Why getting into Afghanistan is just as spectacularly stupid as getting into Iraq

The Daily Crux ^

[sdw2009]

If Barack Obama's idea of ending the occupation in Iraq is to transfer most of the troops to Afghanistan, he won't have accomplished much.

[cranked]

I suppose the logic follows that if:

Iraq = Bush’s Vietnam

then

Afghanistan = Obama’s Vietnam

Correct?

[RKV]

A-stan is a 100 year project. Meanwhile it’s home to the Salafists who want to kill us. Ditto Pakistan. We need to take the war to them, or they’ll take it to us. We’ve been in the ROK 50 years, so maybe we can pull this off. Make sure that we don’t get Vietnam type ROE and we’ve got a chance. Obama HAS at least continued to strike in Pakistan (UAVs and maybe more we’re not hearing about). Time for us to get on better terms with India as well. If we don’t, 9/11 is going to look small in terms of it’s scope. I wish events were otherwise. Not our choice, but we’ve got to deal with it anyways.

[RKV]

The point is not to play political games. A-stan for the Afghans is what we should be doing, not colonizing them. We can be just one more tribe that lives among them. We want the right to hunt our enemies and will provide useful assistance to the locals in order to get what we want. Quid pro quo. This is not at all the same as planting our flag, building a commercial empire and or displacing the locals with our own, which what too many empires have tried to do.

[Allegra]

Gosh...you had me at "occupation."

{Barf!}