Saudi which he never was. He was a fugitive from Saudi Arabia. As for the hijackers, yes most of them were Saudi. There are two competing groups in Saudi. You have the King and his government on one side who want to be a part of the group of nations and in modernity and you have the wahabbist who want to run Saudi like it's the 12th century. They are as much a threat to the king as to us. They need to get a handle on their crazies there is no doubt. But the answer is not to shun the King and his government, it's to help him get rid of the crazies.

Apologize, it was a *bit* rambling.

>
What we are trying to do there and the Soviets aims are completely different. The soviets installed a puppet satellite government and maintained a heavy presence to enforce that government. Before they started their withdrawal they had well over 100,000 troops in there, we don’t even have 10,000 there right now. If we have to keep 10,000 - 15,000 troops there to ensure that we keep a stabile country where the Taliban can’t come in and take it back over, that is worth it IMO. There are legitimate problems we have to resolve though. As I mentioned the unholy alliance between the Pashtuns (which is the Taliban) and IS in Pakistan.
>

And HOW is that different that the Soviets wished to accomplish? Toppling regimes to install our own ‘flavor of the month’. Believe the whole ‘intervention’ thing is what started the whole s*-storm.

>
First you mention Bin Laden hiding out in Saudi which he never was. He was a fugitive from Saudi Arabia.
>

Here, I was referring to the Paki’s...our supposed ‘allies’, *unknowingly* harboring *wink wink*.

>
You have the King and his government on one side who want to be a part of the group of nations and in modernity and you have the wahabbist who want to run Saudi like it’s the 12th century. They are as much a threat to the king as to us.
>

Supporting a nation to ‘rid’ of a bad element, it is another to bend over and kiss their @ss. The same theory could be said of Iraq and the M.E. as a whole....then we watch our own troops returned home in caskets, killed by our own munitions and weaponry.

A bigger pop-gun isn’t going to change 1400 yrs. of fighting and, IMO, we’ve soon too much of the damage done to our own for getting in the middle.

>
They need to get a handle on their crazies there is no doubt. But the answer is not to shun the King and his government, it’s to help him get rid of the crazies.
>

Worst thing, post 9/11, was not telling our ‘friend’, the King, to get it done or we make a glass ourselves. Like Syria, S.A. keeps ‘em churning to keep themselves in power, never solving the problem, nor trying too hard.

Course, I shouldn’t cast too many stones. Our own govt loves to pit group upon group to do the same...

Sorry for the prior confusion.

"Sorry for the prior confusion."

No problem. This is a good conversation. Many times here on free republic, the conversations degenerate into school yard taunts. I try not to do that, but have fallen into the trap. I would prefer to actually discuss the issues in an adult way like we are doing.

"And HOW is that different that the Soviets wished to accomplish?"

I agree that it may sound similar, but it's a question of degrees I suppose. For one thing, we have not installed a puppet government as Karzai was elected by the Jirga and an election and now that a somewhat functional government has stood up, he has stood down and Ghani has been democratically elected. The soviets installed their own puppet government with a puppet ruler who answered to them. This is a legitimate democratically elected government we are currently supporting who wants us there to help them.

You mention Pakistan and as I mentioned previously, they are one of the problems to solve for sure. I don't have an answer there. However, we have to stay engaged IMO. We can't let the Taliban topple the current government and create another lawless state were Al Qada or whoever can set up shop and start planning attacks against America. We can never prevent every attack, we have to eliminate the attacker.

As for Saudi, I think there are definitely parts of that kingdom that support and fund the wahabbist, but it's not the king or any of his close people. We have to help him get rid of his undesirables. We have to keep the pressure on to shut these wahabbist mosques and imams down.

This is the long war much like the cold war. It doesn't mean we will always be in perpetual war, it means we have to stay vigilant, engaged and work with our allies in the region to eliminate this Islamic Fascist ideology. It may take our lifetimes, but we can't let up because the alternative is unacceptable. I don't know how old you are, but if you are over 50, then you understand what I mean. That means you grew up and your worldview was formed under the rubric of the cold war. I look at this as very similar to fighting worldwide communism and it's spread.

“...perhaps the most effective and intelligent option we can make to impoverish the Taliban is to legalize heroin here in the United States, thus driving down the price and profits of the Taliban, and to begin to export our own poppy crop thus further depressing the price around the world.

Such a move would undoubtedly reduce the consumption of heroin...”

Nathan, can you provide studies or the like on how making something more available is expected to reduce its use?