Why Afghanistan matters: The U.S. cannot let this battered land fall to terrorists

Chicago Tribune ^ | Aug. 21, 2017 | Editorial Board

[Innovative]

There are places in the world so potentially volatile that the U.S. cannot leave them to the ebb and flow of geopolitics. The Korean Peninsula and the Middle East come immediately to mind. Afghanistan also belongs on that list — something President Donald Trump has finally come to realize, seven months after taking office.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Trump is poised to authorize sending roughly 4,000 more U.S. troops to the South Asian country, the site of the longest war in America's history. Like their countrymen already in Afghanistan, these Americans won't be a combat force. They'll carry out counterterrorism missions and advise Afghan officers fighting on the front lines against a resurgent Taliban.

[Innovative]

I agree.

As Rumsfeld also said, that if we don't fight them "over there", we will have to fight them over here.

[littleharbour]

Ah, but the Chicago Rag makes no mention of how home-boy Obama created this crisis. I don’t recall them pushing Obama to sacrifice more troops in that rock strewn hell-hole.

[Alberta's Child]

There was no "we" involved there -- which is why the U.S. is still there 16 'effing years later.

And pissing away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in some Third World sh!t-hole is what made Rumsfeld's boss less popular than a child molester by the time he left office.

[raiderboy]

I totally disagree. Afghanistan means nothing to anybody. I want the WALL.I want these illegal out of my country. This is unadulterated nation building crap and we don’t want it . I have been a Trump supporter but this is not what we wanted. Huge mistake by Trump at the worst time.

[txhurl]

Those Rare Earth Mines the Chinese pay us to guard mean a LOT.

[Carl Vehse]

"As Rumsfeld also said, that if we don't fight them "over there", we will have to fight them over here."

If it REALLY IS that important and serious, then let the brave Representatives and Senators declare war according to the Constitution. That will authorize the use of our nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy. Anything less would be an act of treason by our political or military leaders.

[Vermont Lt]

Bull crap.

We want the rare earth minerals in their mountains before the Chinese get there.

At least it is not for oil anymore.

[txhurl]

I thought they beat us there last year.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

Did the Trib actually say the “T” word? Wow!

[rustyboots]

MOABS, Daisy Cutters, ROE’s that are meant to save AMERICAN lives; use all those and turn the big rocks into little rocks. Sounds cold blooded, but I care more for one American life than I do for all the lives in Kabul. If we are to be there, fight to win, then leave the country a total wreck. Let the Chinese or Russians rebuild it. If terrorists move back into the country, go back in and level it again. Nation building is a nice idea, but when most of the people there can’t read, don’t care to learn anything but how to kill, why bother?

[Vermont Lt]

There are lots of them there.

And since the Chinese don’t care who runs the countries they work with, they cut good deals.

We’ve screwed everything since 1947.

[grumpygresh]

We need Afganistan to keep the war on drugs going so that we can fund the CIA, DEA with dark money for their projects. The prison companies need the business generated by incarcerating heroin addicts. Then we need big banks to take their cut for money laundering. Then, the pols need the money they get from accepting bribes from the Chicoms for the mineral rights. Of couse, military and security contractors get their piece of the pie.

We can’t afford to give up on Afganistan at this time. Our nation’s chief economic interests are at stake here.

[SharpRightTurn]

“As Rumsfeld also said, that if we don’t fight them “over there”, we will have to fight them over here.”

A nonsequitor. We would never have to “fight them over here” if our overlords did not let these cutthroats into our country.

[raiderboy]

Did you know that the minerals of Afghanistan are mined and owned by China? We are essentially protecting Chines business. Absolute truth.

[Seruzawa]

Our being over there is one of the jihadi’s best recruitment tools.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Why Afghanistan matters: The U.S. cannot let this battered land fall to terrorists

We're fighting a losing battle trying to keep Afghanistan propped up if we don't do something about the cancer that is Pakistan, Afghanistan's neighbor. It's not in the interest of the Pakistani military to see Afghanistan too stable or out of Pakistani control - they nurtured the Taliban and injected it into Afghanistan in the first place. Stabilizing Afghanistan permanently means stabilizing Pakistan, otherwise it's just going to be an endless drain of lives and money while our so-called allies in Pakistan work relentlessly to undo everything we do.

[tumblindice]

Lurk more noob.

[Bratch]

President Trump Afghanistan Speech Likely To Be “Big Picture” on Asia Security…

Posted on August 21, 2017 by sundance

There’s been a considerable amount of solid debate on whether the U.S. should withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and just watch to see what happens from the outside. Against this backdrop President Trump is anticipated to call for a firm commitment to the region, perhaps adding 4,000 U.S. troops.

President Trump will give a prime-time address to the nation at 9 p.m. tonight to detail his view of the U.S. role in Afghanistan, and the continued presence held.  However, the majority of President Trump’s speech is now anticipated to be a ‘big picture’ overview with an accompanying public outline of expectations for regional participants such as Pakistan and India.

The problem, at least as it is presenting itself, stems from any U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan likely to embolden the extremist outlook of the Taliban and local people who would be captive to the extremist ideology.  With a growing extremist sense, and with an already admitted tenuously perched nuclear Pakistan as the neighboring conduit, the potential for expanded terror threats looms significant.

 

The problem isn’t really Afghanistan, it’s Pakistan.

Even the potential for extremists to infiltrate and arm themselves with nuclear capability is beyond alarming to contemplate.  The odds, even small odds, become even more serious if we consider the absence, via withdrawal, of U.S. oversight and/or monitoring.

This overarching concern is the basic framework to outline how the United States views the role and responsibility of Pakistan and India moving forward.  Their roles, and that aspect, is anticipated to be the primary focus of the speech tonight at Fort Myer.

The modest troop presence expected to be outlined is essentially a preventative and security presence; a buttress, a security policy or guardianship, intended to ensure that catastrophic weapons -which do exist in the region- do not fall into the hands of the ideology who would use them to strike Europe, allies, or even the U.S.

Amid this oversight model, President Trump is anticipated to continue attempts to grow diplomatic relationships within the region and support their individual economic goals as a process to achieve stability.   Toward that end President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Modi have already begun establishing an economic network.

The generational conflict between Pakistan and India has focused on their differences; it appears President Trump hopes to open a dialogue based on mutual self-interests of security and stability keeping the elements of Islamic Extremism from impacting both regional nations.  Keeping a U.S. footprint in Afghanistan is the only way to sell both regional nuclear players the U.S. is committed to this security initiative given the nature of their inherent skepticism and distrust.

Were the U.S. to withdraw completely from Afghanistan, the concern would be that extremist elements strengthen, threaten and infiltrate Pakistan even more, and then out of a basic sense of survival Pakistan would not be in a position to stop themselves from being targeted by an insurgency.   The fact that OBL was able to live in Pakistan undetected for a long period of time lends credence to the reality that extremists already have a support network within Pakistan; hence the tenuous nature of their stability.

[Bratch]

[Hardastarboard]

All I can say is, if the Chicago Tribune thinks it’s a good idea, it’s automatically without question a bad idea. They’re like a mislabeled compass. You have to read it exactly opposite.