Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. is lost in Afghanistan
Chicago Tribune ^ | May 31, 2004 | Robert Novak

Posted on 05/31/2004 1:43:51 PM PDT by GreatOne

Edited on 05/31/2004 1:48:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

The handful of valiant American warriors fighting the ''other'' war in Afghanistan is not a happy band of brothers. They are undermanned and feel neglected, lack confidence in their generals and are disgusted by Afghan political leadership. Most important, they are appalled by the immense but fruitless effort to find Osama bin Laden for purposes of U.S. politics.

This bleak picture goes unreported because journalists are rarely seen there. It was painted to me by hard U.S. fighters who are committed to the war against terrorism but have a heavy heart. They talked to me not to undermine policy but to reveal problems that should and can be corrected.

Afghanistan constitutes George W. Bush's clearest victory since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The Taliban regime has been overthrown, eliminating al-Qaida's most important base. But the overlooked war continues with no end in sight. Narcotics trafficking is at an all-time high. If U.S. forces were to leave, the Taliban -- or something like it -- would regain power. The United States is lost in Afghanistan, bound to this wild country and unable to leave.

The situation in Afghanistan, as laid out to me, looks nothing like a country alleged to be progressing toward representative democracy under American tutelage. Hamid Karzai, the U.S.-sponsored Afghan president, is regarded by the U.S. troops as hopelessly corrupt and kept in power by U.S. force of arms.

Those arms are not what they seem. The basic U.S. strength in Afghanistan is 17,000 troops of ''straight-legged'' infantry -- conventional forces ill-prepared to handle irregulars. The new unit assigned to Afghanistan is the 25th Infantry Division, which has been stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and has not seen combat since the Vietnam War...."


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; elvisbinladen; joebtfsplk; robertnovak; southasia; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 last
To: JasonC
In Afghanistan, we should be looking at ways to get the locals up to snuff to take over the remainder of the job.
 
An interesting point you bring up.  I was reading Thomas Sowell's Barbarians Inside the Gates this a.m. and came upon an essay called Misunderstanding the Marshall Plan.  His key point is the truth behind John Stuart Mills statement that "what is crucial is the 'human capital' needed to build or rebuild the physical things"
 
I think it's clear that Afghanistan is clearly lacking in human capital.  I'm not sure what we can hope to attain as far as creating anything more than a third world backwater can go.  Our best hope is to help them progress to a point where they actually have something to lose if the Taliban and al-Queda return.
 
They won't be an industrialized democracy anytime in the foreseeable future, but there's plenty of backwater hell holes that aren't hosting al-Queda.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

201 posted on 06/01/2004 5:25:26 AM PDT by End Times Sentinel (FReep 'em all, let God sort 'em out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
They don't need to be South Korea. But they do need a functioning political system. "Functioning" does not equal "perfect" - we don't need to make the Hindu Kush into Arizona and we should not expect to. Just sufficient power in the hands of basically just men able to confidently wield it to keep worse men at bay. Then it is their job, and we go home.
202 posted on 06/01/2004 8:59:56 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Wherever UBL is, Iran or Pakistan - we should be going in to get him! Period. It has been 3 years. Our SOF guys should have all the leeway needed along with any assets needed. Period.

The fact is because of military lawyers and other higher-ups (within the military) we have not captured or killed Al Zawahiri, Omar and perhaps UBL (though my gut tells me he is dead). There has been actionable Intel that has been skunked because of worries of possible casualty rates or the Intel location being on the Pakistan "side".

This is wrong. If our guys on on the ground to get UBL and the rest, well, then by damn, you better allow them to "go get'em".

203 posted on 06/01/2004 6:45:46 PM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"It's in no one's interest to say he's dead---except his"

Wrong! If we announce his demise, all the liberal wussies in the government and the press will declare the war on terror a success and demand that it come to an end. As long as he "lives", he's a poster boy. Until his body turns up, he will be considered alive. Until he turns up with something more than a garbled audio tape, I believe he's deader than Kelsey's nuts!

204 posted on 06/01/2004 7:24:31 PM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: wireman

Why does that make my post wrong? Don't you think he wants us to pull out?


205 posted on 06/01/2004 7:36:14 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: JLS
I remember there was one woman Representative and may be others in the House that voted against the declaration of war.

Jeanette Rankin, R from Montana, was the only representative to vote against the war on Japan.

There were, I believe, 49 votes against the war on Germany.

The country was singularly united in supporting the war. If you remember, we had 16 million men under arms from a total population of 130 million (IIRC).

So nearly every family in the country was affected by having members in the armed forces. There wouldn't have been a hell of a lot of sympathy for anyone who opposed the war. I don't remember hearing anyone take that position.

206 posted on 06/01/2004 7:44:58 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Seydlitz
How is one to decide whether you or Novak is correct?

Novak is pretty well connected and I believe him when he says he's interviewed troops and he's just reporting what they told him.

But you also sound well-informed and what you say is in line with what others posters with first hand experience report.

You may not like Novak, he may be old, he may hate Bush, but there's no evidence he's senile, incompetent, or a liar.

207 posted on 06/01/2004 7:46:52 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RaginCajunTrad
Yes, "outing CIA agents" at the request of the Bush Regime.

Regime? take your Noam Chomsky crap back to the Underground.

208 posted on 06/01/2004 8:01:41 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"...but there's no evidence he's senile, incompetent, or a liar."

Only the fiction he writes.

209 posted on 06/01/2004 8:03:38 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson