Posted on 07/16/2017 7:20:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2068, some 50 years from now, will American soldiers still be dying in Afghanistan?
“The problem is,” argues Leon Panetta, the former Defense Secretary and CIA Director under President Obama, “you cannot allow Afghanistan to fail and become a safe haven for al-Qaida and for terrorism more broadly to attack our country.”
In addition to sending more American soldiers and more U.S. greenbacks to the Afghan government in “the short term,” Panetta recently suggested to Yahoo News that the U.S. will “probably have a long-term presence similar to our presence in South Korea.”
The Korean War began in 1950 and yet today, 67 years later, more than 28,000 U.S. military personnel remain stationed on the Korean peninsula. If Afghanistan turned out like South Korea, there would still be U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2068 . . . and counting. There is no talk of bringing those U.S. military personnel out of South Korea.
Or bringing soldiers home from Afghanistan.
Instead, more are going in.
Afghanistan is not South Korea, either. South Korean police and military personnel are not regularly turning their guns on Americans, as has been the case in Afghanistan.
“We’re not winning in Afghanistan,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledged last month at a congressional hearing. The retired general recognizes that 16 years after then-President George W. Bush responded to those in Afghanistan responsible for the 9/11 attack on 9/11 by sending in the military, the main enemy — the Taliban — still controls nearly 40 percent of the country’s land and about a third of the population.
President Obama had surged U.S. forces to more than 100,000 in 2009, but then pulled back. Now the U.S. force in-country is 8,400 along with 7,000 soldiers from allied countries. But President Trump has authorized Mattis to increase force levels in Afghanistan as desired, so we know the numbers are going up.
Mattis promises to defeat the Taliban pretty quickly. He may very well be largely successful in that endeavor. But here’s the problem: Even destroying the Taliban doesn’t win the war and begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops.
Not according to the rationale that the Afghan government must be at least plausibly able to not fall completely apart . . . and therefore prevent terrorists from running wild on its turf.
Sec. Mattis agrees that pacifying and building-up Afghanistan will “probably require a residual force” able to engage extremist groups over time and keep them “at a level of threat that the local government and the local security forces can handle.”
It is what one senior Trump administration official dubbed “a ‘victory problem.’”
If we cannot leave, how can we say we have won the war?
“The question of how to define victory in Afghanistan bedeviled both of Trump’s predecessors,” Yahoo News reporter Oliver Knox writes. Now it falls to President Donald Trump.
Trump would be wise to listen to Andrew Bacevich, whose son was killed in Iraq. Bacevich is also a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He complains that Afghanistan is “quite literally the forever war” and that we need to reassess the entire approach in the Middle East.
“The United States needs to cut its losses and try something else,” Bacevich writes, “other than the ‘war on terror.’”
Politicians never cut their losses; they try to shift the blame. But could a businessman-turned-president see the problem with war policy as usual?
If our leaders cannot explain what victory means after 16 years into our nation’s longest war — and have no plan for achieving that victory — it is time to do something different.
I don’t think the CIA would like the idea, but if we could genetically engineer a plant disease that wiped out the opium poppy, it would really change things in Afghanistan.
Was Korea unwinable? Not just in the immediate aftermath of WWII but in 50 years of NK amping up their weaponry to WMD?
Now the U.S. force in-country is 8,400
They are all volunteers.
It is an “unwinnable” situation, of course, but it is also an extremely good arena for testing weapons and tactics... and who better to test them on than the filthiest of filthy muzzies?
My only quibble would be with compensation. Are the 8400 volunteers being adequately compensated for their risk-of-life-and-limb?
I don’t think the CIA would like the idea, but if we could genetically engineer a plant disease that wiped out the opium poppy, it would really change things in Afghanistan.
I agree. Wipe out the poppies, and Afghanistan is no longer a problem.
If you recognize that you can't defeat a foreign military force without maintaining a permanent military presence halfway around the world, then either the tactics are all wrong for the situation or the military isn't even the correct tool to deal with the problem.
Can’t win in Afghanistan without winning in Pakistan too.
War without end. Now I think I know what President Eisenhower meant by the military industrial complex.
The problem is not just limited to Afghanistan or one distinct group such as al Qaeda. Panetta and the other globalists refuse to recognize the real cause of the terrorism, violence and political instability because it does not fit their political narrative. The fact is that Islamic culture is simply not compatible with the practices, values and institutions that constitute Western modernity. the Islamic world cannot avoid the challenge of the West. Many Muslims have become bewildered reactionary jihadists who are clinging to the values and even dress of the 10th century in a violent attempt to maintain control. Others are adapting to modernity or migrating Westward. Violence, social and political instability is now endemic in the Muslim world even in the most wealthy countries. American policy and military force cannot and should not involve itself in this cataclysm. Eventually the Muslims themselves will be forced to transform or wither. Best the US stays detached, aware and retaliates severely only when American are attacked. Sixty years of US involvement in that quagmire has done nothing to enhance the security of the American people, has created unnecessary bitter enemies and has cost the American people huge material and human sacrifices. Panetta’s vision has been wrong and has done real harm to the United States and its people.
War without end. Now I think I know what President Eisenhower meant by the military industrial complex.
But again, if you look at this “action” not so much as a war (how can 8400 soldiers fight a war?) but as a training ground, it might make more sense.
I like the idea of the continued development of:
1) weapons, 2) tactics, 3) piles of dead muzzies.
I was with Trump since 2015, when he first walked down the escalator. I forced myself to get involved in politics in a major way for the first time in my long life. I worked the voters and manned the precincts the day of his election. But if Trump hasn’t gotten us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which he can do literally overnight as CoC (and builds the damn wall), then it doesn’t matter if he’s re-elected. I will just say a prayer for the late, great US of A and be done with it all. It will be truly over.
Can’t we buy the poppies?
Can’t we buy the poppies? Pretty cheap. Eliminate the middle-man.
We should not bear this burden alone. The EU and others should be equaling our manpower and expenses. Too long we have sacrificed for the prosperity of other rich nations.
The only was to Win, is to ELIMINATE ISLAM.
Ban all Mid-East, South African and North Asian muslims from entering the USA.
9/11 would not have happened if the Saudi hijackers were not in the USA, regardless of whether the Taliban was in power, or not.
The globalists and debt financiers need to declare “multiculturalism” as a great good, and promote the use of the word “racism” as important PR gestures in keeping their scam going.
Give viagra to the farmers for the poppies. Throw in a few goats.
The senior leaders in the military don’t want smart subordinates.
They want subordinates who are loyal to them.
We should not bear this burden alone. The EU and others should be equaling our manpower and expenses. Too long we have sacrificed for the prosperity of other rich nations.
If you look at this as military R&D — with the ongoing additional benefit of killing muzzies — why care if others (esp muzzie-loving euro-wimps) also engage in the R&D or not?
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.